POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUB PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND FROM CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING.

WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND WEEK OF PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE IMPEACHMENT WERE INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TODAY WE'LL HEAR FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

THE TOP EXPERT ON THE UKRAINE ANSTAFF AND BOTH WERE LISTENING TO THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT.

BOTH CURRENTLY WORK AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL SEE KURT VOELKER AND MORE ON THEM AS WE GET CLOSER TO THEIR TESTIMONY.

AT THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND JEOPARDIZE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TAKE STEPS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY NAMELY TO UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

DAVID HALE TESTIFIES TO PHONE CALLS FROM MIKE POMPEO TO RK AND DAVID HOLMS A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL RECALLS HEARING A PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U.

GORDON SONDLAND AND SAID UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DEMANDING.

ONCE AGAIN, AND WE'RE HERE WITH MARGARET TAYLOR A FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTE AND SENIOR EDITOR, AND DEMOCRATIC CHEIF COUNCIL FOR THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND PRIOR TO THAT WAS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR 10 YEARS AND MARK LOWENTHAL THE STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FROM 1995 TO 19 79 AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND IS PRESIDENT EMERITUS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION AND CONSULTING COMPANY.

WELCOME TO YOU ALL.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND THAT IS A LIVE LOOK AT THE HEARING ROOM WHERE TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS WILL UNFOLD.

SEE THE MEMBERS GETTING SETTLED IN AND WE'LL GO LIVE AS SOON AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF GAVELS FOR THE HEARING AND FIRST TO LISA.

A BUSY WEEK AHEAD OF THE COMMITTEE.

NINE PEOPLE TESTIFYING BUT START WITH TODAY.

BASED ON THE QUESTIONS LAST WEEK AND THE NARRATIVE LAID OUT SO FAR, WHAT PART OF THE NARRATIVE DO DEMOCRATS HOPE TO LAY OUT WITH THE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING TODAY.

>> THERE'S FASCINATING WITNESSES COMING TODAY.

I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT TWO IN THE AFTERNOON THE FIRST TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM WITNESSES WHOM REPUBLICANS HAVE REQUESTED.

THESE ARE WITNESSES THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALSO TALKED TO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND KURT VOLKER DIRECTLY SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND COMMUNITY THE PRESIDENT AND ONE OF THE CLOSEST PEOPLE ENGAGED IN UKRAINE POLICY.

THAT DIRECT CONNECTION IS SOMETHING DEMOCRATS WILL TALK A LOT ABOUT.

THIS MORNING I THINK WITH WE'LL HEAR FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE VICE PRESIDENT KNEW AND DOING.

HER TESTIMONY IS EXPECTED TO SAY THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE MACHINATIONS BEHIND THE SCENES BUT WAS USED IN DIFFERENT SIDES AND A VISIT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> AND WE'LL PROBABLY BE HEARING MORE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

LAST WEEK WE DIDN'T HEAR HIS NAME AS OFTEN OR REALLY MORE ABOUT THIS WEEK WAS MORE ABOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE WHAT PEOPLE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM HIM.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND WHETHER HE'LL BE WATCHING THE PROCEEDINGS.

>> THE PRESIDENT WILL LARGELY KEEP HIS EYE ON THE HEARINGS.

LAST WEEK PEOPLE ARE STILL GETTING OVER THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING DURING THE TESTIMONY OF THE FORMER AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE MARIA YOVANOVITCH THE WHITE HOUSE SAID HE HAS A LOT ON HIS PLATE AND HE LIKES TO WATCH THE HIGH-STAKES HEARINGS AND LIKE TO VOICE HIS OPINION WHILE REPUBLICANS HAVE A MESSAGING STRATEGY THEY'LL TRY TO PROVE THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG AND SAYING THE PROCESS IS UNFAIR BUT THE PRESIDENT CAN UP END ALL THIS BY TWEET BEEN WE NEED TO LOOK HIS TWITTER FEED AND LOOK AT WHETHER DEMOCRATS SEE HIS TWEETS AND READ THEM INCLUDING THE ONES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SENT OVER THE WEEKEND.

>> WHAT IS KEY?

>> I THINK WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL TRY AND DO IS PAINT A PICTURE BETWEEN JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO WORKS FOR VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND TIM MORRISON WHO WORKED ON THE STAFF AND OLEKSANDR VINDMAN AND THEY HAD CONCERNS.

COLONEL VINDMAN WILL SAY HE DOESN'T THINK IT'S PROPER A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS.

THE THREE WILL BE PRESENTED AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL.

REPUBLICANS CALLED MORRISON AND VOLKER AND THE ARGUMENT THERE WILL BE AND MORRISON WILL SAY I DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL WERE DISCUSSED AND VOLKER WILL SAY I DON'T THINK THE HOLD ON AIDE WAS SIGNIFICANT.

YOU'LL SEE BOTH SIDES TRY TO GRAB THEIR NARRATIVE AND KEY IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ON THE STAGE IN UNIFORM.

HE'S AN ARMY FOREIGN AIR OFFICER THE CREAM OF THE CROP OF THE ARMY.

GROOMED TO BE A DEFENSE ATTACHE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS CALLED HIM A NEVER TRUMPER.

OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONED WHETHER HE'S RELIABLE BUT DEMOCRATS HOPE HE PRESENTS A VOICE THAT COMES ACROSS.

>> THE IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VINDMAN TESTIFYING, WHY THAT UNIQUE?

>> HE'S A SERVING OFFICER AND I'VE SEEN EXCHANGING SAYING'3; S OUT OF ROLE AND DISOBEYING HIS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND HE SAID HE FELT HE HAD A HIGHER DUTY AND FEELS A RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING FORWARD CONVERSATIONS HE FELT WERE PROBLEMATIC IN TERMS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

>> WE HAVE SEEN TRANSCRIPTS FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATS HOPE TO TEASE OUT IN ADDITION TO THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY?

>> I THINK THEY'LL LOOK TO TEASE OUT MORE OF WHAT THEIR IMPRESSIONS WERE WHEN THEY HEARD THE CALL ON JULY 25.

SO BOTH JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WERE ON THE CALL LISTENING.

THEY HAD SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REACTIONS.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

ON THE OTHER HAND, JENNIFER WILLIAMS DID NOT DO THAT.

HER BOSS, LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH KELLOGG WAS ALSO ON THE CALL.

SHE DIDN'T FEEL COMPELLED TO TAKE ACTION AFTER THE CALL THOUGH SHE HAD SOME CONCERNS.

>> LET'S GO LIVE TO THE HEARINGS.

>> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING PART OF THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME.

THERE'S A QUORUM PRESENT.

WE'LL PROCEED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THE FIRST HEARING.

I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER NUNES WELL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A STATEMENT.

WE'LL TURN TO 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'S THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS I'LL TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE HEARD FROM THREE EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS TESTIFYING ABOUT THE SCHEME FOR OFFICIAL ACTS AND AIDE TOFIDE THE RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MOTIVATIONS THAT MR. TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP.

ONE INVOLVED THE BIDENS AND THE OTHER INVOLVED A DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 ELECTION.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD TELL DAVID HOLMS, TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A THEN HE USED AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.

HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT.

LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

TO PRESS A FOREIGN LEADER TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN INTERESTS IN FRONT OF THE NATION AND UNDERMINED OUR DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY ALLIE AND UNDERCUT EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

HOW COULD DIPLOMATS URGE UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENT WAS URGING THE SAME KIND OF CORRUPT AND POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE OF OUR OWN CITIZENS.

CAREER PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH A CHANNEL THROUGH MR. MULVANEY 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 IS A CAREER ARMY OFFICER, AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND EXPERT IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE WHO HAS WORKED AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE PENTAGON.

IN JULY 2018 HE WITH YOU DETAILED TO THE -- HE WAS DETAILED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER CURRENTLY DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND RESPONSIBLE FOR EURO AND USER -- EURASIA ISSUES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO REPRESENT HIM AT THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION AND MS. WILLIAMS WAS WORKING ON THE LOGISTICS OF THE TRIP AND THERE WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLANNING TO GO TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST IN HAVING THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED BUT CALLED 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.

THREE DAYS LATER THE PRESIDENT CALLED OFF THE ATTENDANCE AT THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION.

INSTEAD A LOWER LEVEL DELEGATION WAS NAMED, RICK PERRY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VINDLAND.

AFTER RETURNING FROM THE INAUGURATION, MANY MEMBERS BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH DE IN SKI.

THEY -- ZELENSKY AND HE CRITICIZED UKRAINE AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH RUDY.

A FEW WEEKS LATER, ON JULY 10, MR. SONDLAND MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING COLONEL VINDMAN AND ACCORDING TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE MEETING SOUGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAPPEN IF UKRAINE UNDERTOOK CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS.

AND THE MEETING WAS ABRUPTLY INTERRUPTED AND SAID HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOK UP.

UNDETERRED HE BROUGHT THE UKRAINE ANDELEGATION DOWN TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT.

UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS OR BURISMA TO GET A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND THEN HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER TO REPORT THE MATTER AND WAS TOLD TO RETURN WITH ANY CONCERNS AND WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO DO SO.

A WEEK LATER JULY 18 THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ANNOUNCED ON THE VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT MULVANEY AT TRUMP'S DIRECTION WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND JOINED THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT AND THEN HE WOULD HAVE THE INFAMOUS PHONE Cb HE COMPLAINED THE U.S.

RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL AND LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP IN SUPPORT OF DEFENSE AND SAID THEY WERE READY TO PURCHASE AN ANTI-TRUMP WEAPON THAT WAS IMPORTANT FOR RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION.

TRUMP'S RESPONSE, I'D LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.

TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY REQUESTED THE INVESTIGATE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AND MORE OMINOUS LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.

NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE CALL BUT WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S INTEREST AND IN INTEREST OF HIS 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE BECAUSE SANDLAND AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS.

BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND DUE TO THE UNBARGAINING POSITION OF THE TWO LEADERS AND UKRAINE'S DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S., THE FAVOR TRUMP ASKED OF ZELENSKY WAS REALLY A DEMAND.

AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING VINDMAN WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT IT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER AND THE SECOND TIME IN TWO WEEKS VINDMAN RAISED CONCERNS WITH NSC LAWYERS.

WILLIAMS ALSO BELIEVED ASKING ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNAPPROPRIATE AND MAY EXPLAIN THE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS TOOK NOTE OF THE WORD OF BURISMA BY ZELENSKY LEFT OUT OF THE RECORD OF THE CALL NOW LOCKED AWAY ON A SERVER.

AND THEY BELIEVE ZELENSKY MUST HAVE BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL A FACT THAT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE NOW CONFIRMED.

IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOW THE JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR A RELEASE OF THE MILITARY AIDE TO THE UKRAINE AND STRUGGLED TO LEARN WHY IT WAS BEING WITHHELD.

MORE DISTURBING, WORD OF THE HOLD REACHED UKRAIIAN OFFICIALS.

AND BY AUGUST THE AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING THE AIDE THOUGH VINDMAN DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER, SONDLAND MADE IT EXPLICIT TO UKRAINIANS IN A MEETING IN WARSAW.

THEY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HOPED TO GET THE AIDE.

MS. WILLIAMS WE SAW THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET ABOUT YOU SUNDAY AFTERNOON AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

MR. VINDMAN, WE'VE SEEN THE KWEFGS YOUR LOYALTY.

I NOTE YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU AN IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE.

I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BECOME PART OF THOSE VICIOUS ATTACKS.

THE WITNESSES HERE WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE 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 ELECTION AND LOOKED TO EXTORT OR AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BY WITH HOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY AID IT WILL BE UP TO US TO DECIDE IF THOSE ACT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

I RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR REMARKS.

>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW BRIEF WORDS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME.

IF YOU WATCHED THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS LAST WEEK YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT YOU SAW AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACCOUNTS DESCRIBING IT.

WHEN YOU SAW THREE DIPLOMATS WHO DISLIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE POLICY, DISCUSSING SECOND-HAND AND THIRD-HAND CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR OBJECTION WITH THE POLICY.

MEANWHILE ADMITTING THEY HAD NOT TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE MATTERS AND WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CRIME OR IMPE IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED.

YOU HEARD ABOUT DAMNING TESTIMONY THAT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS' ACCUSATIONS.

IF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE A FAMILIAR RING, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX.

THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS REPORTED ON THE NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS SHOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS.

IT IT WASN'T LONG AGO WE WERE READING THESE HEADLINES FROM CNN, CONGRESS INVESTIGATING INVESTMENT FUND WITH TIES TO TRUMP OFFICIALS.

THIS WAS FALSE.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, TRUMP CAMPAIGN AITDES HAD REPEATED CONTACT WITH RUSH AIDES.

AND SLATE WAS A RUSSIAN COMMUNICATOR.

THE GUARDIAN, SECRET TALKS WITH ASSANGE IN ECUADORIAN EMBASSY.

ALSO FALSE.

BUZZ FEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT.

ALL OF THESE WERE FALSE.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE OR FAIRNESS IN THE STORIES JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH TO TARNISH AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO PRETEND THE MEDIA ARE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING THE MEDIA LOST CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY THEY BOTCH THE STORY THEY'VE LEARNED NO LESSONS AND 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 THE QUESTIONS THE MEDIA ARE TRYING TO SMOTHER AND DISMISS THEM.

THE QUESTIONS START WITH, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THEY COORDINATE WITH.

THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPT THE DEMOCRATS STUNNING REVERSAL OWN THE NEED FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY AND THE DEMOCRATS WERE INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY.

THE MEDIA WANTED IT TOO.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT BECAME CLEAR THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE.

WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S PRIOR COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND HIS STAFF AND OTHER PEOPLE HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE PREPARING THE COMPLAINT.

WHAT ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECT TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS?

HOW DOES THE WHISTLEBLOWER EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE COMPLAINT?

WHAT CONTACT DOES THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAVE WITH THE MEDIA WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONGOING.

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S INFORMATION?

WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO AND WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM RECEIVING OR CONVEYING ANY OF THAT INFORMATION?

THE MEDIA HAVE JOINED THE DEMOCRATS IN DISMISSING THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINING THE CRUCIAL WITNESS NOW THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER SUCCESSFULLY STARTED IMPEACHMENT HE'S DISAPPEARED AS IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THEIR OWN WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM.

MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

IN THESE DEPOSITIONS AND HEARINGS REPUBLICANS CITED VARIOUS INDICATIONS OF THE UKRAINE MEDDLING TO OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

MANY INSTANCES WERE REPORTED INCLUDING THE POSTING OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS JOHN SOLMAN.

AS THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE THERE'S REPORTING ON BURISMA AND IT'S BECOME INCONVENIENT WITH THE NARRATIVE AND THE MEDIA IS SMEARING LIVELY AND SOLMAN.

THE PUBLICATION TOLD STAFF YESTERDAY IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE SOLMAN UKRAINE REPORTING.

COINCIDENTALLY THE DECISION COMES THREE DAYS AFTER A DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD A HILL WRITER SHE'D STOP SPEAKING TO THE HILL BECAUSE IT HAS RUN SOLMAN'S STORIES.

AND SHE URGED THE WRITER TO RELAY HER CONCERNS TO HILL'S MANAGEMENT.

NOW THAT SOLMAN'S REPORTING IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS IT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL.

I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD JOHN SOLMAN'S STORY IN DID YOU BUNKING THE MYTHS OF ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE.

I URGE VIEWERS TO READ IT AND GATHER YOUR OWN EVIDENCE THAT SOLMAN HAS GATHERED.

I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE PUT THIS IN THE RECORD, MR.

CHAIR.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT THE PRESIDENT IS SHOCK AND WE SEE IT IN THE SUDDEN DENUNCIATION OF NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER KIM VOGEL AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AFTER HE UNCOVERED MANY ISSUES INCLUDING THE POLITICO PIECE.

MY THIRD QUESTION, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT WERE THE ACTIONS?

WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE DEMOCRATS OWN WITNESSES THAT DIPLOMATS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVING HUNTER BIDEN.

THAT'S BECAUSE HE 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 SETTLED ON LIBRARY.

ACCORDING TO -- BRIBERY.

ACCORDING TO REPORTS THEY REPLACED THEIR QUID PRO QUO ALLEGATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T POLLING WELL.

BUT IF THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA ARE SUDDENLY SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT BRIBERY, YOU WOULD THINK THEY'D TAKE INTEREST IN BURISMA PAYING HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH AND THINK THEY'D BE INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN THREATENING TO WITH HOLD LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING BURISMA.

THAT'S A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY.

THE MEDIA ARE FREE TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS AND FREE TO LURCH FROM THE RUSSIA TO UKRAINE HOAX AT THE DIRECTION OF THEIR PUBLIC MASTERS BUT CANNOT REASONABLY EXPECT TO DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF THE COUNTRY WHO VOTE FORD THE PRESIDENT THEY'RE TRYING TO EXPEL.

AMERICANS HAVE LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THEY SEE IT AND IF THE 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.

WE'RE 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 JOINED MULTIPLE TOURS OVERSEAS SERVING IN SOUTH KOREA, GERMANY AND IRAQ.

HE WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ IN HEAVY FIGHTING AND AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AFTER BEING WOUNDED BY A RODE ROAD SIDE BOMB AND HE HAS SERVED AT HOME AND U.S. EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA.

HE HAS SERVED AS A POLITICO MILITARY AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AND JOINED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN JULY 2018 WHEN ASKED TO SERVE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS BEGAN HER CAREER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 2005.

SHORTLY AFTER GRADUATING COLLEGE SHE JOINED AS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND AFTER A REPRESENTATIVE IN 2004 AND COMPLETED TOURS IN JAMAICA, BEIRUT AND LEBANON.

PRIOR TO JOINING THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT SHE SERVED AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON AS A PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER.

IN APRIL 2019 SHE 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 ASIA ISSUES AND KEEPS HIM AWARE OF ISSUES IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA AND PREPARES HIM FOR MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.

FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL.

ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE TOUCHED UPON SEPARATELY.

CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE REPRISAL OR -- FOR TESTIFYING.

IF YOU WOULD BOTH PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I'LL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU, YOU MAY BE SEATED.

THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE TO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM.

WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRIT VEN STATEMENT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD AND MS. WILLIAMS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND WHEN YOU CONCLUDE LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU'LL BE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

MS. WILLIAMS.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE STATEMENT.

I'M HERE PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA AND HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES.

I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER NEARLY 14 YEARS FOR THREE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, TWO RESPONDS AND ONE DEMOCRATIC.

I JOINED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 2006 AFTER SERVING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER MICHAEL CHERTOFF.

A SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION ADMINISTERED BY CONDOLEEZZA 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 IN KINGSTON, JAMAICA AND LEBANON AND UNITED KINGDOM AND SERVED MILLIONS OF VICTIMS OF THE SYRIA CONFLICT AND SERVED AS AN ADVISER 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'VE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH THE DEDICATED AND CAPABLE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.

TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA AND WORKED WITH 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 CAST I'VE PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENGAGEMENTS RELATED TO UKRAINE.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, NOVEMBER 7, I APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR A CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE MY RECOLLECTION OF SOME OF THE EVENTS I EXPECT THE COMMITTEE MAY ASK ME ABOUT.

ON APRIL 21, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

ON APRIL 23 THE PRESIDENT CALLED TO CONGRATULATE HIM.

DURING THE CALL, WHICH I PARTS PAID IN, THE VICE PRESIDENT ACCEPTED AN INVITATION TO ATTEND HIS UPCOMING INAUGURATION PROVIDING THE SCHEDULING WORKED OUT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ONLY A NARROW WINDOW OF AVAILABILITY AT THE END OF MAY AND THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT MEET TO SET A DATE FOR THE INAUGURATION UNTIL AFTER MAY 14th.

AS A RESULT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER HE'D ATTEND UNTIL MAY 14th AT THE EARLIEST AND MADE PRELIMINARILY PREPPING -- PREPARATIONS AND THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD NOT ATTEND.

SHE DOES NOT PROVIDE FURTHER EXPLANATION.

I RELAYED THAT INSTRUCTION TO OTHERS INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE POTENTIAL TRIP AND INFORMED THE NSC THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING SO IT COULD IDENTIFY A HEAD OF DELEGATION TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES AT PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.

I LEARN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PLACED A HOLD ON A TRANCHE OF AID.

THEY WERE REVIEWING WHETHER THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S PRIORITIES.

I SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED MEETINGS OF THE POLICY COORDINATION COMMITTEE FOR THE HOLD THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

DURING THE MEETING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ADVOCATED THE HOLD SHOULD BE LIFTED AND OMB REPRESENTATIVES REPORT THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF DIRECT THE HOLD SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE.

ON SEPTEMBER 11, I LEARNED THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE HAD BEEN RELEASED.

I HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT PROMPTED THAT DECISION.

JULY 25th, WITH SEVERAL COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED.

PRIOR TO JULY 25, I PARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS.

DURING MY CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL.

AS I TESTIFIED THEN I FOUND THE JULY 25th CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD OBSERVED IT HAD DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.

AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL I PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE PRESIDENT'S DAILY BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE TRANSCRIPT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BOOK.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR THE TRANSCRIPT.

I DOES NOT DISCUSS THE JULY T25H CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT OR THE NSC OR COLLEAGUES.

AUGUST 29, I LEARN THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE TRAVELLING TO POLAND TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING, WHICH I ATTENDED, HE ASKED ABOUT THE NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOLD ON ASSISTANCE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT PROMISED TO RELAY THEIR CONVERSATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT NIGHT.

DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETG, NEITHER THE VICE PRESIDENT NOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTION WILL 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 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO UKRAINE AND MY ROLE IN EVENTS RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.

I'VE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED STATES OF.

FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADE I'VE SERVED AS AN INFANTRY OFFICER AND SERVED TOURS IN SOUTH KOREA AND GERMANY AND DEPLOYED TO IRAQ FOR COMBAT OPERATIONS.

SINCE 2008 I'VE SPECIALIZED IN EUROPEAN AND EURASIA AFFAIRS.

IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

I WAS THE POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS FOR RUSSIA TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WHERE I DRAFT THE PLAN TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND INFLUENCE.

JULY 2018, I WAS ASKED TO SERVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

AT THE NSC I'M THE ADVISER ON UKRAINE AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN PORTFOLIO AND TO COORDINATE PLANS AND POLICIES TO MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF DIPLOMATIC, INFORMATIONAL AND MILITARY AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES FOR 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 AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW OUR COUNTRIES PROMOTE UKRAINE PROSPERITY AND STRENGTHENING UKRAINE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT POLICY OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY ACROSS VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND UKRAINIAN AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELE ELECTION CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED STRATEGY TO COMPLETE OUR OBJECTIVES.

IN SPRING 2019 I BECAME AWARE OF THE P RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY THAT CREATED NARRATIVES THAT UNDERMINED THE POLICY.

THE NSC AND THE PARTNERS INCLUDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT GREW INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT SUCH INFORMATION WAS HAVING ON OUR COUNTRY'S ABILITY TO SECURE NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED ON UNITY, REFORM AND ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED HIM TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS VICTORY.

I WAS A STAFF OFFICER WHO PRODUCED THE CALL MATERIALS AND ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL.

THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO WORK WITH HIM 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.

THE MEMBERS PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING OFFERING A POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED A CONGRATULATORY LETTER AND EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

JULY 10, 2019, THEN THE UKRAINE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ATTENDED WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR A MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND RICK PERRY ATTEND THE MEETING.

I ATTENDED WITH DR. HILL.

WE FULLY ANTICIPATE UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS.

THE AMBASSADOR CUT IT SHORT WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STARTED TO SPEAK WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE DELIVER CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS TO SECURE THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING, THERE WAS A DEBRIEFING WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DELIVERED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

I STATED THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

DR. HILL ALSO INSERTED COMMENTS WERE IMPROPER.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING, DR. HILL AND I AGREED TO REPORT TO THE LEAD COUNCIL.

ON JULY 21, 2019, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON IN ANOTHER LANDSLIDE VICTORY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED HIM TO CONGRATULATE HIM AND I LISTENED ON A CALL AND THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES.

I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.

WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG.

IT'S IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT.

AND CLEAR IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION IT WAS CLEAR INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS IT A BIPARTISAN PLAY AND UNDERMINING U.S. SECURITY AND ADVANCING RUSSIA'S POSITION IN THE MEET.

WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS RELATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND JULY 25th, RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO 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'D BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY ACTIONS.

WHEN I REPORT MID -- REPORT MID CONCERNS WAS TO ACT OUT MY RESPONSIBILITY.

I RETURNED TO WORK TO ADVANCE THE PRESIDENT'S AND OUR COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.

I FOCUSSED ON WHAT I'VE 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 APPEARED IN AND ARE SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

I WANT TO STATE THE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANT REPRY HENCIBLE.

IT'S -- REPREHENSIBLE.

IT'S BEEN NATURAL TO DISAGREE BUT WE'RE BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS.

THE UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE ARE MADE OF A PATCH WORK OF PEOPLE FROM CITIES, REGIONS, SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS WHO COME TOGETHER FOR A COMMON OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE DO NOT SERVE ANY POLITICAL PARTY.

WE SERVE THE NATION.

I AM HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SERVE IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD.

THE ARMY'S THE ONLY PROFESSION I'VE EVER KNOWN.

AS A YOUNG MAN I DECIDED I WANTED TO SPEND MY LIFE SERVING THE NATION THAT GAVE MY FAMILY REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN AGGRESSION.

IT'S BEEN MY HONOR TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.

NEXT YEAR WILL MARK 40 YEARS THAT MY FAMILY LEFT AS REFUGEES.

MY FATHER LEFT BEHIND HIS LIFE AND THE ONLY HOME HE'D KNOWN TO START OVER IN THE UNITED STATES SO HIS THREE SONS COULD HAVE A BETTER AND SAFER LIFE.

HIS COURAGEOUS DECISION INSPIRED A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE IN MY BROTHERS AND MYSELF AND INSTILLED A SENSE OF DUTY AND SERVICE.

ALL THREE OF US IS SERVED OR ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY.

MY LITTLE BROTHER IS BEHIND ME HERE TODAY.

OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE SAY SPECIAL PART OF OUR FAMILY'S HISTORY.

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 AND PROFESSIONAL REPERCUSSIONS AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY WOULD SURELY COST ME MY LIFE.

I'M GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER'S BRAVE ACT 40 YEARS AGO AND THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHERE I CAN LIVE FREE OF FEAR FOR MY AND MY FAMILY'S SAFETY.

DAD, I'M SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITAL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, IT'S PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION TO COME HERE AND SEARCH FOR A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY.

DO NOT WORRY, I'LL 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, MS. WILLIAMS.

YOUR BROTHER AND FAMILY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE.

WE'LL PROCEED THE FIRST ROUND QUESTIONS PROVIDED IN THE MEMO AN 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS FOLLOWED FOR 45 MEMBERS NOR RANKING MEMBER AND THE TIME MAY NOT BE DELEGATED TO OTHER MEMBERS UNLESS I GIVE EXTRA TIME WE'LL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE AND EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTION.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF MAJORITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST 45 MINUTES.

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR TESTIMONY MS. WILLIAMS I WANT TO ASK ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE SEPTEMBER 18.

WERE YOU ON THAT CALL?

>> I WAS.

>> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES?

>> YES, SIR.

>> IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT CALL YOU THINK MAY BE RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTIGATION?

>> THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN A POSITION -- >> SIR, CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU.

>> AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH MAJORITY AND MINORITY STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THE SEPTEMBER 18 CALL IS CLASSIFIED.

AS A RESULT WITH RESPECT TO THE CALL I'D REFER THE COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC RECORD WHICH INCLUDES MS. WILLIAMS' NOVEMBER 7 TESTIMONY WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED AND THE PUBLIC READ OUT OF THAT CALL WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

BEYOND THAT, GIVEN THE POSITION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE ON CLASSIFIED I'VE ADVISED MS. WILLIAMS TO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CALL IN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING.

>> THANK YOU.

I ONLY ASK YOU IN THIS SETTING IF YOU THINK THERE'S SOMETHING RELEVANT AND IF SO YOU'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A CLASSIFIED SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> I'D REFER TO MY TESTIMONY I GAVE IN THE CLOSED SESSION AND VERY HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR A CLASSIFIED SETTING DISCUSSION AS WELL.

>> MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR YOU APPEAR IF YOU'D 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 21 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 ROOTINGW 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 HOW 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 HE'D SEND A HIGH-LEVEL DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION.

DURING THAT CALL, MS. WILLIAMS DID YOU UNDERSTAND HE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND?

>> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> DID THE PRESIDENT ULTIMATELY TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND?

>> I WAS INFORMED BY OUR CHIEF OF STAFF'S 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?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AM I ALSO CORRECT THE INAUGURATION DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET BY MAY 13?

>> 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'RE A MEMBER OFF THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, CHAIRMAN.

>> DURING THAT TRIP DID YOU OFFER ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> YES.

>> DURING THE 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 WAS TO STAY OUT OF U.S.

DOMESTIC POLICY.

>> YOU MEAN POLITICS?

>> POLITICS.

>> WHY DID YOU FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO ADVISE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STAY AWAY FROM U.S.

POLITICS?

>> IN THE MARCH AND APRIL TIME FRAME IT BECAME CLEAR THERE WERE ACTORS IN THE U.S. PUBLIC ACTORS, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS THAT WERE PROMOTING THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATIONS AND 2016 UKRAINE INTERFERENCE AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY, ALL THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO, ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN NON-U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS AND PASSING THE SAME ADVICE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.

>> AND I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

LET ME TURN TO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE I THINK YOU BOTH TESTIFIED YOU LEARNED ABOUT IN EARLY JULY.

DO YOU KNOW THE HOLD WAS PUT ON ASSISTANCE.

>> TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN LINE WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES BUT NOT MADE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN.

>> THAT'S CONSISTENT.

THE REVIEW WAS TO ENSURE IT REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN YOU ATTENDED A MEETING ON JOHN BOLTON'S OFFICE WHERE MR. SONDLAND INTERJECTED ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICE VISIT.

WHAT DID HE SAY AT THAT TIME?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID IN ORDER TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A DELIVERABLE, SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

>> WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S RESPONSE TO THAT COMMENT?

>> WE HAD NOT COMPLETED ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS AND STILL HAD TIME FOR THE MEETING AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY END THE MEETING.

>> DID YOU REPORT THIS INCIDENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS?

>> YES, I DID.

>> BASED ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S REMARKS WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD TO COMMIT TO MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

>> IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENTIRE CLEARLY AT THAT MOMENT.

CLEARLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CALLING FOR THE MEETINGS AND HAD STATED THAT HE HAD THIS -- THIS WITH US DEVELOPED FOR A CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MR. MICK VUL -- MULVANEY.

>> BUT WHAT WAS SAID DURING THE MEETING THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH MICK MULVANEY HE'D GET THE MEETING WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25 CALL.

WHAT WAS YOUR REAL-TIME REACTION TO HEARING THAT CALL?

>> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION I KNEW 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?

>> 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 WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN PLAY THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE POLICY AND UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

>> COLONEL, YOU'VE DESCRIBED THIS AS A DEMAND.

THIS FAVOR THE PRESIDENT ASKED.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT LED YOU TO CONCLUDE WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED A FAVOR OF THIS IT WAS A DEMAND?

>> IN THE MILITARY CULTURE WHEN A SENIOR ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S POLITE AND PLEASANT IT'S NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST.

IT'S TO BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER.

THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS, MY IMPRESSION IS IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> MS. WILLIAMS, I THINK YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REACTION IN YOUR DEPOSITION AS YOU FOUND IT UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID.

SAID IT SHED LIGHT ON POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS BETWEEN A SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> 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'D HEARD INTERNALLY THE PRESIDENT REFERENCE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY I I'D 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 REGARD TO INVESTIGATIONS.

SO IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN THAT REGARD.

I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM CONCLUSIONS.

>> BUT IT RAISED A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THE TWO WERE RELATED?

>> IT WAS THE FIRST I'D HEARD OF REQUESTS OF UKRAINE WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN NATURE.

IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO ME IN THAT REGARD.

>> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION RAISING THE ISSUE OR MENTIONING BURISMA, DO YOU NOT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YET THE WORD BURISMA APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL RECORD, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> DO YOU KNOW THAT'S THE CASE WHY IT WAS LEFT OUT?

>> I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THAT TRANSCRIPT.

>> I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FACT THAT THE TRANSCRIPT BEING PRODUCED MAY NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE WORD BURISMA AND IT WAS IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS RELEASED IT WAS RELEASED AS A COMPANY WHICH IS ACCURATE.

IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT OMISSION.

>> COLONEL, YOU POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT THAT WORD WAS USED, DID YOU NOT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YET IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD RELEASE OF THE PUBLIC.

>> IT'S INFORMED SPECULATION THAT THE FOLKS THAT PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN AND DIDN'T CATCH THE WORD AND THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE AND WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO BY PUTTING THE WORD BACK IN BECAUSE THAT WAS IN MY NOTES.

>> YOU TESTFIDE -- TESTIFIED THAT IT INDICATED TO YOU HE HAD BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL AND EXPECTED THE 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 IS ON THE BROADER BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP AND SEEMED HE WAS TRACKING THE ISSUE BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE PRESS OR OTHERWISE PREPPED.

MR. >> MR. GOLDMAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU.

ON JULY 25 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 PREPARING FOR A LONG AWAITED PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

COLONEL VINDMAN, IN ADVANCE OF THE PHONE CALL DID YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS AS YOU DID FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL?

>> YES, I DID.

>> WHAT WERE THE TALKING POINTS BASED UPON?

>> THIS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND A CAN'T COMMENT TOO DEEPLY BUT THE AREAS WE'VE CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT IN PUBLIC IS COOPERATION ON SUPPORTING REFORM AGENDA, ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS AND HELPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IMPLEMENT HIS PLANS TO END RUSH'S WAR -- RUSSIA'S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

>> CORRECT.

>> IS THERE A PROCESS TO DETERMINE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?

>> MY JOB IS TO COORDINATE U.S. POLICY SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING YEAR I'VE BEEN ON STAFF, I HAD UNDERTAKEN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A COHERENT POLICY.

>> AS YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FOLLOWING THE TALK POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?

>> COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE TALKING POINTS OR NOT.

HE'S THE PRESIDENT.

THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I >> LET'S 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 ASKS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A FAVOR AND THEN RAISES THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE SAYS IN THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, I'D LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I'D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WITH THE WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE.

I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE.

THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

COLONEL VINDMAN, WAS THIS STATEMENT BASED ON THE OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS YOU HAD PREPARED?

>> NO.

ñ 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 UKRAINE HAD INTERVENED FOR INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> I WAS.

>> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY?

>> I AM NOT.

>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN PROMOTED THE THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> I'M WELL AWARE OF THAT FACT?

>> ULTIMATELY, WHICH COUNTRY DID U.S. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES DETERMINE TO HAVE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN THE 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 AND BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THEBZS ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT AND BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT.

IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME, HE SAID.

COLONEL VINDMAN WAS THIS INCLUDED IN YOUR TALKING POINTS?

>> IT WAS NOT.

>> SUCH A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.

>> IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF CREDIBLE ALLEGATION OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DID SOMETHING WRONG OR AGAINST U.S. POLICY WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE?

>> I AM NOT.

>> MS. WILLIAMS ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?

>> I AM NOT.

>> ACCORDING TO THE JULY 25 CALL HOW MANY CALLS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN LEADERS HAD YOU LISTENED TO?

>> I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY A DOZEN.

>> HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A CALL LIKE THIS?

>> AS A TESTIFIED BEFORE WHAT I FOUND UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CALL WAS THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CALLS I'D LISTENED TO.

>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL IN NATURE.

WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?

>> I THOUGHT THE REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON STRUCK ME AS POLITICAL IN NATURE GIVEN THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> AND COULD BE POTENTIALLY DESIGNED TO ASSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION EFFORT.

>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS.

IT SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME.

>> YOU SAID IT DIDN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THE POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS.

FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ROCKET SCIENTISTS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CONNECTION TO INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER.

I MADE THAT CONNECTION AS SOON AS THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

>> COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED THAT 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 UKRAINIANS IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE ABOUT ANY PRESSURE THAT THEY FELT TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED?

>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY HERE, THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. >> YES, I DID.

>> DID YOU DEMAND -- DISCUSS AT ALL THAT THE DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> DID YOU DISCUSS 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 WERE ASKING IF I HAD ANY COMMENT ON THAT OR IF I COULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT.

>> THAT'S 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.

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 UKRAINE MAY LOSE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

WHY WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS?

>> UKRAINE IS IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE IS SIGNIFICANT.

ABSENT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND MAYBE MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY WOULD LIKELY ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO PURSUE OR ESCALATE TO PURSUE FURTHER AGGRESSION UNDERMINING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY, EUROPEAN SECURITY AND U.S. SECURITY.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON UNITED STATES SUPPORT, DIPLOMATICALLY AND MILITARILY.

>> WHAT LANGUAGES DO YOU SPEAK?

>> RUSSIAN, UKRAINIAN AND A LITTLE BIT OF ENGLISH.

>> DO YOU RECALL WHAT LANGUAGE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL?

>> I KNOW HE MADE A VALIANT EFFORT TO SPEAK ENGLISH.

HE HAD BEEN PRACTICING 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 COMPANY YOU MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE, IS THAT THE PORTION OF THE CALL RECORD THAT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ACTUALLY SAID BURISMA?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER HIS USE OR INFORMATION OF WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED THE BIDENS THAT THAT REFERRED TO THE COMPANY BURISMA SOUNDED TO YOU LIKE HE WAS PREPPED FOR 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 FROM AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER TO ANDREI YARMOK.

>> HE'S A SENIOR ADVISER WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION A SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> THIS TEXT MESSAGE IS LESS THAN A HALF OUR BEFORE THE CALL ON JULY 25 AND SINCE NEITHER OF YOU WERE ON IT, I'LL READ IT, IT SAYS FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS.

HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE.

ASSUMING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED UNQUOTE IN 2016 WE'LL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK.

SEE YOU TOMORROW.

KURT.

NOW, IS THIS THE SORT OF THING YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAY IT SOUNDS LIKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED FOR THE CALL?

>> THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT, YES.

>> NOW, TURNING TO THE FOURTH EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25 CALL WHERE UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LINKS THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT ZELETRUMPS REQUE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID 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 WE'LL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.

COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD YOU AGREE HE ACKNOWLEDGES A LINKAGE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT HE MENTIONS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE?

>> IT WOULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY.

I'M NOT SURE.

IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE CONCLUSION.

>> AND IF THAT IS THE CASE IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT MESSAGE AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT TO ANDREI YERMOK BEFORE THE CALL, RIGHT?

>> IT COULD SEEM SO.

>> NOW, YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION A WHITE HOUSE VISIT, AN OVAL OFFICE VISIT IS VERY 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 UKRAINE POLITICAL SCENE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH HIMSELF AS A REGIONAL AND MAYBE 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 ADDITIONAL LEGITIMACY AT HOME?

>> YES.

>> JUST TO SUMMARIZE IN THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED A FAVOR OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS BOTH OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE WERE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

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 DO YOU THAT?

>> SO AT THIS POINT, I'D ALREADY BEEN TRACKING THIS INITIALLY -- WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS ALTERNATIVE FALSE NARRATIVE AND WAS CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS STARTING TO AND GAIN TRACTION.

IN THE JULY 10th CALL IT WAS ANNOUNCED BY A PUBLISH OFFICIAL.

THEY ALERTED ME TO THIS AND I WAS INVITED TO FOLLOW UP WITH OTHER CONCERNS TO MR.

I D ENBERG.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED IN THE CALL?

>> YES.

DID YOU DISCUSS HOW THE WRITTEN SUMMERY OF THE CALL RECORD SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE NSC LAWYERS?

>> FOLLOWING THE REPORT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE THE TRANSPORTATION.

>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT SHOULD HAVE SAID THERE ARE RECORDINGS.

>> CORRECT.

DID YOU ULTIMATELY LEARN WHERE THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS BEING SEGREGATED INTO A SEPARATE SYSTEM, SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM.

>> WHY WOULD IT BE PUT-ON A SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM.

>> IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED BUT AT TIMES IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT ACCESS TO A SMALLER GROUP OF FOLKS YOU PUT IT ON A SECURE SYSTEM TO ENSURE A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVE IT.

>> CAN'T YOU ALSO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAN ACCESS IT ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM.

>> YOU CAN DO THAT BUT TO THE BEST OF MY RECK COLLECTION TE DECISION WAS MADE ON THE FLY AFTER ICON HAVE AD MY CONCERNS.

HE CAME IN AND HADN'T HEARD THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION.

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED IT WAS SENSITIVE IT WAS ON THE FLY DECISION.

>> MR. EISENBERG AND THE LAWYERS?

>> I DIDN'T CAPITA.

WAS IT INTENDED TO BE PUT-ON THERE BY THE LAWYERS OR A MISTAKE?

>> IT WAS INTENDED BUT TO PREVENT LEAKS AND LIMIT ACCESS.

>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THE APRIL 21st CALL EARLIER AND CORONAL VINDMAN YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR TALKING POINTS THE IDEA OF UKRAINE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T MENTION CORRUPTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE READ OUT FROM THE APRIL 21st CALL.

YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WHERE IT SAYS ROOT OUT CORRUPTION?

>> YES.

SO THIS READ OUT IS FALSE?

MAYBE THAT'S A BIT -- IT'S NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

I'M NOT SURE IF I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS FALSE.

IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY AND THESE ARE USED AS MASSAGING TOOLS ALSO.

A STATEMENT GOES OUT IN ADDITION TO READING OUT THE MEETING ITSELF.

IT'S A MISS ACKNOWLEDGING PLATFORM TO INDICATE WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> IT'S PART OF U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD ROOT OUT CORRUPTION EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T MENTION IT IN THE APRIL 21st PHONE CALL?

CERTAINLY.

>> HE DIDN'T MENTION IT IN THE JULY 21st PHONE CALL?

>> CORRECT.

IT WAS INCLUDED IN HIS TALKING POINTS AND YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE JULY 21st CALL IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN EITHER?

>> FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL -- >> DIDN'T MENTION IT RATHER?

CORRECT.

NOW THAT HE HELD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION THAT WASN'T EXPRESSED IN THE TWO PHONE CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ZELENSKY.

>> HE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

ON MAY 13, YOU WERE INFORMED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S OFFICE THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WILL NOT BE GOING PER REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS INFORMED, YES.

>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAD CHANGED FROM APRIL 21st TO MAY 13, THE THAT RIGHT?

>> NO, NOT IN TERMS OF THAT DECISION.

>> WELL, KERNEL VINDMAN, SINCE YOU IN PARTICULAR MORE THAN MS. WILLIAMS HAS A BROADER PORTFOLIO ON UKRAINE WERE YOU AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS THAT HAPPENED FROM APRIL 21, TO MAY OF 13.

DO YOU KNOW HE WAS RECALLED?

>> YES.

TO CORRECT IT SHE WAS RECALLED PRIOR -- LET ME SEE.

THE NOTIFICATION WAS TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL.

>> SHE LEARNED ABOUT IT AFTER APRIL 24th.

>> CORRECT.

WERE YOU AWARE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP PEW TEN PRESIDENT PUTIN?

>> I WAS.

DID YOU KNOW RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS GOING TO UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THEM TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE PHONE CALL?

>> I WAS AWARE HE WAS TRAVELING AND PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO THE JULY 10th MEETING YOU REFERENCED.

>> AS I RECALL HE REFERRED TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE DELIVER TO GET THE MEETINGS.

>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BROADER MEETING AFTER HE MADE THE REFERENCE?

>> BOLTTON VERY ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THE MEETING?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

DID YOU FOLLOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR A FOLLOW UP?

>> IT WAS A PHOTO OPPOSE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND NEW NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

AFTER THAT WE WENT DOWN TO A SHORT MEETING OR DEBRIEF.

>> WERE WHERE THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DISCUSSED?

>> THEY WERE.

WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY?

>> HE REFERRED INTO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BUY DONS AND BURISMA.

>> HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?

I SAID THE REQUEST TO CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

>> WAS AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN THE MEETINGS AS WELL?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

I'M NOT SURE IF HE WAS THERE FOR THE MEETING.

>> WAS THIS STATEMENT MADE IN FRONT OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS?

>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE UKRAINIANS LIVING.

MYSELF AND A FEW OTHERS WERE ASKED TO STEP OUT.

>> THE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF DOES THAT INCLUDE FEE ON IN FIONA HILL?

>> YES.

OU ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THE INCIDENT WITH THE NFC LAWYERS?

>> CORRECT.

WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?

JOHN EISENBERG SAID HE TOOK NOTES WHILE I WAS TALKING AND HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT.

>> WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS MEETING AND CONVERSATION TO THE NFC LAWYERS?

>> BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION ON THE POST MEETING MEETING IN THE AWARD ROOM.

I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH DR. HILL AND WE DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF NEEDING TO REPORT THIS.

>> SO, AM I CORRECT, CORONAL VINDMAN THE UKRAINIAN UNDERSTOOD THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA AND THESE CONDITIONS.

>> THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS AWARE THEY WERE APPROACHED BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

>> AND DIRECTLY LINKING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> CORRECT.

MS. WILLIAMS YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU ATTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING HE ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE IN THAT MEETING.

>> HE ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE STATUS OF ASSISTANCE.

HE SAW POLITICAL ARTICLES AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE MEETING WAS BEING HELD.

>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT HE EMPHASIZED THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WASN'T JUST IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE IN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA BUT IT WAS ALSO SYMBOLIC IN NATURE.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THAT?

>> PRESIDENT ZE LENSKY SAID IT WAS THE NATURE OF THE ASSISTANCE THAT WAS THE SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINE AND THEIR SOLVE ENTITY AND TERRITORY CONTROL INTEGRITY.

HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO UNDER SCORE THE NEED FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED.

>> IF THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS IT ALSO RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT AS A SIGN OF WEAKENING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

>> THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS HINTING AT.

ANY SIGN WOULD BE CONSCREWED AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STRAIGHTEN THEIR OWN HAND.

>> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT MEETING?

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T DISCUSS THE REASON BEHIND THE HOLD.

HE REASSURED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE STRONGEST SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND SPOKE ABOUT THE NEED FOR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES STEPPING UP AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE AS WELL.

>> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE REPORT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT MEETING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SUSCEPTIBLE HIM WHAT HE HEARD ABOUT REFORM IN UKRAINE.

I'M AWARE THE VICE PRESIDENT SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT BUT I WASN'T PRIVILEGED TO THE CONVERSATION.

>> THE ASSISTANCE HOLD WASN'T LIFTED FOR ANOTHER TEN DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AM I CORRECT YOU DIDN'T LEARN THE REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

CORONAL VINDMAN YOU THEN LEARNED WHY IT WAS HELD AS WELL?

>> CORRECT.

THEY LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION ON THE NINTH DAYS AFTER THE HOLD WAS LIFTED?

>> I'M AWARE.

THEY REQUESTED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS.

WHERE YOU AWARE THE WHITE HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT?

>> THE FIRST I HEARD OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WAS WHEN THE NEWS BROKE.

I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE HOLD.

>> IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY WHATEVER REASON THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE HOLD INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE HOLD -- IT WOULD SUPPORT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> THE POLICIES SUPPORTED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> SO THE INTERAGENCY POLICY WAS TO SUPPORT SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THE UKRAINE.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD BACK.

>> I RECOGNIZE NUNES.

WELCOME, I WANT TO ESTABLISH A FEW FACTS.

YOU SPEND EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE UKRAINE.

>> UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED ON UKRAINE POLICY QUIET A BIT WITHIN MY EIGHT MONTHS.

>> IT'S IN YOUR PORTFOLIO?

THAT'S CORRECT.

FIRST OFF, WERE YOU AWARE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2015 THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE JEFFREY CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BUR ISMA.

>> NOT AT THIS TIME.

YOU ARE TODAY?

I AM.

DID YOU KNOW ABOUT ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS?

>> NO, I WAS NOT AWARE.

DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECTARY THE INTEREST INTO HUNTER BIDEN WITH BURISMA.

>> I DIDN'T WORK ON POLICY.

I BECOME AWARE -- >> IN THE LAST YEAR?

HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THE TESTIMONY.

>> DID YOU KNOW FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW THAT BURISMA ROUTED MONEY TO AMERICAN ACCOUNTS OWNED BY HUNTER BIDEN.

>> I WASN'T AWARE.

UNTIL -- OTHERS HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT MORE CLOSELY?

>> CORRECT.

DID YOU KNOW BURISMA LEGAL TEAM MET WITH OFFICIALS DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR.

>> AGAIN, I WASN'T WORKING ON UKRAINE POLICY AT THAT TIME?

>> AS I SAID I WASN'T WORKING THERE DURING THE TIME.

>> DID YOU KNOW THEY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE.

>> I WASN'T AWARE.

DID YOU KNOW JOE BIDEN CALLED THE PRESIDENT TWO TIMES AFTER HIS HOME WAS RAIDED ON FEBRUARY SECOND?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME.

I HAVE BECOME AWARE THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING.

>> THANK YOU.

CORONAL VINDMAN I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISH YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

IN SEPTEMBER OF 2015 U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BUR I RIMMA WERE YOU AWARE AT THE TIME?

>> I WASN'T AWARE.

WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE?

DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY.

>> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS BY VARIOUS OFFICIALS AS WELL AS A DNC CONSULTANT?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE INTERFERENCE EFFORTS.

>> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT SECTARY KENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

>> THE ONLY THING I'M AWARE IS PERTAINING TO HIS DEPOSITION.

>> DID YOU KNOW BU BURI I RIM -- BURIMSMA WIRING MONEY TO HUNTER BIDEN.

>> I WASN'T AWARE.

UNTIL RECENTLY?

I WASN'T AWARE.

DID YOU KNOW BURIMSMA MET WITH OFFICIALS AFTER THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR.

>> I'M NOT AWARE.

DID YOU KNOW BURIMSMA PRESSURED THEM AND INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME AS A WAY TO INTERVENE.

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE FACTS.

>> DID YOU KNOW JOE BIDEN CALLED THE PRESIDENT THREE TIMES AFTER THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF THE HOME WAS RAIDED?

>> I'M AWARE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS VERY ENGAGED ON UKRAINE AND HAD NUMEROUS ENGAGEMENTS, THAT'S WHAT I'M AWARE OF.

>> THE COMMITTEE HAS SPENT THREE YEARS CONDUCTING VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS STARTING WITH THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX, HYSTERIA OVER THE LACK OF COLLUSION AND THE MULLER REPORT AND NOW THIS IMPEACHMENT CHARADE.

THE AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED OR SENSITIVE INFORMATION I READ IN THE PRESS THAT DERIVE FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR SOURCES IN THE ADMINISTRATION.

I'M NOT ACCUSING EITHER ONE OF YOU INFORMATION.

GIVEN YOU ARE THE FIRST WITNESSES THAT HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CALL BY LISTENING IN.

IT'S IMPAIRTIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLICS UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS WE GET A QUICK FEW MATTERS OUT-OF-THE-WAY FIRST.

MS. WILLIAMS, LET ME GO TO YOU FIRST.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS I'M ONLY ASKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN JULY 25 TO SEPTEMBER 25.

>> OKAY.

DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS?

>> NO.

TO BE CLEAR, YOU NEVER DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, CNN, OR ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO SPEAK WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

>> I DID NOT.

DO YOU KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT DISCUSSED THE PHONE CALL?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

CORONAL VINDMAN, THE SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

DID YOU DISCUSS THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

>> I DID NOT.

TO BE CLEAR YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS THIS WITH THE TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, POLITICO OR ANY OTHER NEWS STATIONS?

>> I DID NOT.

DID YOU DISCUSS THE CALL WITH ANY OTHERS?

>> I DID NOT.

DID YOU DISCUSS ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH THE PRESS?

>> WE HAVE AN NFC PRESS PERSON.

I DIDN'T ENGAGE WITH THIS.

>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT DISCUSSED THE PHONE CALL OR DISCUSSED THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS.

>> WE HAVE AN NFC PRESS SHOP WHOSE JOB IS TO ENGAGE ON ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT AWARE BUT IT'S LIKELY THE PRESS SHOP WOULD FIELD THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.

>> RIGHT, THE QUESTION.

THE QUESTION IS DO YOU KNOW ANY INDIVIDUALS.

DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING, I DO NOT.

>> MR. WILLIAMS, DID YOU DISCUSS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE WAREHOUSE?

>> NO, I DIDN'T DISCUSS THE CALL WITH ADMINISTER.

>> MEDICAL CENTER WILLIAMS DURING YOUR TIME HAVE YOU ACCEDE A COLLEAGUE'S WORK COMPUTER WITHOUT PRY OR AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL?

>> I HAVE NOT.

I'M IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.

NOT THE NFC.

NO, I HAVE NOT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> CORONAL VINDMAN DID YOU DISCUSS THAT PHONE CALL ON JULY 25th OR 26th.

>> YES, MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO COORDINATE INTERAGENCY POLICY.

I SPOKE TO TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARDS TO PROVIDING A SOME SORT OF READ OUT-OF-THE COLUMN.

>> TWO INDIVIDUALS NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CLEARED U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

>> WHAT AGENCIES WERE THESE OFFICIALS WITH?

>> THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPUTY SECTARY KENT.

ALSO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE OFFICE -- INDIVIDUAL WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> THEY HAVE 17 DIFFERENT AGENCIES.

WHAT AGENCY WERE THEY FROM?

>> IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE.

WE NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

PLEASE STOP.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO EFFORT TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THROUGH THESE PROCEEDINGS.

IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THIS MAY REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ACCORDINGLY.

>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

>> LIEUTENANT CORONAL VINDMAN, PLEASE.

>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS.

>> HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO NAME THESE PEOPLE AND OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

>> PER THE ADVICE OF COUNCIL I HAVE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CONDUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING?

>> OF COURSE I AM.

WOULDN'T THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO TESTIFY IS ABOUT SOMEONE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> PER THE ADVISE OF MY COUNCIL AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN I HAVE BEEN ASKED NOT TO PROVIDE SPECIFICS ON WHO I HAVE SPOKEN TO INSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THESE WERE PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUALS WITH A NEED TO KNOW.

>> THIS IS -- YOU CAN PLEAD THE FIFTH.

YOU ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND HERE UNDER SUBPOENA.

YOU CAN EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR PLEAD THE FIFTH.

>> EXCUSE ME.

ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULE OF THE COMMITTEE, THE RULE OF THE CHAIR WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE.

THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR AN ANSWER THAT'S INVOKING THE FIFTH OR ANY ISSUE LIKE THAT.

WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

>> COUNSELOR, WHAT RULING IS THAT -- >> IF I CAN INTERJECT.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

>> I HAVE ADVISED MY CLIENT ACCORDINGLY.

HE WILL FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.

IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE OR YOU WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE CHAIR THAT'S UP TO YOU.

>> WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SIT FOR A DEPOSITION.

THEY HAVE TABLED THAT MOTION AND UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THOSE MOTIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCESS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNE SESSION.

IT WAS PUBLISHED ON THE 25th IS ACCURATE.

>> I DIDN'T TAKE A WORD FOR WORD ACCOUNTING.

WHEN I FIRST SAW THE PUBLICLY RELEASED VERSION IT LOOKED CORRECT.

>> I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECT.

>> IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU WOULD SAY VERY ACCURATE.

>> YOU PLAQUED A -- HAD A FEW EDITS.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE?

>> COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN.

YOU OFFERED AN EDIT ON PAGE FOUR OF THE TRANSSCRIPTED YOU THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT MENTIONED THE WORD.

I HAD THAT IN MY NOTES.

I KNOW THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

>> MEDICAL CENTER WILLIAMS, YOU SAID AFTER YOUR DEPOSITION YOU CHECKED YOUR NOTES AND YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT AS WELL?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

IN A WAS ON A DIFFERENT PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION.

>> YES.

I BELIEVE SO.

YOUR CAME UP ON PAGE 5 UNDER THE WORDS CASE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE HAD DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY AND WONDER IF HE HAD A DEMAND DEMAND.

THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS ARE AMBIGUOUS.

HE USED WORDS THAT COULD BE HEDGING.

HE SPOKE ABOUT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO.

HE SPOKE ABOUT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

ON PAGE FOUR HE MENTIONED IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO HIM.

HE SPOKE ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AT THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH HE SAID WHATEVER YOU CAN DO.

HE ALSO SAYS IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT.

I ASKED IF YOU SAW OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE COULD READ INTO THAT?

>> I SAID CORRECT, YES.

BELIEVE YOU SAID PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PRECONSERVED.

IS THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED.

>> IF I COULD ASK FOR A PAGE SITE.

>> 256.

JUST ONE MOMENT.

OKAY, WE HAVE TO PAGE.

>> YOU SAID YEAH, YOU AGREED WITH ME.

YOU COULD INTERRUPT IT DIFFERENT WAYS.

>> YES.

OKAY.

TURNING ATTENTION TO THE PREPARATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

THAT FOLLOWED THE ORDINARY PROCESS, CORRECT.

>> I THINK IT FOLLOWED THE APLOP ATE PROCESS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THEY CAME AROUND FOR ACCURACY.

IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT SYSTEM.

>> THAT RELATES TO THE STORY OF IT.

YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT MR. MORRISON AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT WAS LEAKED OUT.

>> I DON'T THINK IT WAS MR. MORRISON.

>> HE 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.

>> THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAKES AND THEY SEAMED VALID.

I WASN'T CRITICAL.

I THOUGHT THIS WAS SENSITIVE AND I WASN'T GOING TO QUESTION THE ATTORNEY'S JUDGMENT ON THAT.

>> ON THE CODE WORD SEVER YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT.

>> YES.

AT NO TIME WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS OF THE INFORMATION.

>> CORRECT.

MS. WILLIAMS, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO YOU FOR A MOMENT.

YOU TESTIFIED YOU BELIEVE THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE OTHER THAN THE ONE ISSUE YOU MENTIONED.

>> .

SUBSTIVELY ACCURATE.

DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THE SAME CALL?

>> I DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

>> YOU DIDN'T HAVE CONCERNS WITH ANYONE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

>> I DID BE THE DISCUSS THE FLAG MORE.

>> FOR THE CHIEF OF STATUS NO.

NOMENT SUPERVISOR HEARD.

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THE BRIEFING MATERIALS?

>> I WAS.

DID YOU FLAG TO HIM THAT THIS PA CONCERN YOU?

>> NO, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THE TRANSDISCREPENCY IN TRIP BREAKING BOOKS.

>> IF THEY WITH SIR ARE -- ME HEIGHT BE ON EDGE ABOUT SOMETHING MENACED ON THE 7/25 CALL.

?

>> AGAIN, MY SUPERVISOR HAD BEEN IN THE CALL WITH ME.

I INSURED THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPTS IN THE MOMENT ON THAT DAY.

>> THE PRESIDENT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE?

>> YES.

THE YOURSELF IS GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO A FOREIGN NATION THAT HAS A CORRUPTION PROBLEM THAT'S SOMETHING OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT?

>> YES.

IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OLIGARCH TAKING MONEY.

>> CORRECT.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY?

>> I AM.

HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE U.S. FOREIGN AID IS SPENT WISELY?

>> CORRECT.

HE ALSO SPEAKS ABOUT SHARING AMONG ALLIES.

>> YES.

HE WERE INTERESTED AND ENGAGED TO SEE IF OUR ALLIES WILL STEP-UP.

>> THAT WOULD BE IN THE CONFACT OF MILITARY DISTANCE.

>> OKAY, YOU ARE AWARE OF HIS CONCERN?

>> YES, I AM.

TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPANY BURIMSMA.

THIS IS ONE OF UKRAINE'S LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS.

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

I CAN'T POINT IS TO SPECIFIC BUT THERE IS A PATTERN OF BAD DEALINGS.

>> HE WAS THE MINISTER OF ECOLOGY DURING THE FORMER UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION.

THEY ENCOURAGED THEM TO GREAT HIS SELF EXTRA LICENSES?

>> I WOULD DEVOURED GEORGE KENT.

HE'S A FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE UKRAINE.

IF HE ATTESTS TO THAT I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT; HE SAID THE U.S.

ALONG WITH UNITED KINGDOM TEAK THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

>> I UNDERSTAND HE TESTIFIED TO THAT.

>> MR. CAN I NOT TESTIFIED THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOVING ALONG THEN THE INVESTIGATION WENT AWAY, DID YOU HEAR HIM MENTION THAT.

>> I HEARD THAT.

THESE OCCURRED BEFORE MY TIME.

BEYOND WHAT HE SAID I DON'T KNOW MUCH MORE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH.

AROUND THE TIME THE BRIBE WAS PEDIATRIC THEY TAUGHT TO BOLTSTER THEIR BOARD.

ARE YOU AWARE THEY TAPPED LUMINARYS.

>> WITH YOU AWARE WITH SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE HUNTER HAS IN THE UKRAINIAN WORLD OF THE.

>> I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.

WAS HE QUALIFIED TO BE ON THE BOARD?

>> HE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE BUT I DON'T KNOW HIS QUALIFICATIONS.

>> OKAY.

MS. WILLIAMS I WOULD LIKE TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE INAUGURAL TRIP.

AT ONE POINT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS FOCUSING ON ATTENDING THAT, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S SOME WHAT COMPLICATED.

IF THEY WANT THE THAT PASS THROUGH.

>> LE LETTERS WAS IN JAPAN ON MAY 24th.

THERE WAS A WINDOW YOU PROVIDED IF THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD ATTEND THE INAUGURATION YOU IT HAD TO BE THE 29, 30th.

>> WE HAD BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TEAM.

THEY WOULDN'T FORMALLY WHAT IT WOULD BE.

WE UNDERSTOOD THE INITIAL THINKING THEY WERE LOOKING AT DATES AT THE END OF MAY.

WE WERE AWAY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLANNED TRAVEL.

IN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE ONLY AVAILABLE DAYS WOULD BE MAY 30th , 31st OR JUNE 1.

>> BEFORE THEY TRAVEL YOU HAVE TO SEND THE SECRET SERVICE TO DO ADVANCE WORK AND IT'S VERY INVOLVED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

DO YOU KNOW IF THEY DEPLOYED OR BOOKED HOTELS?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR ADVANCED TEAM WAS LOOKING INTO THE PREPARATIONS INCLUDING HOTEL ABILITY.

WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE TO SEEK OUT ADVANCE PERSONNEL.

WE WEREN'T SURE WHEN THE DATE WOULD BE WE HESITATED TO SEND THEM OUT.

>> ULTIMATELY, THEY DIDN'T DEPLOY.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION WAS MAY 20th.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU HAD FOUR DAYS NOTICE.

THEY DECIDED ON MAY 16th TO SET THE DATE.

>> YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TO IMMOBILIZED.

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT WE HAD STOPPED THE TRIP PLANNING.

>> WHEN DID YOU STOP IN THAT?

14th.

YOU WOULD BE THE ATIESANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF?

>> CORRECT.

YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT FROM GENERAL KELLOG.

YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM MR. SWARTZ TZ ASSISTANT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

DID YOU HAVE A REASON FOR STOPPING THE TRIP?

>> I ASKED MY COLLEAGUE WHY WE SHOULD STOP TRIP PLANNING AND I WAS INFORMED THE PRESIDENT HAD DECIDED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T ATTEND.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHY HE DECIDED?

>> NO, SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

>> ULTIMATELY, THE VICE PRESIDENT WENT TOKEN DID A FOR USMCA EVENT.

THIS IS DURING THE WINDOW OF TIME.

>> CORRECT.

THE PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WANTED THE VICE PRESIDENT TO GO TOKEN DID A INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING ELSE, CORRECT?

>> I'M NOT IN THE A POSITION TO SPECULATE.

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT DID PLENTY OF EVENTS.

>> CORRECT.

ARE YOU AWARE WHETHER ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT INQUIRED WITH YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S AVAILABILITY WITH THE TRIP TOKEN DID TRIP T?

>> AT WHAT POINT?

MAY 8th.

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE TRIP PLANNING FOR CANADA.

ANOTHER PERSON WAS AWARE OF THAT.

I'M NOT A AWARE OF COMPETING TRIP.

EWAS TOLD UKRAINE WOULD TAKE PRY PRIORITY.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW THE REASON THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS SENT TOKEN DATE TOKEN -- O CANADA.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY HE ADVISED HIM NOT TO GO TO UKRAINE.

>> CORONAL VINDMAN WHO WAS IN THE JULY MEETING?

>> THE MEETING WITH BOLTTON.

BOLTON.

WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST MOMENT.

>> FROM THE U.S. SIDE BOLTON, DR. HILL, ANOTHER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

MYSELF.

>> WHO FROM THE UKRAINIANS?

E HAD ALEXANDER, ANDRE, AND I THINK ALEXANDER'S ADVISER.

>> OKAY.

YOU TESTIFIED YOU COULDN'T RECALL WHY AMBASSADOR STOPPED THE MEETING SHORT AND TOOK IT TO DOCTOR HILL.

>> I NOTED IT ENDED ABRUPTLY.

I DIDN'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY.

>> IN THE BOLTON MEETING YOU DON'T REMEMBER HIM USING THE WORD BIDEN?

>> HE DID NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

>> THE GROUP DECAMPED TO TAKE A PHOTO?

>> CORRECT.

THE GENERAL FEELING WAS A POSITIVE ONE?

EVEN THOUGH IT ENDED ABRUPTLY?

>> I BELIEVE BOLTON WAS QUALIFIED.

HE UNDERSTOOD THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING THE PHOTO.

WE PROMPTED HIM TO BEFORE WE COMPLETELY ADJOURNED TO SEE IF HE WOULD DO ONE AND HE DID.

>> YOU WENT TO WEST EXACTIVE AVENUE.

I THINK YOU SAID YOU TOOK IT.

>> I TOOK A FEW OF THEM.

THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE AT THAT MEETING.

>> A APOLOGIZE.

OF COURSE AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND SECTARY PERRY WAS THERE.

>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JULY 10th MEETING YOU DEVELOPED CONCERNS ABOUT THE NARRATIVE, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

HAD YOU HEARD YOUR FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FROM ANYONE IN THE INSIDE?

>> SO, I CERTAINLY WAS FOLLOWING NEWS ACCOUNTS.

THAT'S FROM THE UKRAINIAN PRESS AND U.S. PRESS.

>> OKAY.

AND THEN, FLIES COLLEAGUES IN THE AGENCY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IN THE MARCH TIMEFRAME.

THERE HAD BEEN ONGOING SOURCES.

>> SO WHEN, AMBASSADOR MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATION.

YOU HAD A BIT OF A CLUE OF WHAT THE ISSUE WAS?

>> OH, DEFINITELY.

YOU TOOK THE PHOTO, A VERY NICE PHOTO AND WENT TO THE AWARD ROOM.

YES.

>> YOU CAN SEEDED TO OUR TINE TIME RENDERING.

IT WAS FOUR MONTHS AGO WHETHER HE USED BURIMSMA 2016 INVESTIGATIONS.

>> IN THE DEPOSITION THE THREE ELEMENTS, THE BIDENS, AND ALL OF THAT WAS MENTIONED.

>> I THINK WE CAN COULD GO BACK TO THIS.

ON PAGE 64 YOU DON'T REMEMBER HIMMING 2016 IN THE BOARD ROOM?

>> I BELIEVE I ACTUALLY FOLLOWED UP AND THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES.

I SAID ALL THREE ELEMENTS WERE WHERE IN THERE.

>> WHEN WE ASKED IT REFLECT YOUR APPLICATION?

>> CORRECT.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WHETHER WHEN MR. MORRISON TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO WHETHER YOU WERE SIDELINED AT ALL?

DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE?

>> I WAS EXCLUDED OR DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIP TO UKRAINE MOBILE DEVELOPERS AT THE END OF AUGUST.

I WASN'T INITIALLY, BEFORE IT CHANGED FROM A POTUS TRIP I WASN'T PARTICIPATING IN THAT ONE.

EYE.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT?

>> WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT IT?

NO.

>> DID HE SAY YOU WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND?

>> HE DID NOT.

DID DOCTOR HILL OR MR. MORRISON EVER ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU WERE TRYING TO ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF YOUR LANE?

>> THEY DID NOT.

ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PORTFOLIO YOU WEREN'T APART OF WAS THE COMMUNICATIONS HE WAS HAVING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> CORRECT.

DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERNS HE WAS LEAVING YOU OFF THE CALLS?

>> CERTAINLY, IT WAS CONCERNING.

HE HAD JUST COMMON BOARD AND HE WASN'T STEEPED IN ALL OF THE ITEMS WE WERE WORKING ON INCLUDING THE POLICY WE DEVELOPED OVER THE PROCEEDING MONTHS.

I THOUGHT I COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.

>> YOU WENT TO THE UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION.

>> CORRECT.

DID THEY OFFER YOU POSITION OF DEFENSE MINISTER.

>> HE DID.

OW MANY TIMES?

I BELIEVE THREE TIMES.

DO YOU HAVE A REASON WHY HE ASKED YOU?

>> I DON'T KNOW, EVERY TIME I DISMISSED IT.

UPON RETURNING I NOTIFIED MY CHAIN OF COMMAND IN THE APPROPRIATE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE FOLKS ABOUT THE OFFER.

>> UKRAINE EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY MINISTER OF DEFENSE IS A KEY POSITION FOR THE UKRAINIANS.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BRISTOWED THAT HONOR ON YOU.

THAT WAS A BIG HONOR?

>> IT'S A GREAT HONOR AND I I AM AWARE OF SERVICE MEMBERS THAT LEFT SERVICE TO HELP NURTURE THE DEVELOPING DEMOCRACIES IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, CERTAINLY IN THE BALTICS.

THERE WAS A OFFICER THAT BECAME AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEFENSE.

I'M AN AMERICAN.

I CAME HERE WHEN I WAS A TODDLER AND I DISMISSED THE OFFERS.

I DIDN'T ENTERTAIN THEM.

>> WHEN ME MADE THE OFFER TO YOU INITIALLY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN.

WAS HE JUST TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU?

>> IF THE WHOLE NOTION IS COMIC CALL THAT S BEING ASKED.

I DIDN'T LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN AT ALL.

>> OKAY.

IT'S FUNNY FOR A LIEUTENANT CORONAL THAT'S NOT THAT SENIOR TO BE OFFERED THAT POSITION.

WHEN HE MADE THE OFFER WAS HE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH OR UKRAINIAN?

>> HE SPEAKS ENGLISH GREAT.

THERE WERE TWO OTHER OFFICERS THAT WERE SITTING NEXT TO ME WHEN THE OFFER WERE MADE.

>> WHO WERE THEY?

ONE OF THEM YOU MAY HAVE MET.

IT WAS MR. DAVID HOLMES.

THE OTHER ONE WAS, I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S ANOTHER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER KEITH BEAN.

>> WE MET MR. HOLMES LAST FRIDAY EVENING.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

DELIGHTFUL FELLOW.

>> YOU SAID WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES THEY HAD GIVEN YOU CLEARANCE WHEN THEY MAKE AN OVERTURE LIKE THAT.

>> I DIDN'T FULLY THINK ABOUT IT AS A SERIOUS OFFER.

>> KIDNEY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS DR. HILL AT THE TIME OR AMBASSADOR BOLTON FOLLOW UP ABOUT THAT.

>> THEY OFFERED YOU THE POSITION OF DEFENSE MINISTER.

>> I SPOKE TO THE DEPUTY -- OUR DEPUTY SENIOR DIRECTOR JOHN WAS THERE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION.

>> IT NEVER CAME UP AGAIN WITH DR. HILL.

>> I DON'T RECALL HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH DR. PEPPERMAN ABOUT IT.

>> DID YOU BRIEF DIRECTOR MORRISON WHEN HE CAME ONBOARD.

>> NO, I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT IT.

>> DID MR. LUKE ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER?

WAS THERE ANY OFFERS?

>> NO.

WHEN HE CAME TO VISIT DID IT COME UP AGAIN?

>> NEVER CAME UP AGAIN.

DID YOU THINK THIS MIGHT PRODUCE A CONFLICT THEY THOUGHT SO HIGHLY OF YOU TO GIVE YOU A POST.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINIAN POLICIES.

>> FRANKLY, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT MY AMERICAN LEADERSHIP CHAIN OF COMMAND THINKS THEN ANY OF THE -- THESE ARE HONORABLE PEOPLE.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MEANT IT AS A JOKE.

IT'S MORE IMPORTANT WHAT MY NATIONAL SECURITY CHAIN OF COMMAND THINKS MORE SO.

IF THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ME CONTINUING MY DUTIES THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION.

DOCTOR HILL STAYED ON FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND WE CONTINUED TO WORK TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY.

>> OKAY.

DURING THE RELEVANT TIME DID YOU HAVE ANYMORE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. Y ERMAK.

>> I RECEIVED CONTACT AND HE WANTED TO PRESERVE AN OPEN CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION AND I SAID FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH CONCERNS.

>> WERE YOU FOLLOWING THIS, THERE ARE TWO TRACKS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US THROUGH IT LAST WEDNESDAY.

THERE WAS A REGULAR CHANNEL AND HE CALLS ANOTHER ONE!

WERE YOU TRACKING THESE CHANNEL DURING THIS TIME PERIOD.

>> I'M TRYING TO RECALL PERSON WHEN I BECAME AWARE THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY INTERESTS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT HAD BEEN AGREED TO.

I DIDN'T LEARN, LIKE I SAID, UNTIL THE JULY 10th, ACTUALLY, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN EARLIER POINT.

I RECALL A MEETING IN WHICH THE AMBASSADOR HAD A MEETING THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHANNEL.

>> OKAY, I DIDN'T BECOME AWARE OF THESE PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING INVOLVED IN THE ALTERNATE TRACK UNTIL JULY .

>> OKAY, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION THAT MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS PROMOTING A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE.

THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTAND WITH ZELENSKY THERE WOULD BE A NEW DAY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE VOICES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT MET WITH HIM INCLUDING FOREIGN OFFICIALS.

>> TO THE EXTEND YOU ARE AWARE OF AMBASSADOR'S GOALS WERE HERE.

YOU THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO DO THE BEST THEY COULD AND ADVOCATE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE AND STILL BELIEVE.

>> MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI MIGHT HAVE HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS AND THOUGHT WE SHOULD CHANGE THE VIEWS?

>> I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO BRING HIM INTO THE TENT AND HAVE THEM KIND OF SUPPORT THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAD SETTLED ON.

>> AND YOU NEVER CONFERRED WITH MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI?

>> NO.

PHONE CALLS?

I KNOW HIM AS NEW YORK'S FINEST MAYOR.

>> AMERICA'S MAYOR.

DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS DURING THIS TIME WITH THE PRESIDENT?

>> I HAVE NEVER HAD CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMAN.

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE FIVE MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS.

ARE YOU GOOD TO GO OR NEED A BREAK?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK.

>> WE'LL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN MINUTE BREAK.

IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE AND MEMBERS TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST.

>> THE COMMIT COMMITTEE S TAKING THEIR FIRST BREAK.

PRIOR TO THAT SHE WAS AN ATTORNEY WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

ALSO JOINING US IS MARK.

HE WAS A REPUBLICAN STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE FROM 1995 TO 1997.

HE WAS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECTARY.

WELCOME BACK TO YOU ALL.

WE JUST NOW HEARD FROM TWO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

LIEUTENANT CORONAL VENDMAN.

LAST WEEK THE FOCUS ABOUT THE UKRAINE AND FOREIGN POLICY.

WHAT DID YOU TAKEAWAY FROM WHAT YOU HEARD?

>> WHAT WE EXPECTED FROM THE TOP TWO PEOPLE THAT LISTENED TO THE CALL EXPRESSING CONCERN.

WILLIAMS CALLED IT UNUSUAL IN CONTRAST TO OTHER CALLS IT INVOLVED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DOMESTIC POLITICS.

VINDMAN SAID I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL.

IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THEM TO DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION.

BOTH OF THEM TALKED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN EARLY JULY.

HOW MUCH COMMUNICATED ABOUT UKRAINE HAD TO DO BEFORE THEY COULD GET THE TWO THINGS THEY WANTED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND EVENTUALLY AID.

VINDMAN SAID AMBASSADOR SANDLAND MADE SAND MADE IT CLEAR THEY NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND THE BIDENS BEFORE THEY GET THAT MEETING.

THAT CAME OUT FROM THE EARLY PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY.

WE SAW AN EFFORT FROM THE REPUBLICANS TO GET TOWARDS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

WE HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME PUBLICLY THAT HE SPOKE TO A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WE KNOW THIS IS A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF STEPPED IN.

>> MARGARET TAYLOR THAT TIMELINE IS IMPORTANT.

THAT WAS ATTENTION EXCHANGE BETWEEN NUNES AND VINDMAN.

WHAT DID WE LEARN KNEW FROM THE TESTIMONY TODAY?

>> I DON'T THINK WE LEARNED A LOT THAT WAS NEW THAT WASN'T IN THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS.

WHAT WE DID SEE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE PERSONALITIES OF THESE TWO WITNESSES.

IT'S PRETTY EXTRA ORDINARY TO SEE THESE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO WORK AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN THE ADVISE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.

YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING TO PREFORM THE ROLE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN DETAILED.

THAT'S THEIR JOB.

IN MY VIEW WE SAW A PRETTY STRAIGHT PRESENTATION OF WHAT THESE WITNESSES KNEW.

THEY TRY TO BE PRETTY UP-FRONT AND STRAIGHT WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY AT THE END OF CORONAL VINDMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT WAS STRIKING AND SHOWS HIS PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN THE ISSUES AND WHAT HE'S DOING HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE.

>> THIS IS WHEN HE SPOKE TO HIS FATHER WHO BROUGHT HIM AND HIS BROTHER AS TODDLERS TO THE UNITED STATES FLEEING ANATOR TEARAN REGIME.

DOES THAT STRIKE YOU?

>> NOT REALLY, ACTUALLY, SHE DID EXPLAIN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS EXPLAINED MY BOSS WAS IN THE ROOM WITH ME.

GENERAL KELLY WAS IN THE ROOM WITH ME.

ALL OF THE PEOPLE I FELT NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT IT KNEW ABOUT IT.

IT SHOWS SHE WAS NOT LOOKING TO OUTSIDE ACT OUTSIDE R LANE.

SHE DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE ELSE ABOUT THE CALL.

SHE MADE SURE THE PEOPLE WHO NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT IT KNEW ABOUT IT.

CORONAL VINDMAN SAID HE WENT TO THE LAWYERS WHO HE FELT WAS THE RIGHT PLACE TO KNOW.

HE MADE PEOPLE AWARE HE THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE AWARE.

TWO PEOPLE, IT WOULD SEEM, INFORM PEOPLE THAT NEEDED TO BE INFORM AND TRY TO DO THEIR JOBS THE BEST WAY THEY COULD.

>> WE WILL SEE BOTH OF THEM COME BACK FOR ANOTHER ROUND OF QUESTIONING FROM MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE, WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST TAKEAWAY?

>> JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN SAID WE ARE CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS, WE DON'T TAKE SIDES.

THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT'S HOW THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS.

THEY BOTH STRESSED THAT'S THEIR JOB.

THE DEMOCRATS FOCUSED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WHAT WAS WRONG AND WHAT UPSET YOU.

THE REPUBLICANS FOCUSED ON BURIMSMA.

THEY TRIED TO PAINT THIS CORRUPTION GOVERNMENT.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T USE THAT TALKING POINT.

THE PRESIDENT IS FREE TO USE WHATEVER TALKING POINT HE WOULD LIKE.

THE STAFF DOES ONE THING AND SENIOR OFFICIALS DO SOMETHING ELSE.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU BECAUSE YOU FOCUS ON CIVIL MILITARY AFFAIRS.

IT'S REMARKABLE TO SEE A WITNESS LIKE CORONAL VINDMAN TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF REPORTING THINGS UP THE PROPER CHAIN OF COMMAND AND RESPECTING SENIOR LEADERS AND DISOBEYING AN ORDER FROM THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF TO BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING.

>> THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF SAID YOU WILL NOT TESTIFY.

HE FELT HIS HIGHER DUTY IS HE WENT THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

HE STRESSED TIME AND TIME AGAIN HE WASN'T GOING OUT OF CHANNEL.

THE MILITARY TAKES A DIFFERENT OATH OF OFFICE.

WE SWEAR TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONTUSION AND OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT.

THERE IS A CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT WRONGDOING.

HE HAS MULTIPLE CONCERNS AND HE ACTED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION AND STAYED INSIDE HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND.

THAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> ALICIA WAS IN THE ROOM.

SHE'S JOINING US LIVE NOW.

LISA, TO SOME DEGREE AS MARGARET MENTIONED A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY WAS KNOWN TO US FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.

TELL US WHAT IT WAS LIKE THERE AND WHAT YOU MADE FROM THE LINES OF QUESTIONING?

>>Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE WERE FEWER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

NOT AS LONG OF A WAIT TO GET IN THERE.

YOU COULD SENSE IN THE ROOM SORT OF NOW WE HAVE REACHED THE LONG GAME.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE PACING AND SLOWLY GOING ABOUT BUSINESS.

THEY ARE TRYING TO EKE OUT WHAT THEY WANT FROM THE WITNESSES.

WHAT STOOD OUT WAS THE REPUBLICANS DECISION TODAY TO NOT GO AFTER THIS MAINLY FROM THE WITNESSES.

THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PHONE CALL.

INSTEAD, TRY TO LOOK AT OTHER TOPICS THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP, ESPECIALLY SPEND TIME ON WHO WAS LEAKING THIS TO THE PRESS AND TALK ABOUT WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

ALSO IDEAS ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH UKRAINE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HIM.

I THINK IT'S A STRATEGY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WILL PLAY WITH THE PUBLIC.

IN THE ROOM IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY WERE GAINING GROUND BY MAKING THOSE POINTS.

ONE THING THAT COULD GET BLOCKED OVER AND WE MAY HERE MORE ABOUT COMING UP IS THE IDEA OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND IF HE WOULD ATTEND THE ZELENSKY INAUGURAL.

SHE WAS TOLD RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO ZELENSSY.

THEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT WAS CANCELED A FEW WEEKS LATER AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO A DIFFERENT FOREIGN LEADER.

THE PRIME MINISTER OF HUNGRY THAT WAS SEEN AS PRO RUSSIAN.

SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE MOTIVATION BUT THEY WILL TRY TO CONNECT DOTS AND SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE HUNG HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER.

>> FOR MORE ON THAT LET'S BRING IN A WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT JOINING US.

YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING ABOUT SOME OF THE WITNESSES WE HEARD FROM TODAY.

HIS NAME WAS INVOKED MORE FREQUENTLY TODAY.

THERE IS MORE CONNECTIONS ABOUT WHAT HE DID AND WHAT WE KNOW.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD TODAY?

>> THE REMARKABLE THING WE HEARD IS ALEXANDER VINDMAN GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S CHARACTER.

HE SAID, ANY SORT OF CHARACTER ATTACKS ON HONORABLE PEOPLE WERE BENEATH WHAT THE UNITED STATES' SHOULD BE ABOUT.

HE SAID WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS.

HE DIDN'T SAY THE PRESIDENT'S NAME IT WAS CLEAR HE WAS CONTRASTING HIMSELF AND PRAISING THESE OFFICIALS CURRENT AND FORMER.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD A DIRECT RESPONSE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BUT REHAVE SEEN THE OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT SAYING THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS.

THEY WILL HOLD A CABINET MEETING SOON HERE.

WE MIGHT HERE DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT.

HE HASN'T TWEETED ACCIDENTAL ACCIDENTAL ABOUT ALER VINDMAN OR JENNIFER WILLIAMS.

THEY WENT AFTER WHO COULD BE LEAKING TO THE MEDIA.

WHO DID YOU TALK TO?

DID YOU SPEAK TO ANY PERSON IN THE MEDIA.

THAT'S A KEY POINT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE SAID THESE PEOPLE WANT TO HURT HIS PRESIDENCY AND LEAK INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA TO GET HIM NOT ELECTED IN 2020.

IT WAS VERY REMARKABLE WHEN WE SAW THE LIEUTENANT CORONAL SAY I'M PROUD OF THOSE COMING BEFORE CONGRESS.

>> JUST AS A SAYING I'M PROUD OF THE PEOPLE COMING BEFORE CONGRESSMAN, AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE ATTACKED.

>> AND WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE ROOM, WHERE WITNESSES WILL BE TAKING ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

WE SEE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SETTLING BACK INTO HIS CHAIR.

WE'LL GO LIVE TO THAT ROOM, BUT TO MAKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED OF COURSE -- LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN SAYING WITH CLARITY WHAT I HEARD WAS IMPROPER, AND I REPORTED MY CONCERNS UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

IT WAS ONE OF THE CLEAREST WE'VE HEARD.

>> HE USED THE WORD INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER A HALF DOZEN TIMES ABOUT HIS OWN COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

IT'S SIGNIFICANT AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.

I WANT TO PICK UP ON A POINT.

WHERE THE REPUBLICANS WERE FOCUSED AS WELL.

BY MY ACCOUNT THERE WERE ACTUALLY FOUR POINTS THAT REPUBLICANS COULD HAVE SEIZED ON SUBSTANTIVELY THAT VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS BROUGHT UP THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED THEIR CAUSE.

VINDMAN SPECIFICALLY SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SAID STAY AWAY FROM DOMESTIC POLICIES.

THAT'S UNUSUAL FOR SOMEONE OF HIS LEVEL TO DO DIRECTLY.

AND VINDMAN ADMITTED HE'S NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT WAS A BIG POINT.

NUMBER 3, THE UKRANIAN NEVER TOLD VINDMAN THEY FELT PRESSURE TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND 4, THE CHANGE TO THE MEMO CALL OF JULY 25th.

HE SAID IT WASN'T SIGNIFICANT.

THOSE POINT WERE MADE BASICALLY IN PASSING.

REPUBLICANS DID NOT SEIZE ON THOSE OR USE THOSE TO TRY AND BOLSTER THEIR CASE, AND INSTEAD FOCUSED ON OTHER ISSUES.

>> LISA, ONE OF THOSE LINES OF QUESTIONING, THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL FOCUSED ON A BIT WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LT.

CONDITIONAL VINDMAN AND UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.

HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO TEASE OUT THE EXTENT OF THE CONVERSATIONS, AND A REFERENCE TO LT.

COLONEL OFFERED TO BE UKRANIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE.

>> THAT WAS A MOMENT WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE HEARING ROOM PERKED UP.

DID SHE JUST SAY HE WAS OFFERED THE POSITION OF MINISTER OF DEFENSE.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING?

IT'S HARD TO MAKE WHAT WAS THE STRATEGY THERE.

ALEXANDER VINDMAN WAS CLEAR IN SAYING HE WAS MADE THIS OFFER REPEATEDLY.

AT ONE POINT, I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS JOKING WITH ME.

VINDMAN SAID HE REPEATEDLY TURNED IT DOWN, AND AS REQUIRED HE REPORTED THAT OFFER TO HIS SUPERVISOR IMMEDIATELY.

WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY HE TURNED IT DOWN, VINDMAN HAD A VERY STRONG CLEAR RESPONSE.

HE SAID I'M AN AMERICAN.

HE KNEW IT WAS AN HONOR, AND NOTED OTHER OFFICIALS HAVE LEFT THAT POSITION TO GO AND HELP DEVELOPING COUNTRY, BUT HE SAID NO, I'M AN AMERICAN, AND I WANT TO STAY HERE.

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WITH A COUPLE OF E-MAILS ABOUT REPUBLICANS TRYING TO QUESTION VINDMAN'S LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY.

I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN THAT ROAD, NOT VERY FAR, AND VINDMAN SEEMED TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT'S A SIGN OF REPUBLICANS TIPTOEING DOWN AN AVENUE LEADING A CERTAIN WAY, BUT ONLY GOING SO FAR.

IT WAS FASCINATEING TO HEAR THAT.

IT'S SOMETHING YOU DON'T USUALLY H HEAR IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

I WANTED TO ASK YOU ANOTHER THING ABOUT HINTING ABOUT A DISCONNECT, AND A BATTLE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RELEASING THAT MILITARY AID THAT WE NOW KNOW WAS WITHHELD TO THE UKRAINE.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS LEARNED THAT OMB PLACED A HOLD ON IT, AND SHE WAS IN A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WHEN THERE WAS A BATTLE BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AID.

TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT BATTLE OVER THE AID.

>> IT SEEMS AS THOUGH NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS, PEOPLE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE UKRAINE AND U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONS THAT THEY WANTED THAT AID RELEASEED AND UNDERSTOOD IT WAS TO FIGHT RUSSIA, AND IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF UKRAINE.

BUT YOU HAD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SAYING I WANT TO WITHHOLD THIS AID, AND MAKE SURE I GET WHAT I WANT.

THAT'S THE CLAIM DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING.

THE QUID QUO PRO THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVE.

AND SAYING THE PRESIDENT WAS THE ESSENTIAL PSH WHO WANTED THAT AID HELD UP.

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON.

WE'RE GOING BACK LIVE IN THE HEARING ROOM.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU BOTH ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED BY MY COLLEAGUES IN THE MINORITY.

FIRST, IF I COULD ASK YOU, MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BY THE RANKING AT THE OUTSET.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT.

AND A RECITATION ABOUT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> MS. WILLIAMS YOU WERE ALSO ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE AND WHETHER HE COULD MAKE THE INAUGURATION, OR WAS THE PRESIDENT TRAVELING TO CANADA.

LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

THE PRESIDENT -- YOU WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO BEFORE HE EVEN KNEW THE STATE OF THE INAUGURATION.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO AT THE TIME HE WAS TOLD NOT TO GO THERE WAS NO CALCULATION ABOUT WHERE HE MIGHT BE OR WHERE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE BECAUSE THE DATE HADN'T BEEN SET YET, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE DATE HADN'T BEEN SET AND WE WERE WAYING DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHEN THE INAUGURATION MIGHT FALL.

>> YOU SAID ORIGINALLY THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO GO, AND THEN YOU RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WANTED HIM TO GO.

WERE YOU AWARE IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM TO GO AND NOT TELLING HIM TO GO AND RUDY GIULIANI WAS MAKING A TRIP TO UKRAINE?

>> I HAD SEEN THIS IN THE PRESIDENT.

>> AND R RUDY GIULIANI BLAMED THE PRESIDENT FOR HAVING TONESS CALE HIS TRIP?

>> I READ THAT, YES.

>> AND DID YOU READ THAT GIULIANI WANTED TO GO TO UKRAINE TO -- AS HE PUT IT, NOT MEDLE, BUT IT OCCURRED AROUND THE INAUGURATION.

YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS IN THE JULY 25th CALL.

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 TO BE PROPERLY CHARACTERED AS A DEMAND?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THAT?

>> IN MY MIND THERE WAS NOT.

>> IS IT ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT THAT THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED ZELENSKY FOR INTO 2016 AND THE BIDENS WERE WHY RUDY GIULIANI YOU WAS GOING FOR?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO WHILE YOU CAN SAY RUDY GIULIANI WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN, THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO EXACTLY THE SAME TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING ON HIS BEHALF.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MS. WILLIAMS YOU WERE ASK ABOUT THE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, IN WHICH THE UKRANIANS BROUGHT UP THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND YOU WERE ASKED WHETHER IN THAT MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE BIDENS AND BURISMA CAME UP, AND YOU SAID THEY DID NOT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

NOW THAT BILATERAL MEETING WAS A LARGE MEETING THAT INVOLVED TWO OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, WASN'T IT?

>> IT WAS.

>> SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T BRING UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

HE NEVER BROUGHT UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT MEETING BROKE UP AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE WENT OVER TO MR. YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP ADVISERS TO ZELENSKY AND TOLD YERMAK, IF THEY WANTED THE MILITARY AID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

>> I WASN'T AWARE OF S SIDE MEETINGS THAT IMPASSE SONDLAND HAD.

I ONLY LEARNED THAT THROUGH TESTIMONY.

>> SO DURING THE BIG PUBLIC MEETING IT DIDN'T COME UP, AND YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE PRIVATE MEETING AFTERWARDS CORRECT.

>> CORRECT, HE HAD A MEETING AFTERWARDS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT JULY 10th MEETING OR MEETINGS, THE ONE WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND THE ONE IN THE 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 AFTER FINISHED TALKING TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND AFTER HE WRAPPED UP WITH THE WARD ROOM, SHE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH HIM, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS ON YOUR OWN, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

>> BUT BOLTON ALSO THOUGHT THAT DR. HILL SHOULD GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS BECAUSE HIS CONCERN OVER THIS DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE COOKING UP, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> 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 ISSUE THAT PRA.ED YOU TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS, ENDS UP COMING UP IN THAT CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT?

THAT IS RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND IT WAS THAT CONVERSATION THAT ONCE AGAIN THAT BACKED YOU BACK TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING MEMBER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TOOK SEVEN MINUTES.

I ASSUME YOU'LL GIVE US EQUAL TIME?

>> YES.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN BEFORE I TURN TO MR. JORDAN, I ASKED MS. WILLIAMS IF SHE HAD EVER ACCESSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION YELLOW EMPLOYEES COMPUTER SYSTEM.

SHE ANSWERED NO TO THE QUESTION.

HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED ANYONE'S COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE NCS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION?

>> WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO.

>> KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION, YOU NEVER ACCESSED SOMEONE'S COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION?

>> CORRECT.

>> I THINK THE RANKING MEMBER.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY.

>> THIS AFTERNOON YOUR FORMER BOSS WAS SITTING WHERE YOU'RE SITTING, AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE.

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 ON MR. MORRISON.

MR. MORRISON SAID, I ASK CONCERNS ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT.

AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL, THE TEAM, STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND FIONA AND OTHERS RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT ALEX'S JUDGMENT.

WHEN ASKED MY ABOUT CASTOR, DID ANYONE BRING CONCERNS THAT COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED SOMETHING, MR. MORRISON REPLIED YES.

SO YOUR BOZ HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, YOUR COLLEAGUES HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FELT THAT THERE WERE TIMES THAT YOU LEAKED INFORMATION.

ANY IDEA WHY TAY HAVE THOSE IMPRESSIONS COLONEL VINDMAN.

>> YES, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN.

I'LL START BY READING DR. HILL'S OWN WORDS.

AS ATTESTED TO IN MY LAST EVALUATION MIDDLE OF JULY BEFORE SHE LEFT.

ALEX IS A TOP MILITARY OFFICER, AND THE BEST ARMY OFFICER I HAVE WORKED WITH IN 15 YEARS OF SERVICE.

HE'S BRILLIANT, UNFLAPABLE, AND EXERCISES EXCELLENT JUDGMENT.

>> SO -- >> EXEMPLARY DURING NUMEROUS VISITS.

I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA.

MR. MORRISON -- THIS IS DATED -- I'M SORRY.

JULY 13th.

SO, MR. JORDAN, I WOULD SAY, I CAN'T SAY WHAT -- WHY MR. MORRISON QUESTIONED MY JUDGMENT.

WE HAD ONLY RECENTLY STARTED WORKING TOGETHER.

HE WASN'T THERE VERY LONG, AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP.

MAYBE IT WAS DIFFERENT CULTURE.

>> AND YOU NEVER LEAKED INFORMATION?

>> I NEVER DID, NEVER WOULD.

THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS I WOULD DO THAT.

>> COLONEL, IT'S INTERESTING.

WE DEPOSED A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL, BUT ONLY THREE INDIVIDUALS WE DEPOSED WERE ACTUALLY ON THE FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THAT'S YOU, MS. WILLIAMS AND YOUR BOSS, MR. MORRISON WHO I JUST READ FROM HIS DEPOSITION.

WHEN HE ASKED MS. WILLIAMS ABOUT THE CALL, SHE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HER TO ANSWER.

WHEN WE ASKED MR. MORRISON, HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS, AND MR. SCHIFF -- CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

WHEN WE ASKED YOU, YOU FIRST TOLD US THREE INDIVIDUALS.

YOUR BROTHER, AND THE TWO LAWYERS.

AND THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS A GROUP OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH, BUT YOU WOULD ONLY GIVE US ONE INDIVIDUAL, SECRETARY KENLT, AND THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ONLY ALLOW YOU TO GIVE US THAT NAME.

SO I WANT TO KNOW FIRST, HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH OUTSIDE THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS I JUST NAMED.

>> MR. JORDAN, ON CALL READ OUT, CERTAINLY AFTER THE FIRST CALL, THERE WERE PROBABLY A HALF DOZEN OR MORE PEOPLE THAT READ OUT.

THOSE ARE PEOPLE WITH THE PROPER NEED TO KNOW.

IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE CALL, AND MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE.

I ONLY READ OUTSIDE OF THE NSC TO TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

>> AND YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO TELL US WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS.

>> POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

>> COUNSEL?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK YOU TO IMPORT THE RULE WITH REGARD TO THE DISCLOSURE WITH REGARD TO THE INTELLIGENCE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THIS COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THAT SAME -- >> TIME SO I DON'T LOSE THE TIME.

>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED AGAIN, MR. JORDAN.

>> I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THE WITNESS TESTIFIED HE DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER SAID.

YOU HAVE SAID EVEN THOUGH NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.

YOU SAID YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

SO HOW IS IT OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO FIND OUT WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS?

>> MR. JORDAN, THIS IS YOUR TIME FOR QUESTIONS.

YOUR QUESTIONING SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE WITNESS AND NOT TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN THERE'S ANOTHER THING MR. MORRISON SAID, HE SAID HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL, HE SAID THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ABOUT THE CALL, BUT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL LEAKING.

HE SAID THIS: HE WAS CONCERNED HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S POLARIZEED ENVIRONMENT, AND HOW THE CONTENTS WOULD BE USED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT.

>> EXCUSE ME, COULD I GET A PAGE.

>> MR. MORRISON WAUP RIGHT.

CALL LEAKS, WHISTLEBLOWER GOES TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF, AND THEN HE RUNS OFF TO THE SAME LAWYER WHO SAID IN JANUARY OF 2017, THE TWO HAVE STARTED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T COUNT ON.

THE ONE THING THEY DIDN'T COUNT OUT WAS THE PRESIDENT RELEASING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, AND LETTING US ALL SEE WHAT HE SAID.

THEY DIDN'T COUNT ON THAT.

THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO LINKAGE.

THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL BOTH SAID NO PUSHING OR PRESSURE OR SECURITY SYSTEMS TO AN INVESTIGATION.

MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, WE KNOW THAT COLONEL VINDMAN TALKED TO SEVERAL PEOPLE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THE CALL?

>> I DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CALL.

>> DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY?

>> NO.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. HINES.

>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER LT.

COLONEL'S PERFORMANCE RECORD INTO THE RECORD.

>> WOULD COLONEL VINDMAN LIKE US TO.

I LEAVE THAT TO YOU.

>> I GUESS WITH REDACTIONS.

IT WAS HAS A PII IN IT TO BE PROTECTED AND MAYBE ONLY THE ELEMENTS THAT WAS REL VANLT TO THE NARRATIVE.

>> DID YOU READ THE RELEVANT PORTIONS?

>> THAT WAS THE SHORT VERSION.

>> I'LL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST.

>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

>> MS. WILLIAMS YOU JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2006, CORRECT >> CORRECT.

>> PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WORKED AS A FIELD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN, AND HELD A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDER SECRETARY CHERTOFF IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER YOU SERVED TWO REPUBLICANS PRESIDENTS AND ONE DEMIN A VARIETY OF ROLES?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN POLICY ON EUROPE AND RUSSIA.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ON SUNDAY, THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY TARGETED YOU IN A TWEET AFTER HE TARGETED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DURING HER HEARING TESTIMONY.

I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU AND READ YOU THE TWEET.

>> TELL JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHOEVER THAT IS TO READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL, AND SEE THE JUST RELEASED STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE, AND THEN SHE SHOULD MEET WITH THE OTHER NEVER TRUMPERS WHO I DON'T KNOW AND NEVER HEARD OF AND WORK OUT A BETTER PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK.

ARE YOU ENGAGEED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK?

>> NO, SIR.

>> MS. WILLIAMS ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER?

>> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION.

>> WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF AS A NEVER TRUMPER?

>> NO.

>> DID THAT TWEET MAKE AN IMPRESSION ON YOU WHEN YOU READ IT?

>> IT CERTAINLY SURPRISED ME.

I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO BE CALLED OUT BY NAME.

>> SURPRISED ME TOO.

AND LOOKED LIKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND TAMPERING IN AN EFFORT TO GET YOU TO SHAPE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

>> LUTE COLONEL, YOU SAID YOU DEDICATED YOUR LIFE ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

ABOVE YOUR LEFT BREAST, YOU ARE WEARING A DEVICE WHICH IS A SPRING FIELD MUSKET ON A BLUE FIELD.

WHAT IS THAT DEVICE?

>> COMBAT INFANTRY BADGE >> HOW DO YOU GET THAT?

>> SERVING IN A BRID GADE AND TARKTICAL FIGHTING UNIT IN COMBAT.

>> UNDER FIRE?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU'RE ALSO WEARING A PURPLE HEART.

WHY ARE YOU WEARING A PURPLE HEART?

>> IN 2014 IN THE RAMP UP TO PROBABLY THE LARGEST URBAN OPERATIONS IN DECADES OUTSIDE OF FALLUJAH, WE WERE KUBLGTING A PATROL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARINES, AND MY VEHICLE WAS STRUCK AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE THAT PENETRATED ARMOR.

>> WERE YOU INJURED?

>> I WAS.

>> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, LT.

COLONEL, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED YOU A NEVER TRUMPER.

WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A NEVER TRUMPER?

>> REPRESENTATIVE, I'D CALL MYSELF NEVER PARTISAN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU SERVED UNDER FOUR PRESIDENTS, TWO DEMOCRATS AND TWO REPUBLICANS.

HAVE YOU EVER WAIVERED FROM THE OATH YOU TOOKT TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

>> NEVER.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE HERE TODAY?

>> NONE.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN, MULTIPLE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ROADING RUDY GIULIANI ACCUSED YOU OF HARBORING LOYALTY TOWARDS UKRAINE, AND MAKE THE ACCUSATIONS THAT YOUR FAMILY LIKE MANY EMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES.

AND ACCUSE YOU OF ESPIONAGE AND DUAL LOYALTIES.

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 A BROOKS BROTHER SUIT WAS DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE THE RIGHT WING MEDIA AN OPENING TO QUESTION YOUR LOYALTIES.

I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT.

THE KIND OF ATTACK -- THE KIND OF THING YOU SAY WHEN YOU'RE DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE.

WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ATTACK THE MEDIA THE WAY THE RANKING MEMBER ATTACKED THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT'S WHAT YOU STOOP TO WHEN THE CASE REQUIRES THAT YOU ATTACK A MAN WEARING A SPRINGFIELD RIFLE ON A FIELD OF BLUE ABOVE A PURPLE HEART.

I, SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> MR. CONAWAY.

>> I GIVE MY FIVE MINUTES TO.

>> IN A PRESS CONFERENCE, NANCY PELOSI SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED 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 ABOUT QUID QUO PRO ACCORDING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

BUT AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS BEGAN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID QUO PRO OR EVEN THAT QUID QUO PRO WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, WE SAW A SHIFT FROM THE DEMOCRATS.

THEY BRIEFLY STARTED TO REFER TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ON THE JULY 25th AS EXTORTION, AND NOW IT'S SHIFTED TO BRIBERY.

MS. WILLIAMS, YOU USED THE WORD UNUSUAL TO DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S CALL ON JULY 25th.

LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN YOU USED THE WORD INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER.

I WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS.

AND THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT.

MS. WILLIAMS YOU NEVER USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT, CORRECT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN'T EITHER?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IT'S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, AND BRIBERY IS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND NO WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT.

NONE OF THEM.

ON ALL THE THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, THESE ARE JUST THE 10 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 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED BRIBERY BEFORE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS ASKED BY MY COLLEAGUES, CONGRESSMAN STEWART LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO.

THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT DURING THE LAST SIX WEEKS IN ZERO.

>> IN FACT, IN THESE 3500 PAGES OF SWORN TESTIMONY IN THE 10 TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED THUS FAR.

THE WORD BRIBERY APPEARS IN THESE 3500 PAGES ONE TIME, AND IRONICALLY IT APPEARS NOT IN A DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT.

IT APPEARS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S ALLEGED CONDUCT.

THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO SAY WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE EVIDENCE ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR BRIBERY.

AND BECAUSE THERE'S MORE DEMOCRATS THAT 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'VE HEARD IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING, THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ASKING IF THE FACTS ARE THE SAME, WHY DO THE CRIMES THAT THE PRESIDENT ARE ACCUSED OF KEEP CHANGING.

FROM WID QUID QUO PRO TO EXTORT AND NOW BRIBERY.

THE ANSWER IS POLLING.

WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED AMERICANS WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST DAMNING ACCUSATION, AND IT DIDN'T COME BACK QUID QUO PRO OR EXTORTION.

IT CAME BACK BRIBERY.

SO THE CASE IS ABOUT BRIBERY.

IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE FORBID FOUR LAWYERS FROM BEING IN THE PROCEEDING.

IT'S WORSE TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST AN ACCUSATION THAT KEEPS CHANGING IN THE PROCEEDING.

IF THE DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIMES, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD KNOW.

>> AND SPEAKER PELOSI HAS PROMISED UP EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY THAT'S OVERWHELMING.

INSTEAD, IT'S INVISIBLE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THANKING BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR SERVICE.

LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN, AS PART OF YOUR POLICY PORTFOLIO IN THE WHITE HOW YOU MAINTAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRANIAN OFFICIALS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU EXPLAINED EARLIER IN TESTIMONY THAT YOUR JOB IN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IT IS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES POLICY VIS-A-VIS UKRAINE, CORRECT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT UKRANIAN OFFICIALS BEGAN ASKING YOU, QUOTE, ADVICE ON HOW TO RESPOND TO MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES, END QUOTE.

IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY MEANT BY MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN BOTH HIS PUBLIC COMMENTARY PUBLICLY CALLING FOR INVESTIGATIONS IN 2016 OF BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN AND 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?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> DID THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS UNDERSTAND THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS TELLING THEM TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON, AND DEBUNK THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN.

>> DO YOU THINK THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS YOU SPOKE TO UNDERSTOOD THE UNDERLYING MEANING OF MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES TO BE BOTH INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS AS WELL AS DEBUNKING THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

>> YES.

TO BE CLEAR, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO DEBUNKING, THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE?

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND SAYING IT WAS THE UKRANIANS.

>> EXACTLY.

WAS THIS OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO PUSH FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS?

>> IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY PROCESS I PARTICIPATED IN.

>> MS. WILLIAMS DO YOU AGREE THAT PRESSING THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL U.S. UKRAINE POLICY?

>> OBVIOUSLY, ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM IS A BIG PART OF OUR POLICY.

I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> COLONEL, IS IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT ON THE CALL ON JULY 25th TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IN FAT, MR. GIULIANI HAD MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT HE'S 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, AND TO TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENS.

HE ADDS THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT AND MAY TURN OUT TO BE HFLFUL TO MY GOVERNMENT, END QUOTE.

>> COLONEL IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT UKRANIAN OFFICIALS THAT YOU IN CONTACT WITH GIVEN YOUR PORTFOLIO, WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES?

>> YES, THEY WERE.

>> DID THEY UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE REQUESTS BEING ASKED OF THEM?

>> I BELIEVE THEY DID.

>> DID THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS AFFECTING U.S.

DOMESTIC POLICY?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY FRANKLY UNDERSTOOD ABOUT -- I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS, YES.

>> YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU WARNED THE UKRANIANS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN U.S.

DOMESTIC POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I COUNSELED THEM.

>> IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THEY -- THAT YOU FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT YOU WERE EXPOUNDING NOT JUST WA 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. POLICIES.

>> 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 THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016, AND THE IMPACT THAT HAD ON INTERNAL POLITICS.

THE ADMINISTRATION ENFORCED HEAVY SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR THEIR INTERFERENCE.

THAT WOULD NOT BE IN U.S. POLICY -- >> I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

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.

IT CERTAINLY WAS -- DIDN'T HELP ADVANCE THE U.S.

INTERESTS.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> M >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE.

AND IT'S HELPFUL IN INFORMING POLICY ABOUT BOTH THE ALLYS AND TO TRY AND COUNTER THOSE WHO ARE NOT OUR ALLIES.

I THINK WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN POLICY AND THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

MS. WILLIAMS, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE -- YOU SAID IT'S PART OF YOUR PORTFOLIO TO ADVISE THE VICE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND MR. VINDMAN YOU SAY YOU ARE THE PRINCIPLE ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE, AND YOU COORDINATE POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CONGRESSMAN, IN THIS STATEMENT I ISSUED THIS MORNING, I'D EASE THAT BACK.

I TOOK THAT OFF MY JOB DESCRIPTION, BUT I CERTAINLY MUCH MORE TIME ADVISING THE AMBASSADOR THAN I DID THE PRESIDENT.

>> BUT IT'S YOUR STATEMENT AS YOU SUBMITED AND SAID AT THE NSC I AM THE PRINCIPLE ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAD IN THERE YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS DRAFTING IT, BUT I CHOSE TO EASE BACK ON THE LANGUAGE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN MY EVALUATION.

>> 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.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW UKRAINE, YOU KNOW WE WORK THROUGH ALLYS AND MULTILATERAL RELATIONS THAT UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING MEMBER OF THE EU AND NATO, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU KNOW THE EU AND THE NATO HAVE OFFICES IN UKRAINE AND TRY TO ADVANCE OUR POLICIES WITH THE EU AND NATO.

YOU WOULD AGREE THAT OUR XWAxá*TIONS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVANCING OUR POLICY INTERESTS WITH UKRAINE AT THE EU AND AT NATO, RIGHT MS. WILLIAMS?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND UKRAINE THAT WOULD FALL TO XWAxá*LS HUTCHINSON AND BETWEEN THE EU AND UKRAINE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE AN AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE AS WELL.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WOULD AGREE?

>> I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS.

>> LT.

COLONEL, YOU SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI PROMOTE THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT UNDER MINED POLICY.

HAVE YOU EVER MET MR. GIULIANI?

>> I SAID FALSE NARRATIVE, BUT I HAVEN'T MET HIM.

>> YOU EVER NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT UKRAINE OR BEEN IN A MEETING WITH HIM TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE?

>> NO.

JUST HIS COMMENTS ON TV AND NEWS.

>> AND SIMILARLY, YOU NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO YOU EVER NEVER ADVISED THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE?

>> I ADVISED INDIRECTLY AND MADE PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALLS.

>> BUT YOU'VE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT AND ADVISED HIM ON UKRAINE?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU SAID I ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SECRETARY PERRY, FOLLOWING THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS FOR A BRIEFING.

YOU WERE A MEMBER, BUT YOU WEREN'T IN THAT MEETING, WERE YOU?

>> CORRECT.

>> JUST A NOTE THERE THAT THAT MEETING OCCURRED WITHOUT YOU.

YOU DO KNOW THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE THE APPROXIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> I DO.

>> NOW YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING U.S. UKRANIAN POLICY?

>> CORRECT.

>> DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO REPORT TO YOU?

>> HE DOES NOT.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER?

>> HE DOES NOT.

>> AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, NATO ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPE, ANYONE AT DOD REPORT TO YOU.

>> AT MY LEVEL I CONVENE WITH A SUBPOLICY COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

I CHAIR THOSE MEETINGS.

>> DOES NIBBLE NEED YOUR APPROVAL IN A ROLE ON UKRANIAN POLICY AND SEEK YOUR APPROVAL?

>> ACCORDING TO THE NSC, AND THE POLICY FOR THE PRESIDENT IT'S COORDINATED BY THE NSC.

>> MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS TESTIFIED AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRYY, EITHER IN SECRET OR IN PUBLIC HAS EITHER PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> I HAVEN'T READ THE TESTIMONIES.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES?

>> NO, I HAVEN'T READ THEM.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CARSON.

>> I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT CLEAR FOR FOLKS WATCHING THE HEARING TODAY.

BRIBERY DOES INVOLVED A QUID QUO PRO.

BRIBERY INVOLVES THE CONDITIONING OF AN OFFICIAL FACT WITH SOMETHING OF VALUE.

AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

IT MAY BE 400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID.

SOMETHING OF A VALUE TO THE PRESIDENT GAINS A POLITICAL RIVAL.

THE REASON WE DON'T ASK WITNESSES WHO ARE FACT WITNESSES TO MAKE A JUDGMENT WHETHER A CRIME OF BRIBERY HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR SIGNIFICANTLY 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.

ALSO YOUR NOT AWARE OF ALL THE OTHER FACTS DEDUCEED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.

I FIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> COLONEL VIRN VIN YOU WERE IN A JULY MEETING AT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S MEETING IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I'M SORRY AGAIN?

>> YOU WERE IN A JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE UKRANIAN ASKED WHEN THEY WOULD GET THEIR OVAL OFFICE MEETING, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THEY NEED TO QUOTE SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE DELIVERING SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, END QUOTE.

IS THAT IS CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN DID YOU LEARN WHY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT?

>> I DID.

>> AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENDED THAT MEETING, SOME OF THE GROUP THAT ATTENDED FOLLOW ON MEETING IN A DIFFERENT ROOM IN THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED THE WARD ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IMPASSE SONDLAND WAS THERE WITH THE SENIOR UKRANIAN OFFICIALS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> DID ANY OF THE LAWYERS TELL YOU TO COME DIRECTLY TO THEM IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS AFTER JULY 10th?

>> THEY SAID WORDS TO THE EFFECT, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS, FEEL FREE TO COME BACK.

>> IN THIS FOLLOW ON MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEFT 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.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IN COORDINATION WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY.

>> COLONEL IN YOUR CAREER, HAVE YOU EVER BEFORE WITNESSED AN AMERICAN OFFICIAL REQUEST THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE AN U.S. CITIZENS 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 SORRYY, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN.

I APOLOGIZE.

>> YOU RAISED CONCERNS?

CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND I STATED THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

>> DID YOU ALSO RAISE CONCERNS THAT DAY WITH WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS?

>> I DID.

>> WHAT DID YOU TELL THEM?

>> I REPORTED THE SAME THING.

I REPORTED THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

AT THAT POINT, I WASN'T AWARE THAT DR. HILL HAD HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR.

I RELATED WHAT I EXPERIENCED TO THE ATTORNEY >> YIELD TO COUNSEL >> AS YOU'RE AWARE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INSTRUCTED DR. FIONA HILL TO ALSO MEET WITH THE SAME WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS TO TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED.

COLONEL VINDMAN THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

BUT THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

IN MY VIEW, SIR, THAT'S APPALLING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT AS WELL, WHEN THE MATTER DOES MOVE TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND COUNSEL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

I NOW TURN TO DR. WINSTUP.

>> I APPRECIATE THE SACRIFICE YOU MADE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME IN IRAQ, AND I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

YOU DEFINITION THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

YOU WERE TO REPORT MR. DR. FIONA HILL, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHEN YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL, YOU DIDN'T GO TO MR. MORRISON ABOUT THAT, DID YOU?

>> I WENT TO THE LEGAL COUNSEL.

>> THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

>> I REPORTED TO MR. MORRISON.

>> AND HE DIDN'T -- I'LL GET INTO THAT.

>> ALLOW THE WITNESS TO FINISH.

ARE YOU FINISHED REQUEST YOUR ANSWER?

>> YES.

>> IN THE MORRISON DEPOSITION ON PAGE 58 TO 60, THE QUESTION WAS, DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WENT TO EXPRESS CONCERNS, AND THE ANSWER WAS, I LEARNED BASED ON TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, BASEED ON OPEN SOURCE REPORTING WHICH I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT OTHERS RAISED CONCERNS.

>> QUESTION, WHO?

>> BASED ON OPEN SOURCE, ALEX VINDMAN ON MY STAFF.

QUESTION THEN.

AND HE REPORTS TO YOU, CORRECT?

>> ANSWER: HE DOES, HE REPORTS WITH MR. MORRISON, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN ON PAGE 96 THE QUESTION WAS, AFTER THE CALL ON 7/25, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORMON ABOUT YOUR CONCERN.

>> PER THE EXERCISE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, I FOLLOWED WENT TO SEE LEGAL COUNSEL AND SHARED SO CONCERNS, CORRECT.

>> MY LAWYER WAS TALKING, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT.

>> YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG.

YOU'RE NOT A JAG OFFICER OR A LAWYER.

AND ON PAGE 153 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, IN REFERENCE TO THAT MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, YOU SAID I WAS NOT MAKING A LEGAL JUDGMENT.

I WAS ONLY SHARING CONCERNS WITH MY CHAIN OF COMMAND.

YET WE'VE ESTABLISHED YOUR DIRECT REPORT IS TO MR. MORRISON.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 200 AND 201, YOU WOULD SAY I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE AND THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE.

AND I'M HERE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE THAT CAN ADVISE THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE?

ISN'T SOMEONE LIKE MS. WILLIAMS ALSO ADVISE?

>> THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

>> IF 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 AND CONTEXT AND SO FORTH SURROUNDING THESE ISSUES.

I ON MY YMENT WENT, AND WHEN I THINK TO ME IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE, AND I ANSWER THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND.

ON PAGE 259, YOU SAID I REPORTED THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND THE SENIORS DECIDE THE ACTIONS TO TAKE.

MR. MORE MORRISON IS YOUR SENIO.

MR. SOR SON, AT WHAT POINT DID THE LT.

CONDITIONAL GO TO MR. IETZ BERG ABOUT THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

THE ANSWER WAS YES.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, SO MR. EISENBERG NEVER CAME TO YOU IN RELATION TO THE CONVERSATION?

>> NO.

>> AND OTHERS DIDN'T EITHER?

>> NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

>> SO MR. MORRISON WAS SKIPED IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT YOUR OTHER CONCERNS?

MR. MORRISON SAID HE'S THE FINAL CLEARING AUTHORITY.

DO YOU REMEMBER IF ALL OF THESE EDITS WERE INCORPORATED AND HE SAID YES, I ACCEPTED IT.

>> AND THAT'S ON PAGE 61 AND 62.

IN YOUR EDITS DO YOU INSIST THAT THE WORD DEMAND BE PUT IN THE TRANSCRIPTION DWN THE CONVERSATION OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS?

>> I DID NOT.

>> BUT YOU DID SAY THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY.

THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.

>> THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR SERVICE.

COLONEL VINDMAN, WASN'T IT THE CASE THAT MR. EISENBERG, THE ATTORNEY SAID TO YOU AFTER THE JULY 5th MEETING THAT YOU SHOULD COME TO HIM IN YOU HAVE OTHER CONCERNS?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND IT IS NOT GOING OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO SPEAK TO A LAWYER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO.

HE IS THE SENIOR BETWEEN THE TWO, CERTAINLY.

>> OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHER WITNESS HAVING ONLY SECOND HAND INFORMATION, BUT IF BOTH OF YOUR CASES, YOU HAVE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOW, COLONEL, YOU IN YOUR COMMENTS TODAY SAID I.

TO STATE THAT THE VILE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVANTS IS REPREHENSIBLE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THAT AT ALL?

>> I THINK THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN.

I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO EXPAND ON IT.

>> SO IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS, SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN DEPOSITIONS AND THEY'VE BEEN MADE PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE JOBS CHANGE OR HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?

>> I HAVE NOT, NO.

>> INS IS THE REPORT ON THE JULY 25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE THAT I WAS BEING TREATED FROM SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY POSITION.

>> IN SOME RESPECTS THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN MAKE THAT JUDGMENT.

I CAN SAY IT WAS OUT OF THE COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THESE.

>> THANK YOU.

IN PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IT'S STANDARD FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL 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 COUNSEL'S DIRECTOR.

DID YOU PREPARE THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL?

>> I DID PREPARE THEM.

>> THEY WERE PREPARED AND EDITED BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT THE NSC?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

DID IT INCLUDE ANY POINTS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE THE BIDENS OR BURISMA?

>> THEY DID NOT >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN PRODUCT FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL SUGGESTING THAT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS THE BIDENS OR BURISMA ARE OTHER PA OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> NO, I'M NOT.

>> SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLIES SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS FOR OFFICIAL POLICY REASONS AS A 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 TO DO THAT.

CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE NSC OR A DIRECTOR AT THE NSC WOULD DO.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM BEING INVOLVED IN ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND A FOREIGN POWER TO ENSURE MANIPULATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE PARTICIPATE IN.

>> MS. WILLIAMS DID THE OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS?

>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THE FORMULATION PROCESS.

>> LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU, LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN THAT IN LISTENING TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, I HAD CHILLS UP AND DOWN MY SPINE.

I THINK MOST AMERICANS RECOGNIZE WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY HERO YOU ARE TO OUR COUNTRY, AND I WOULD SAY TO YOUR FATHER HE DID WELL.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. STEWART?

>> THANK YOU.

MS. WILLIAMS AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

I SEE YOU'RE WEARING YOUR DRESS UNIFORM.

DO YOU NORMALLY WEAR A SUIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

IT'S A REMINDER OF YOUR GREAT MILITARY SERVICE.

I TOO COME FROM A MILITARY FAMILY.

MY FATHER WAS A PILOT IN WORLD WAR II, AND FIVE OF HIS SONS SERVED IN THE MILITARY.

THANK YOU YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS FOR SERVICE.

YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE HERE.

I'M CURIOUS WHEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES REFERRED TO YOU AS MR. VINDMAN YOU CORRECTED HIM, AND YOU ASKED HE CALL YOU LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN.

DO YOU ALWAYS INSIST CIVILIANS CALL YOU BY YOUR RANK?

>> I'M IN UNIFORM WEARING MY MILITARY RANK.

I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO STICK WITH THAT.

I DON'T BELIEVE -- THE ATTACKS THAT I'VE HAD IN THE PRESS, AND IN TWITTER HAVE KIND OF ELIMINATED THE FACT AND MARGINALIZED ME AS A MILITARY OFFICER.

>> LISTEN, I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT THE RANKING MEMBER MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO YOU?

>> I >> MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BETWEEN THE DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE WORDS FAVOR, AND THIS DETERMINED AS A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

AND YOUR INTERPRETATION, YOU SAID, IN THE MILITARY CULTURE WHICH YOU AND I ARE BOTH ENEMY WITH WHEN A SUPERIOR OFFICER ASKS AS A FAVOR, TO A SUBORDINATE THEY INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND.

IS THAT A FAIR SYNOPSIS.

>> WHEN A SUPERIOR MAKES A Q THAT'S AN ORDER.

>> SO YOU'RE INTERPRETATION OF A FAVOR AS A DEMAND IS BASED ON MILITARY CULTURE.

>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IS PRESIDENT TRUMP A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY?

>> HE IS NOT.

>> HAS HAS HE SERVED IN THE MILITARY?

>> I RNG NOT.

>> IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY?

>> I THINK NOT.

>> HE IS NOT.

SO IS IT FAIR TO TAKE A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND YOUR RE-EVALUATION BAILSED ON YOUR MILITARY CULTURE AND ATAxá*CH THAT CULTURE AND MEANING OF THOSE WORDS WHO SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER SERVED?

>> REPRESENTATIVE, I MADE THAT JUDGMENT AND STICK BY THAT JUDGMENT.

>> 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.

I THINK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID AS WELL.

HE NEVER NRNTED AN INVESTIGATION.

IN FACT HE'S CLEAR.

HE SAID I NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE AT ALL.

SO YOU INTERPRETED THE WORD FAVOR, BUT THE TWO PEOPLE 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.

>> THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL.

THAT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL.

YOU SAID 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 DISCUSS YOUR REACTION TO THE PHONE CALL AND PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.

AND FOR BREVITY, AND FOR CLARITY, I'M GOING TO REFER TO YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.

YOUR ATTORNEY IS WELCOME TO FOLLOW ALONG.

ACCORDING TO YOU COLONEL VINDMAN.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A CRIME OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

I WATT IT WAS WRONG.

I KEY ON THE WORD WRONG, BECAUSE WE'RE COMING BACK TO THAT.

IN MY MIND I CONSIDERED OTHER FACTORS, YES, BUT IT WASN'T THE BASIS OF LODGING A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT POLICY CONCERNS AND MORAL AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS.

SO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE PHONE CALL WERE NOT LEGAL.

THEY WERE BASED ON MORAL, ETHICAL AND POLICY DIFFERENCES.

LET ME ASK YOU, YOU SAID THIS WAS WRONG, NOT ILLEGAL, BUT WRONG.

THERE ARE, AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY SITTING HERE A COUPLE DAVES AGO, THERE ARE DOZENS OF CORRUPT NATIONS IN THE WORLD.

HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

DID A VICE PRESIDENT GO TO A NATION AND DEMAND THE SPECIFIC FIRING OF ONE INDIVIDUAL, AND GIVE A SIX HOUR TIME LIMIT AND THREATEN TO WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN AID.

IT WAS IN REFERENCE TO A PAYMENT TO HIS SON.

>> WAS THAT WRONG?

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

>> DID YOU SEE THE VIDEO?

>> I'VE SEEN THE VIDEO.

THAT'S ALL I DESCRIBED WAS THE VIDEO.

IT'S ALL IN THE VIDEO.

WAS THAT WRONG AS WELL?

>> CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS SOMETHING -- >> I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -- >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> THE TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN EXPIRED.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT INCIDENT.

I SAW THE SNIPPET OF A VIDEO.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT OFF OF THAT.

>> MR. QUIGLEY.

>> THAUFRNGT, CHAIRMAN.

COLONEL, IT'S ONE THING TO ASK A FAVOR LIKE, GO PICK UP MY DRY CLEANING.

IT'S ANOTHER WHEN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL ARMY IN THE WORLDS ASK AN ALLY WHO IS 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 THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS HELD UP, THE NEARLY $400 MILLION REFERENCED?

>> JULY 3rd.

>> WERE YOU AWARE OF ADDITIONAL OR DID YOU ATTEND ADDITIONAL MEETING IN WHICH THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WITHHELD WAS DISCUSSED?

>> I DID.

I ATTENDED ON JULY 23rd AND JULY 26th WHERE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS DISCUSSED.

AND ALSO 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 HELD AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF.

>> AND DID THEY GIVE REASONS WHY IT WAS WITHHELD YAUNLD 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 FUNDINGS FROM CONGRESS DESIGNATED FOR UKRAINE WOULD BE RESOLVED IF THE FUNDING CONTINUEED TO BE HELD AS WE APPROACHED THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

>> 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 WITHHELD?

>> ON OR ABOUT JULY 3rd.

>> AND WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT PROMPTED YOU TO DRAFT A NOTICE ON JULY 3rd.

>> ON OR ABOUT JUL 3, I BECAME AWARE OF SECURITY.

STATE DEPARTMENT, AND DOD, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THAT DATE THAT OMB PUT A HOLD ON CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.

>> DID YOU HAD ANY EARLIER INDICATIONS THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE CASE?

>> PRIOR TO THAT, NR 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 IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY WHO SUPPORTED WITHHOLDING THE AID?

>> NO.

>> NO ONE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY?

>> NONE.

>> NO ONE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

>> CORRECT.

>> NO ONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND ANYONE TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING RAISE THE LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE?

>> IT WAS RAISED ON SEVERAL OICATIONSS.

>> WHO RAISED THOSE CONCERNS?

>> SO JULYING THE JULY 18th SUB PCC WHICH IS WHAT I COORDINATE AT MY LEVEL.

TLFLS A JULY 23rd PCC THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY MR. MORRISON.

THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD OVER.

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 LEGAL TO PUT THE HOLD.

>> EXCUSE ME?

>> THERE WAS A LEGAL OPINION -- OPINION RENDERED THAT WAS THE HOLD WAS LEGAL.

>> FROM A PURELY LEGAL POINT OF VIEW?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU.

MISS STEFANIK.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU BOTH YR YOUR SERVICE.

AS MILLIONS OF AMERICA ARE WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE HYSTERIA MEDIA COVERAGE, TWO KEY FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT ARE CRITICAL.

ONE, THE ACCOUNT UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID, AND TWO, NO INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

>> SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION TO UKRAINE, AND AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRES ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS, AND THREE, WHO WHY OR GOVERNMENTS HAD THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO FERN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PARTIES.

ON CORRUPTION IN, CRANE, AS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED, ONE OF THE KEY REASONS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED BY THE UKRANIAN PEOPLE IS THEY WERE STANDING UP TO CORRUPTION IN THE COUNTRY.

WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> YES.

>> AND MS. WILLIAMS, CORRUPTION WA SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WHEN YOU PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR HIS CONGRATULATE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TESTIFIED THE IMPORTANT POINTS WERE WERE THE FOLLOWING?

LOOKING FORWARD TO IMPLEMENTING THE AGENDA HE RAN ON, RELATED TO CORRUPTION REFORM?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A CRITICAL PART OF OUR POLICY WITH UKRAINE?

>> I WOULD.

>> AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN YOU WERE AWARE DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE FIRST INVESTIGATION BETWEEN THE UKRAINE WAS THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY OF BURISMA?

>> I'M AWARE NOW.

>> AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN YOU WERE AWARE THAT BURISMA HAD QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALINGS?

>> CORRECT.

AND YOU TESTIFIED AS FAR AS BURISMA MONEY LAUNDERING AND TAX EVASION COMPORTS WITH HOW THE BUSINESS IS DONE IN UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBLE FOR BURISMA.

>> THAT'S IN YOUR TESTIMONY.

YOU'RE AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN DID SIT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA AT THIS TIME?

>> I KNOW THAT MY CONSTITUENTS IN NEW YORK HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE SON OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT COMPANY, BURISMA.

THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ALSO, AND THEY REFUSE TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN.

EVERY WITNESS TESTIFIED ANSWERED YES.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR PAERNTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

>> YES.

>> AND MS. WILLIAMS?

>> YES.

AND SHIFTED TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR AID TO UKRAINE IS ON CORRUPTION.

AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CONGRESS PASSED AN INITIATIVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS BEING ADDRSED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT IT'S REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING YEAR NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP FOCUSING ON ANTI-CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, BUT IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT HARD EARNED TAXPAYER DOLLARS GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS THAT BY LAW, OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT REQUIRES ANTI-CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN ORDER TO GET U.S.

TAXPAYER FUNDED AID.

LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFENSE TO UKRAINE, SPECIFICALLY JAVELINS.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE JAVELIN IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN INFLUENCING THE RUSSIAN CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS WE HAVE PROVIDEING DEFENSIVE AID?

>> THE DEFENSE, IT IS IMPORTANT, YES.

>> AND IT'S A FACT THAT THAT AID WAS PROVIDEED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND NOT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND I KNOW YOU SERVE AT THE NSC AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

I SERVED IN THE WEST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH, AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S OFFICE, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICY PROCESS.

AND I KNOW AS A STAFF MEMBER, THE PERSON WHO SETS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT PRESIDENT AND NOT THE STAFF.

AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY.

>> CORRECT, AND I RESPECT YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

WE CAN NEVER REPAY THOSE WHO WORE THE MILITARY UNIFORM AND SERVED OUR NATION.

BUT I WAS STRUCK WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN DEPOSITION.

I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL I'M THE DIRECTSOR FOR UKRAINE, AND THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, AND I'M THE AUTHORITY FOR UKRAINE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION.

YOU REPORT TO TIM MORRISON, CORRECT?

>> IN MY -- TO CLARIFY, ONLY IN MY ADVISORY CAPACITY, IT ADVISE UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF XHABD.

THAT'S WHAT >> AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS TO TIM MORRISON, AND JOHN BOLTON, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND DO YOU AGREE THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICIES?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU.

MY TIME IS EXPIRED >> MR. SEWELL?

>> THANK YOU.

I THINK THE FOLLOW-UP -- ISN'T IT TRUE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THAT THE ANTI-CORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS FOR UKRAINE HAD MET WHEN THE HOLD WAS PUT ON BY THE PRESIDENT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW, MR. JORDAN SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING NONE OF US EXPECTED BY RELEASING THAT CALL TRANSCRIPT?

>> YOU LISTENED TO THE CALLS I THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

AND MS. WILLIAMS YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL?

>> YES.

>> FAIR TO SAY A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE LISTENED 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 WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL OR SAW THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, AND THEN RERELEASED IT.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS, AND THE ONE ON ONE HEATINGS IN HELSINKI, HE TOOK THE NOTES AND NO ONE COULD SEE IT.

THE PRESIDENT HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE THE CALL.

>> AND YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO CHARACTERIZE LEGALLY WHAT ALL OF THIS MEANS.

AND MR. RATCLIFF POINTED OUT NO ONE USED THE TERM BRIBERY IN THE DEPOSITION.

AND MS. WILLIAMS YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER?

>> NO, I'M NOT.

AND COLONEL VINDMAN?

>> NO, MY BROTHER.

>> AND BORN DWENLT SECONDS AFTER YOU?

>> NINE MINUTES.

>> AND 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 TO TELL US WHAT HAPPENED, AND THE VICTIM SAYS SOMEONE CAME UP TO THE CAR, HIT ME IN THE SHOULDER, HIT ME IN THE BACK AND NECK, AND MIRACULOUSLY, I SURVIVED, AND I CAN CAN'T WHO THE PERSON IS WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER.

AND THE POLICE SAY YOU WERE SHOT UYOU KNOW WHO IT IS, BUT SHUCKS, YOU DIDN'T TELL US THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED MURDER.

SO WE HAVE TO LET THE PERSON GO.

IS THAT HOW IT WORKS IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, THAT UNLESS VICTIMS OR WITNESSES IDENTIFY THE LEGAL THEORIES OFA I CASE WE LET PEOPLE OFF THE VICTIM?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> I DON'T THINK YOUR BROTHER WOULD THINK SO EITHER.

>> MS. WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DESCRIBED TO OUR COMMITTEE AS A VORACIOUS READER OF THE INTELLIGENCE READ BOOK.

AFTER THE APRIL 21st CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU PUT A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL INTO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S BRIEF BOOK, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> 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 FAITHFULLY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IN THE CALL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I BELIEVE THE 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 HAS DONE SO, STHARTD?

>> HE HAS ON AICATION.

IT'S NOTA I NORMAL PRACTICE.

IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.

>> IN THAT CASE HE STUCK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TALKING POINTS?

>> I PROVIDE THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 23rd PHONE CALL WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHICH INCLUDE THE THE DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.

I WOULD SAY THE W VICE PRESIDEN DISCUSSED OTHER ISSUES >> AND THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND YOU TOLD US AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, YOU PUT THE CALL TRANSCRIPT IN VICE PRESIDENT'S BRIEFING IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I ENSURED IT WAS THERE.

THE COLLEAGUES PREPARED IT.

>> FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 21.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU'RE THERE?

>> YES.

>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, BUT YOU WILL AGREE THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DIDN'T BRING UP THE BIDENS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

HE DID NOT.

>> HE DIDN'T BRING UP THE INVESTIGATION?

>> NO.

IS A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION IS THAT ALTHOUGH VICE PRESIDENT WILL DO A LOT OF THINGS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE WASN'T WILLING TO BRING UP THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE BIDENS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG?

>> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE.

WE HADN'T SDULSED THAT IN PREPARATION.

>> BUT YOU DIDN'T BRING IT UP.

>> HE DIDN'T IN THAT MEETING.

>> AND YOU DID NOT?

>> NO.

>> AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN DID YOU ASK THE UKRANIANS TO DO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING?

>> I DIDN'T RENDER AN OPINION IN WHAT WAS ASKED.

>> YIELD BACK.

>> MS. WILLIAMS I WANT TO JOIN COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU FOR SERVICE.

YOU'RE A PERSONAL HERO.

DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION DIRECT FROM UKRANIANS ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN?

>> NO.

I DID NOT PARTICIPATE OR HEAR CONVERSATIONS ALONG THAT LINE.

>> LT.

CONDITIONAL VINDMAN, I THINK YOU'RE FATHER MADE THE RIGHT MOVE COMING HERE, AND WE'RE GLAD HE DID.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES IS DEVELOPING TALKING POINTS FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND I ASSUME YOU DO THAT FOR YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISOR, MR. MORRISON, CORRECT?

>> MR. MORRISON LEFT THE POSITION SOMETIME AGO ALREADY.

>> YOU SAID YOU PREPARED TALKING POINTS YR SUPERVISORS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AT THAT LEVEL THEY DON'T TAKE TALKING POINTS.

THE TALKING POINTS ARE MORE INTENDED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERTISE.

THE NEXT LEVEL UP >> I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH YOUR POSITION THAT YOU MAKE TALKING POINTS FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

>> CORRECT.

>> DID THEY ALWAYS USE THEM?

>> NO.

>> IS PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWN TO STICK TO SCRIPTS?

>> 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 PAGE 306.

YOU ASKED ABOUT EVENTS ON THE U.S.

HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE DURING THAT 55 DAY PERIOD.

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 ACCOUNT OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

>> THAT IS ACCURATE.

>> WHEN WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SWORN?

>> MAY 20th, 2019.

>> AND HE HAD A NEW PARLIAMENT ELECTED, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND WHEN WAS THAT PARLIAMENT SEATED?

>> THAT WAS JULY 21st, 2019.

>> THAT WAS WHEN THEY WON.

THEY WEREN'T PROPERLY SEATED UNTIL AUGUST?

>> THEY WERE SEATED IN AUGUST.

>> YOUR BOSS' BOSS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TRAVELED TO UKRAINE AUGUST 27, 28, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DID HE TAKE YOU WITH HIM?

>> HE DIDN'T.

>> WE KNOW FROM OTHER WITNESSES THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS STAFF.

THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE VISUALLY EXHAUSTED, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID DURING THAT TIME PERIOD WAS CHANGE THE UKRANIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SOME OF THE PARLIAMENTARIANS BECAUSE THAT WAS A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THAT'S ACCURATE.

>> WERE YOU AWARE OF THE CHANGE?

>> CRET.

>> AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT?

>> THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.

>> AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THE NEW PARLIAMENT OPENED UKRAINE'S HIGH ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT.

THIS IS 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 SIGNIFICANT FOR ANTI-CORRUPTION?

>> I DO.

WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> I THINK JUST THE ONE TIME FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION.

MULTIPLE ENGAGEMENTS, BUT JUST THE ONE TRIP.

>> AND THAT WAS AN ONE ON ONE MEETING?

>> IN A LARGER BILATERAL FORMAT.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SMALLER VENUES.

THERE WAS NEVER AN ONE ON ONE.

BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF POINTS.

A BILATERAL HANDSHAKE MEET AND GREET.

>> THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOM?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU STILL ADVISE THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO WATCH OUT FOR THE RUGS?

>> YES.

>> AND THAT 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 -- WERE YOUR POINTS PRE-APPROVED?

>> WE DID HAVE A HUDDLE BFRNLEFOREHAND, AND IT'S POSSIB I FLAGGED THEM.

POSSIBLE I DIDN'T.

>> AND YOU COUNSELED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO STAY OUT OF U.S.

POLITICS?

>> CORRECT.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. KESSLER.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

>> MS. WILLIAMS THANK YOU.

AND COLONEL VINDMAN THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> IT'S NICE TO TALK TO A FELLOW TWIN.

>> I HOPE YOURS IS NICER TO YOU THAN MINE IS TO ME AND DOESN'T MAKE YOU GROW A BEARD.

>> YOU BOTH MENTIONED A JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

>> YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED ABOUT THIS SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE, AND THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

>> THIS HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT UKRAINE WAS IN THE ELECTIONS A CONSPIRACY THEORY AND QUOTE UNQUOTE, COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.

COLONEL VINDMAN ARE YOU WA, WA AWARE OF UKRAINE INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> I'M NOT.

AND I WOULD SAY THIS IS A RUSSIAN NARRATIVE THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS PROMOTED.

>> AND ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PART OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, FOREIGN POLICY OR APPARATUS THAT SUPPORTS THAT THEORY?

>> NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF IT.

>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT OTHER PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND OUR INTELLIGENCE FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE SAID IT WAS THE RUSSIANS THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IT SEEMS INCREEDBLY ODD, AND NOT INCONSISTENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE GIVING CREDENCE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE THAT HELPED RUSSIA, REALLY IN AT LEAST TWO WAYS.

FIRST, IT IGNORES AND UNDERMINES THE ASSESSMENT OF THE UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND WEAKENS A STATE THE COMMITTED TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AND ALSO FOR THE UNITED STATES HURTS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND EMBOLDENS RUSSIA.

I WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING ON THE CALL, INSTEAD OF PUSHING BACK ON RUSSIAN HOSTILITY.

HE WAS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO DO HIS POLITICAL WORK.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED ON THAT JULY 25th CALL, QUOTE, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOP THE PROSECUTION, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

SO IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

CONDITIONAL VINDMAN, WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE WORDS DO YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT REQUEST A THOUGHTFUL ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY?

>> I DO NOT.

>> IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENCOURAGING THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL BENEFIT THAT WE DISCOURAGE FOREIGN LEADERS FROM TAKING IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, AND DISCOURAGING OTHER COUNTRIES ARE 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'M NOT.

>> THESE FALSE NARRATIVES ARE DAMAGING OUR COUNTRY, AND DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH.

AND PRESSING ANOTHER COUNTRY TO ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION ISA ANTTHETICAL TO WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY.

YOU SAID IT WAS WRONG, AND YOU SAID CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC TO UKRAINE AS OTHER PLACES IN THE WORLD.

WHAT IS THE -- CAN YOU SPEAK -- 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 ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS?

WHAT WOULD BE THE DANGER TO THAT AMERICAN?

>> CONGRESSMAN, UKRAINE -- THE UKRANIAN JUDICIARY IS IMPERFECT AT THE MOMENT.

THE RELIANCE ON U.S. SUPPORT COULD CONCEIVABLY CAUSE THEM TO TIP THE SCALES OF JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF FINDING AN U.S. CITIZEN GUILTY IF THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED TO >> SO THEY COULD TRUMP UP CHARGES 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 TO THE CHAIR.

>> MR. RATCLIFF?

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT WHAT YOU NOTED AS BEING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CALL THAT TOOK PLACE ON JULY 25th 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.

DO 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 AN INVESTIGATION, IS THAT FAIR?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE I'M IN A POSITION TO CHARACTERIZE IT FURTHER THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID OTHER IN TERMS OF ASKING A FAVOR?

>> YOU DIDN'T HEAR A DEMAND?

>> I REFER BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF.

>> LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU'VE TESTIFIED AND EXPLAINED TO US WHY IN YOUR MIND IT WAS A DEMAND.

YOU'VE GIVEN US REASONS.

THE DESPAIRITY OF POWER BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS.

AND BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT WAY, YOU ALSO FELT 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 THEY FELT IT WAS A DEMAND, AND THE OTHER DID NOT REPORT TO ANYONE.

DID YOU, MS. WILLIAMS?

>> I ENSURED THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO MY SUPERIORS.

>> WHILE IS SEEMS CLEAR AS MUD, I THINK YOUR HONEST ASSESSMENTS OF WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE CALL -- WE HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT FOLKS, NON-PARTISAN, AND I'M NOT HEARING A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU BOTH HEARD ON THE CALL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

IF YOU CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT, HOW CAN ANY OF US?

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR AND OBVIOUS.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OVERWHELMING AND COMPELLING.

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 THE 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: THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN AFTER THE CALL WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO MR. MORRISON?

>> I WENT 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 OF MY TIME.

I WAS WORKING EXTREMELY LONG DAYS.

I ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE -- I TALKED TO FOLKS IN THE NRS, AND ATTEMPTED TO TALK TO MR. MORRISON.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BEFORE I RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM MR. EISENBERG NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY FURTHER.

>> SO YOU DIDN'T GO TO YOUR BOSS.

YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO THE LAWYER, AND THE LAWYER TOLD YOU NOT TO GO TO YOUR BOSS?

>> HE DIDN'T TELL ME -- WHAT ENDED UP UNFOLDING IS I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THE ATTORNEY.

I DID MY CORE FUNCTION WHICH IS COORDINATION, AND I SPOKE TO THE PEOPLE, AND THEN CIRCLED BACK AROUND, AND MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY.

>> WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO YOUR, MR. MORRISON.

>> BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME TO TAKE CONCERNS TO HIM.

>> DIDt TELL YOU NOT TO REPORT, TO GO AROUND MR. MORRISON?

HE SAID I SHOULDN'T TALK TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

BUT THERE'S A PERIOD OF TIME IN THERE BETWEEN WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM AND WHEN HE CIRCLED BACK AROUND.

IT WASN'T THAT LONG BUT ENOUGH TIME FOR ME TO -- >> ENOUGH TIME TO TALK TO SOMEONE YOU WON'T TELL US WHO IT IS, RIGHT?

>> I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN.

>> 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 THE ONE GUY ADAM SCHIFF WON'T LET YOU TELL US WHO HE IS.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, I DID MY JOB.

>> I'M NOT SAYING YOU DIDN'T.

ALL I'M SAYING IS THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE LAWYER IS YOU SHOULDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY AND YOU DON'T TALK TO MY BOSS BUT I'M GOING TO TALK TO SOMEONE THAT WE CAN'T EVEN ASK YOU WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS.

>> THAT IS INCORRECT.

>> I JUST READ WHAT YOU SAID.

I SHOULDN'T TALK TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE.

>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN.

THAT SEQUENCE IS NOT THE WAY IT PLAYED OUT.

>> I'M READING THROUGH YOUR TRANSCRIPT.

>> THE SEQUENCE PLAYED OUT WHERE AFTERWARDS I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS, I DID MY COORDINATION FUNCTION.

MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE.

IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME -- >> THAT'S WHEN IT HAPPENED?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

COLONEL VINDMAN, LET'S GO BACK TO THE MEETINGS ON JULY 10 IN THE WARD ROOM.

YOU WITNESSED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT AS YOU WITNESSED THE MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS."

YOU SAID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT DIDN'T EXIST TO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IT'S THAT SAME AFTERNOON THAT YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG, THE COUNSEL, CORRECT?

>> THAT MEETING OCCURRED IN THE AFTERNOON.

I'M SURE WITHIN A COUPLE 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 TELL YOU TO FEEL FREE TO COME BACK IF YOU HAD ADDITIONAL CONCERNS?

>> HE DID.

>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HIS REREQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS WAS COORDINATED WITH MICK MULVANEY.

DID YOU REPORT THAT?

>> I DID.

>> WHAT DID HE DO?

>> HE TOOK NOTES AND SAID HE WOULD FOLLOW UP INTO IT.

I DON'T RECALL.

>> COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED ON JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENT "THERE WAS NO DOUBT" THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND VICE PRESIDENT B BIDEN'S SON.

WITHIN AN HOUR YOU REPORTED BACK AS SUGGESTED BE APPROPRIATE.

>> HE'S AN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT WAS LESS A SUGGESTION, MORE AN INSTRUCTION.

>> DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO SPEAK TO MR. GULIANI?

>> YES.

>> AND THE LAWYERS TOLD YOU NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE ELSE?

>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT WITH REGARD THE TIMING.

THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW -- THEY DIDN'T CIRCLE BACK AROUND.

WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IN MY COORDINATION ROLE, I SPOKE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM ONE OF THE INTELLIGENCE BODIES NOTIFIED MR. EISENBERG THAT THERE WAS -- THAT THERE WAS -- THERE WAS INFORMATION ON THE CALL AND HE TOLD ME TO NOT TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE, MR. EISENBERG.

>> 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.

YES.

>> FOUR.

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 COUNTER PARTS.

I RETURNED TO DUTY I THINK THAT SAME DAY.

>> BUT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADDITIONAL HARM.

YOU CHOSE TO CONTINUE SERVICE.

>> I CONTINUED TO SERVE IN COMBAT FOR THE REMAINING 10 OR 11 MONTHS OF THE TOUR.

>> COLONEL, I HAVE TO SAY, I FIND IT A RICH BUT INCREDIBLY PAINFUL IRONY THAT WITHIN A WEEK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTRARY TO ALL ADVICE OF THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIALS, HE PARDONS THOSE CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES, WHICH WAS WIDELY DECRIED IN THE MILITARY COMMUNITY.

WITHIN THE WEEK OF HIM DOING THAT, HE'S ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT, 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 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 IS HAPPENING HERE.

INDEED, WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS INQUIRY AND WHAT IS AT PERIL IS OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VERY VALUES UPON WHICH IT IS BASED.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE BUT 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 THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AN IMPOSTER.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED THE PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER.

THE GUY 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR, THE GUY THAT WON IN AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE AN IMPOSTER.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR CONGRESS, AND OUR COUNTRY.

THE SPEAKER'S STATEMENTS 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 TO TAKE IT UP.

THEY DON'T TRUST THAT.

THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO UNDO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016.

THEY'VE 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, PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE A WEEK, THE COUP HAS STARTED.

FIRST OF MANY STEPS.

NEXT SENTENCE, "IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW ULTIMATELY."

I GUESS WE'RE IN THE FINAL STEP STARTED 3 1/2 YEARS AGO.

CONGRESSMAN TALIB STARTED THIS CONGRESS FIRST DAY OF CONGRESS, SAID HE'S THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTATIVE GREEN SAID IF WE DON'T IMPEACH HIM, HE WILL WIN RE-ELECTION.

WE HAVE 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 STARTED BEFORE THE INAUGURATION, EVEN BEFORE THE ELECTION.

RANKING MEMBER TALKED ABOUT THIS.

HIS OPENING STATEMENT.

JULY 2016, FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION SO CALLED TRUMP RUSSIAN COORDINATION COLLUSION, WHICH WAS NEVER THERE.

OPEN AN INVESTIGATION, SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

MY GUESS IS THAT 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 HAD NOTHING.

YOU KNOW WHY WE KNOW THAT?

BECAUSE WE DEPOSED MR. COMEY.

HE SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE A THING.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER GETS APPOINTAND DO A TWO-YEAR, $40 MILLION, UNBELIEVABLE INVESTIGATION.

GUESS WHAT?

THEY COME BACK AND THEY GOT NOTHING.

THE DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE.

SO NOW WE GET THIS.

BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, WITNESSES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO THEY TALKED TO ABOUT THE PHONE CALL.

WE GET THIS.

ALL BASED ON SOME ANONYMOUS WHISTLE-BLOWER, NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THESE FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED.

WE LEARN THEM RIGHT AWAY.

WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, WROTE A MEMO THE DAY AFTER SOMEBODY TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE CALL, AWAITED 18 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT.

18 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT.

WHAT DID HE DO IN THE 18 DAYS?

WE ALL KNOW.

RAN OFF AND TALKED WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF.

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'S SAD, IT'S SCARY AND IT'S WRONG.

THE GOOD NEWS IS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH IT ALL, THEY KNOW THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE AS REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIC SAID.

FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

WE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH THEY NEVER THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WOULD RELEASE.

SHOWS NO COORDINATION, NO CONDITIONALITY, NO LINKAGE.

WE HAVE THE TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL THAT SAID NOTHING WRONG, NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING HERE.

WE GOT THE FACT THAT UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS HELD UP.

WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE WITNESS THAT ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANYONE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID ANYTHING ON INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID RELEASED.

THOSE FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

THE PROCESS IS CERTAINLY NOT.

IT'S BEEN THE MOST UNFAIR PROCESS WE'VE EVER SEEN AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE 63 MILLION AMERICANS, THEY UNDERSTAND IT AND FRANKLY, I THINK A LOT OF OTHERS DO AS WELL.

THEY SEE WHAT 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 THE UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT.

VERY WELL STATED.

I JUST LISTENED TO MR. JORDAN AS YOU DID AS WELL.

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 OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY ONE OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.

COLONEL VINDMAN, MRS. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU.

I WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND.

WHAT HAS COME OUT DURING THIS PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD TWO UKRAINE POLICIES.

ONE WAS BIPARTISAN AND LONGSTANDING.

THAT WAS TO ASSIST UKRAINE, WHICH COMES FROM THE DOMINATION OF RUSSIA, TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT, COLONEL VINDMAN?

>> THAT'S A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION.

>> 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 THE PRIOR PRESIDENT, MR. YANAKIVIC FLED INTO THE ARMS OF MR. PUTIN, HE TOOK WITH HIM $30 TO $40 BILLION OF THAT IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY?

>> THERE'S DIFFERENT ESTIMATES BUT IT'S ON THAT SCALE, YES.

>> VAST SCALE FOR A POOR COUNTRY.

ISN'T IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT POWERLESS BUT MOTIVATED UKRAINIANS ROSE UP IN PROTEST TO THIS INCREDIBLE GRAFT AND THEFT AND ABUSE BY THEIR PRESIDENT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND THAT WAS IN THE -- IT WAS CALLED THE MAY REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOUNG PEOPLE WENT TO THE SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN KIEV AND DEMONSTRATED FOR MONTHS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

100 DIED.

>> 106 YOUNG PEOPLE DIED, OLDER PEOPLE DIED.

CORRECT?

THAT WAS IN -- BETWEEN 2018 -- 106 DIED, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> INCLUDING PEOPLE THAT WERE SHOT BY SNIPERS, KIDS.

AND YANOKOVIC HAD PUT SNIPERS ON ROOFTOPS TO SHOOT IN THE SQUARE AND MURDER, SLAUGHTER THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> THAT IS CORECT.

>> AND OUR BIPARTISAN SUPPORT -- BY THE WAY, A LOT OF LEADERSHIP CAME FROM YOUR SIDE FOR THIS SUPPORT.

THANK YOU.

BUT OUR WHOLE COMMITMENT WAS TO GET RID OF CORRUPTION AND TO STOP THAT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> >> THAT WAS SOME OF THE KEY PILLARS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THE GULIANI, SONDLAND AND TRUMP POLICY WAS NOT ABOUT THAT IT WAS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

CORRECT?

I'LL TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK.

WE KNOW IT.

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, 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 DEM DEMOCRACY.

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 -- >> HOPEFULLY THE LAST.

>> I CAN'T BLAME YOU FOR FEELING THAT WAY, SIR.

ONE OF THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING HERE AT THE KID'S TABLE.

>> IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THE FOLKS ABOVE YOU ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.

I'VE BEEN LISTENING CLOSELY TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

I'VE HEARD THEM SAY JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE SEPTEMBER TO CONTRADICT ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY YOU'VE GIVEN.

A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND INSINUATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS MAYBE THAT YOUR SERVICE IS SOMEHOW NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

YOU WERE TREATED TO QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LOYALTY BECAUSE OF A HALF-BAKED JOB OFFER THE UKRAINIANS MADE YOU, WHICH YOU REPORTED.

AND REPRESENTATIVE CASTOR SAID YOU HAD SOME DUEL LOYALTY, WHICH IS A SMEAR WE'VE HEARD IN TIMES IN OUR HISTORY.

THEY TRIED TO DEMEAN YOU THAT MAYBE YOU OVERSTATED THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR JOB.

YOU WERE THE GUY ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING UKRAINIAN POLICY.

WE'VE HEARD THEM AIR OUT SOME ALLEGATIONS WITH NO BASIS IN PROBLEM BUT WE HOPE SOME OF THOSE STRANDS OF SPAGHETTI WILL STICK.

WE HAD ONE QUESTION WHY YOU WOULD WEAR YOUR DRESS UNIFORM TODAY.

EVEN THOUGH THAT DRESS UNIFORM HAS A BREAST PLATE THAT HAS A COMBAT INFANTRY BADGE ON IT AND A PURPLE HEART MEDAL RIBBON.

SEEMS LIKE IF ANYBODY GETS TO WEAR THAT UNIFORM IS SOMEBODY THAT HAS A BREAST PLATE WITH THOSE ACCOMMODATIONS ON IT.

SO LET'S DO IT AGAIN.

LET'S DO THE SUBSTANCE.

CAN WE DO THAT?

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DUST KICKED UP.

MRS. 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.

>> YOUR CONCLUSION IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS WAS YOUR WORDS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE, I BELIEVE.

AM I RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY.

>> MR. VINDMAN, YOU WERE TREATED TO A JULY 10 MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISE INVESTIGATIONS CONSIDERING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON THAT, INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE UNDULY POLITICAL.

THAT'S HOW YOU DESCRIBED THEM.

YOU WENT TO THE NSC COUNSEL AND RECORDED IT.

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU HEARD THE WHITE HOUSE CALL WITH YOUR OWN EARS.

>> CORRECT.

>> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT HEARSAY, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE ON THE CALL.

>> I DID.

>> YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THAT SUBJECT AGAIN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID BEFORE.

>> I DID.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU WHEN YOU HEARD HIM SAY THAT, WHAT WAS THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT WEPT 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 UKRAINIAN POLICY COULD PLAY OUT, WAS PLAYING OUT.

THIS IS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

>> YOU WENT AND REPORTED IT, DIDN'T YOU?

>> I DID.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY.

>> YOU STILL HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT HANDY?

>> I DO.

>> READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH FOR MEGAN.

NOT THE ONE, THE VERY LAST ONE, THE SECOND TO LAST ONE.

READ THAT AGAIN FOR ME.

I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DESERVES TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

>> I THINK MY DAD WOULD APPRECIATE THIS, TOO.

DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IS PROOF THAT YOU CANADIAN THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 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 PUT YOURSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD.

YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR?

>> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT OF RISK.

>> I'M STRUCK BY THAT WORD "DO NOT WORRY" YOU ADDRESSED TO YOUR DAD.

WAS YOUR DAD A WARRIOR?

>> HE DID SERVE.

A DIFFERENT MILITARY THOUGH.

>> HE WAS WORRIED IF YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> HE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT IT.

IN HIS CONTEXT, THERE WAS THE ULTIMATE RISK.

>> 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.

[APPLAUSE] >> MRS. DEMINGS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OF ALL.

MISS WILLIAMS, LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION.

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 OPPOSING MILITARY AID AND MEETINGS WITH UKRAINE.

THREATENING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED HAS REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCES FOR UKRAINE AND FOR THE U.S.A.

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, THAT IT IS A -- THEY TREAT -- 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 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 AT WAR.

>> 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 IS CORRECT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY.

>> JUST LAST MONTH DURING AN INTERVIEW PRESIDENT PUTIN JOKED ABOUT INTERFERING IN OUR POLITICAL ELECTIONS LIKE CAN ONLY GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BECOME TO RUSSIA AND ITS PRESIDENT.

I THINK HE FELT EMBOLDEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S RECKLESS ACTIONS BOTH ATTEMPTS TO HOLD CRITICAL MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO BLAME UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

MRS. 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 DEFECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

WE INTEND TO DO JUST THAT.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MRS. 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, 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 SIMPATICO WITH THE UKRAINE.

I FIND THIS STATEMENT REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT APPEARS YOUR IMMIGRANT HERITAGE IS BEING USED AGAINST YOU.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL, I CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS THREE MONTHS OLD.

YOUR FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND MOVED TO AMERICA WHEN YOU WERE 3 1/2 YEARS OLD, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> 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?

>> YEAH.

HE RE-ESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN HIS FORMER PROFESSION IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> I CAN RELATE.

I GOT A B.S.

IN ENGINEERING.

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, 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 YURI LUTSENKO.

YOU CALLED HIM CORRUPT, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> HE MADE VARIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT VARIOUS AMEp >> YOU HAVE TERMED WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED AS A DEMAND, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> 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 UKRAINIANS NEEDED THE MEETING.

THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, THEY NEEDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> SO THE 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.

YOU KNOW HIM TO BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, RIGHT?

>> SUPERB INDIVIDUAL.

>> I ASKED HIM ABOUT AN INFANTRY COMMANDER, I SAY CAN AN OFFICER PLACE HIS TROOPS AT RISK UNTIL SOMEONE PROVIDES THEM A PERSONAL BENEFIT?

HE SAID NO, SIR.

COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

>> I DO.

>> I ASKED HIM, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NATION?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YES, SIR.

COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

I SAID COULD THAT TRIGGER A COURT MARSHALL?

HE SAID YES, SIR.

DO YOU AGREE WITH HIM?

>> I DO.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> I DO.

>> CONCLUDES THE MEMBER QUESTIONING.

REPRESENTATIVE NUNES, YOUR REMARKS.

>> ACT ONE IS OVER.

FOR THOSE OF YOU AT HOME, THE DEMOCRATS ARE NO CLOSER TO IMPEACHMENT THAN WHERE THEY WERE THREE YEARS AGO.

THE PROCESS THEY'VE -- THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE FBI, STATE DEPARTMENT, ELEMENTS WITHIN THE I.C., THE ICIG HAVE ALL SUFFERED LONG-TERM DAMAGE.

THE DEMOCRATS CAN CONTINUE TO PUT -- POISON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS NONSENSE.

WE SAT HERE ALL MORNING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WOULD BE A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AS IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

NO SUCH THING.

POLICY DISAGREEMENTS AND THE DEMOCRATS' FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

I'D SAY IT'S ASTONISHING BUT THAT WOULD BE PUTTING TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON THEIR ACTIONS.

WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN.

I WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES TODAY, MRS. WILLIAMS, COLONEL VINDMAN, BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, 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 NOT WITHSTANDING 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 DIDN'T YOU GO TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER AS IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG GOING TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ASKED MR. MORRISON WHETHER HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER AFTER THE CALL AND HE DID?

>> I AM.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ASKED HIM, IF YOU HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH COLONEL VINDMAN NOT GOING TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE LAWYER, NATURALLY YOU MUST HAVE GONE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR.

YOU KNOW WHAT HIS ANSWER WAS?

HE DIDN'T GO TO HIS SUPERVISOR EITHER.

HE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER.

I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL GIVE HIM THE SAME HARD TIME THAT HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT HE COMPLAINED ABOUT WITH YOU, APPARENTLY.

THE PRESIDENT MAY ATTACK YOU AND HAS.

OTHERS ON RIGHT WING TV MIGHT ATTACK YOU AND THEY HAVE.

BUT I OUT IN 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'S A PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT PATRIOTIC AND LOYAL OFFICER.

HE'S 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 THE UKRAINE IN THIS TERRIBLY CORRUPT COUNTRY.

THE PROBLEM 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 TO THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT INVITING YOU UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATING A U.S.

POLITICAL OPPONENT.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS RECALLED FROM HER POST.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 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 PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

IF THIS PRESIDENT HAD A DEEP INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, HE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IN THE CALL BUT HE DID NOT.

WE THEN SEEING ARE -- SEE RUDY GULIANI ACTING ON HIS OWN.

HE WAS ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.

THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GULIANI WANTED COME UP IN THE MEETING YOU PARTICIPATE IN ON JULY 10 AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGS UP THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IN 2016.

HE TELLS THE UKRAINIANS YOU HAVE TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOW THEY WOULD SAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN.

THAT WASN'T WORK EITHER.

WE HAVE THE CALL REGARD FROM JULY 25, WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELEASE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T BRING UP CORRUPTION.

HE DOESN'T SAY HOW THE ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT IS GOING OR GREAT WORK IN THE RADA.

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, THE POLICY MESSAGE IS, DON'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

DO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND DO IT FOR MY RE-ELECTION.

IT'S ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT 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 TO PUT THE POLITICAL HELP AND THEY HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BLEW THE WHISTLE.

WHISTLE-BLOWER, THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO PUNISH AND BECAUSE CONGRESS ANNOUNCED IT WAS DOING INVESTIGATIONS AND VERY SO THEREAFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE AID.

THEY SAY 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 ODIUS BECAUSE IT WAS DISCOVERED AND 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.

WE THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THIS ALL COMES BACK TO SOMETHING THAT 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 GULIANI, NOT ANYONE ELSE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO KNOW, ARE THEY GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL.

ARE THEY GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS?

HE'S ENSURED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.

WHAT DOES AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELATE TO THE 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 HELPED HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS.

THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT UKRAINE, OF COURSE.

YOU CRANE 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.

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.

PLEASE ASK THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES AND THE MEMBERS TO HAVE TO GO VOTE TO GO LEAVE FIRST.

>> AND THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S FIRST SET OF WITNESSES IN THIS, THE THIRD DAY OF PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

WE'LL HEAR FROM KURT VOLCKER AND TIMOTHY MORRIS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF.

ED WE HAVE NICK, MARGARET AND OUR FORMER REPUBLICAN STAFF CHAIRMAN.

GOOD FOR BEING HERE.

YOU WOULD BE FORGIVEN, MARK, IF YOU FORGOT THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE AT THE WITNESS TABLE IN THAT ROUND OF QUESTIONING.

IT WAS MARGINALLY FOCUSED ON COLONEL VINDMAN.

REPUBLICANS SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO UNDERMINE HIS CREDIBILITY.

>> FIRST OF ALL, JENNIFER WILLIAMS HAD A GREAT DAY.

THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESENT HIM IN SEVERAL BAD LIGHTS.

ONE IS THAT HE IS A ROGUE OFFICER.

HE WENT OUT OF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

WHY DOES HE HAVE HIS UNIFORM ON.

IT'S HIS OFFICIAL DUTY.

HE SHOULD BE WEARING HIS JUNE FORM BEFORE CONGRESS.

THAT'S THE FIRST NARRATIVE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE.

THE SECOND ONE IS THAT HE IS OUT OF BOUNDS IN TERMS OF HIS VIEW ON HIS ROLE OF THE WORLD.

HE'S MAKING UKRAINIAN POLICY.

THE NSC IS THE PLACE WHERE THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE DEFENSE HE'S BEEN IN COMBAT, HE HAD THE PURPLE HEART.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE OVERLY AGGRESSIVE.

THE DEMOCRATS DEFENDED HIM.

HE WAS VERY EFFECTIVE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE.

>> THEY USED HIS OWN SUPERVISOR'S TESTIMONY IN QUESTIONS AGAINST HIM AND QUOTING FROM TIM MORRISON WHO WE'LL HEAR FROM THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL.

THE WHITE HOUSE EVEN PICKED UP ON SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THAT LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING AND TWEETED ABOUT IT.

I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE THAT TWEET.

THERE IT IS FROM THE OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE ACCOUNT.

QUOTING TIM MORRISON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S FORMER BOSS AND HIS TESTIMONY SAYING HE HAD CONCERN ABOUT VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT?

>> RIGHT.

AS MARK SAID, THE LINES OF ARGUMENT AGAINST VINDMAN WERE THREE OR FOUR.

ONE THAT HE WAS A ROGUE OFFICER, HE OVERSTATED HIS ROLE, THAT HE WASN'T ADVISING THE PRESIDENT OR DETERMINING PRESIDENTIAL POLICY ON UKRAINE.

ONE OF THE FIRST ONES WE HEARD ONE IS FROM JIM JORDAN WHO QUESTIONED HIS JUDGMENT.

HE QUOTED THAT QUOTE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT WE JUST SAW, TIM MORRISON IS VINDMAN'S BOSS OR WAS MUCH OF THE TIME THIS IS HAPPENING.

HE TOLD LAWMAKERS IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT HE QUESTIONED VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT AND HIS PREDECESSOR HAD RAISED CONCERNS IS THE WORDS THAT HE USED ABOUT ALEX'S JUDGMENT.

SO THE RESPONSE TO THAT HAS BEEN VINDMAN HIMSELF TRIED TO QUOTE FIONA HILL'S ASSESSMENT OF HIM SAYING HE HAD EXCEPTIONAL JUDGMENT, BUT VINDMAN HAD TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE LAST TWO HOURS HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON VINDMAN DEFENDING HIMSELF TO ALL FOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST JUDGMENT, ABOUT CHAIN OF COMMAND, ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS RIGHT IN JUDGING WHETHER THEN'T WAS DEMANDING UKRAINE CONDUCT INVESTIGATION AND WHETHER HE WAS OVERSTATING HIS ROLE.

AT THE END, WE HEARD WHY WOULD YOU CRITICIZE THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, WHO WAS ALSO YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF?

WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS?

WHY WOULD YOU NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.

HE SAYS BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA.

HE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT HIS LOYALTY WAS NOT TO THE PRESIDENT EVEN THOUGH HE'S MILITARY OATH IS TO FOLLOW ORDERS OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

HIS LOYALTY INSTEAD IS TO THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HE'S TRYING TO ENACT AND HE BELIEVES THAT THAT JUDGMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID DEMAND ZELENSKY THAT HE DID IMPOSE THAT PRESSURE.

HE STOOD BY IT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF STEP BACK FROM IT AND HE WAS CHALLENGED ON IT MULTIPLE TIMES BY REPUBLICANS.

>> AND A FINAL POINT ON IT, HE RETURNED TO HIS ROLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AS STAFF MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER DELIVERING HIS TESTIMONY TODAY.

>> NONE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL STAFF WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD.

BUT HE'S GOING BACK TO HIS JOB RIGHT NOW.

HE'S PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO WALK OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND RESUME HIS JOB, WHICH IS TO ADVISE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL STAFF AND THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE POLICY.

>> A REMARKABLE THING.

MARGARET, I WANT TO ASK YOU MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION NOW.

A NUMBER OF POINTS MADE BY REPUBLICANS.

I WANT TO PLAY A SOUND BITE FROM CONGRESSMAN RATCLIFFE AND ASK YOU ABOUT IT.

THE LARGER PICTURE HERE ABOUT WHY WE'RE HAVING TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THERE'S THIS ISSUE OF BRIBERY.

WE HEARD AGAIN AND AGAIN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IMPROPER BEHAVIOR, INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS.

THE QUESTION IS IT IMPEACHABLE?

TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT REPRESENTATIVE RATCLIFFE HAS TO SAY.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT.

>> MRS. WILLIAMS, YOU NEVER USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT, CORRECT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN'T NEITHER.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> 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 CONGRESSMAN STEWART LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO.

THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES HAVE USED THE WORD "BRIBERY" OR "BRIBE" TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS OF THIS INQUIRY IS ZERO.

>> MARGARET, HELP US UNDERSTAND, PUT IN CONTEXT WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING ON MEETING THAT THRESHOLD.

>> SURE, YOU KNOW, WAY BACK IN 1788, LET'S START THERE, YOU KNOW, THE SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE URGING THE CONSTITUTION BE RATIFIED.

ALEXANDER IN FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 65 DESCRIBED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUTH.

THE NATURE WITH WHICH PECULIAR IMPROPRIETY BE DEEMED POLITICAL AS RELATE CHIEFLY TO INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE HAD A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT BRIBERY WAS.

PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY DEFINE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION LIKE THEY SPECIFICALLY DEFINED TREASON BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO BE LIMITED.

TREASON IS LIMITED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHAT BRIBERY WAS AND THEY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF IT BROADLY.

I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT, THE QUOTE I READ EMPHASIZES IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT THERE HAS TO BE A SHOWING OF SOME VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY CRIME.

SO WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME OF BRIBERY IN THE U.S. CRIMINAL CODE HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS PREDATED ACTUALLY THAT CRIMINAL CODE WHEN THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT BRIBERY HERE.

I DO WANT TO LET OUR LISTENERS KNOW ABOUT HOW THAT IS DEFINED IN THE U.S. CODE BECAUSE IT WILL BE A POINT OF REFERENCE GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL COME BACK TO THIS WORD "BRIBERY" AND BE MAPPING A LOT OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE OBTAINING ABOUT THIS DEFINITION AND A BROADER DEFINITION THAT THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE CONCEIVED OF.

SO OUR CRIMINAL CODE IS FOR A PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO CORRUPT OR AT AGREE OR RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT.

SO THAT'S THE SORT OF RELEVANT CRIMINAL STATUTORY LANGUAGE.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT ANSWER IMPEACHMENT, A CRIME, A STATUTORY CRIME MUST HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

>> DEMOCRATS ARE STILL ANXIOUS TO GET ANSWERS FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES.

TODAY WAS OUR OWN LISA DESJARDINS.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES OF THE DAY TODAY?

MEMBERS ARE HEADING OUT FOR VOTES AND WILL COME BACK TO QUESTION TWO MORE DIFFERENT WITNESSES WHAT ARE YOU HEARING SO FAR?

>> I WALK OUT OF THE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM WITH THE REPUBLICAN JIM JORDAN, THE LEAD COUNTER POINT FOR REPUBLICANS.

I ASKED HIM WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO DO TO COLONEL VINDMAN?

DO YOU THINK HE'S A CREDIBLE WITNESS?

HE SAID WELL, I WAS JUST BRINGING UP WHAT HIS SUPERVISOR SAID ABOUT HIM, THIS IDEA THAT VINDMAN DIDN'T LOOP IN HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR.

THE SUPERVISOR, TIM MORRISON IS SOMEONE THAT WE'LL HEAR FROM IN THE NEXT HEARING.

I THINK JIM JORDAN WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE.

I ASKED JIM JORDAN ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS WENT AFTER HIM.

I SAID DO YOU THINK IT WAS RIGHT TO BRING UP HIS WEARING OF HIS UNIFORM TODAY?

JIM JORDAN SAID YES, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.

HE DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER ANOTHER REPORTER JUMPED IN AT THAT POINT.

THERE WERE SO MANY STAND-OUT MOMENTS IN THE LAST HALF OF REPUBLICANS KIND OF, I THINK I SAID IN THE LAST BREAK, THEY SEEMED TO BE TIP TOEING WARDS THIS IDEA OF GOINGç AFTER VINDN AND HIS CREDIBILITY.

THIS WAS A BAYONET CHARGE AGAINST VINDMAN.

IT FELT LIKE VINDMAN WAS READY FOR THE ATTACKS.

HE HAD DOCUMENTS AND HIS REVIEWS.

AS YOU HEARD, THE AUDIENCE APPLAUDING FOR VINDMAN TODAY.

THE MOST EMOTIONAL MOMENT I'M SURE YOU TALKED ABOUT WAS OF COURSE THE MOMENT WHERE THE SUBJECT OF WHO IS AN AMERICAN CAME UP.

THE REPRESENTATIVE SAID HE WAS AN IMMIGRANT LIKE VINDMAN.

IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL MOMENT.

>> THE APPLAUSE COMING AFTER I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN MALONEY ASKED HIM T REREAD PART OF HIS EARLIER TESTIMONY IN WHICH HE ADDRESSED HIS FATHER DIRECTLY.

BUT WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN KEEPING AN EYE ON THIS TO SOME DEGREE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

WE'VE BEEN MONITORING THAT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

WANT TO PLAY WITH YOU SOME SOUND.

THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED ABOUT WHAT LISA MENTIONED, THE ATTACKS ON LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND WHAT HE HAD TO I IS A.

HERE'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN A CABINET MEETING.

I APOLOGIZE.

WE'LL COME TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN MONITORING THE PROCEEDINGS.

HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT WHAT THEY MAKE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING?

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING THIS IS ALL KANGAROO COURT AND THE DEMOCRATS UNFAIRLY TARGETING HIM.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE THAT KICKED OFF THE IDEA THAT HE SHOULD ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IN THIS CASE.

HE WAS CALLING HIM A NEVER TRUMPER AS SOON AS HE LEARNED ABOUT VINDMAN WANTING TO TESTIFY, WANTING TO COME BEFORE THE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION AND CONTINUED THE ATTACKS WHERE VINDMAN WAS TESTIFYING PUBLICLY.

WE KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ALEXANDER VINDMAN.

WHAT HE'S DOING BOTH HIMSELF AND ALSO FROM THE OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT IS TRYING TO ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

VINDMAN WAS PREPARED FOR THAT AS YOU SAID.

HE CAME WITH HIS EVALUATION SAYING LOOK, I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD VERY GOOD JUDGMENT, BUT I WAS SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY WAS SOMEONE THAT MY SUPERIORS TRUSTED.

IT'S REALLY IN SOME WAYS A REMARKABLE MOMENT WHEN YOU HAVE JIM JORDAN SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY TO QUESTION SOME OF ALEXANDER VINDMAN'S BACK STORY, WHAT WAS MOTIVATING HIM TO CONGRESS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS POINTING OUT VINDMAN NEVER SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

VINDMAN NEVER SAID HE SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT HIS JOB, WHICH HE'S GOING TO BE RETURNING TO, IN ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS IN A FEW MOMENTS FROM NOW, HIS JOB IS TO STILL ADVISE THE PRESIDENT AND WRITE A REPORT THAT MAKES IT TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> WE SHOULD MENTION, THAT WE HAVE THE PIECE OF SOUND FROM EARLIER TODAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT JUST THAT.

WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.

>> I DON'T KNOW HIM.

I DON'T KNOW AS HE SAYS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL.

SOMEBODY CALLED HIM MISTER.

HE CORRECTED THEM.

NOW HE WEARS HIS UNIFORM.

I DON'T KNOW VINDMAN AT ALL.

WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT EVEN HE SAID THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT.

>> THERE'S A LITTLE DISTANCE THERE THE PRESIDENT WILL MAINTAIN BETWEEN HIMSELF AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WHO AS HE SAID HE NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT THOUGH HE ADVISES THE STAFF THAT ADVISES THE PRESIDENT.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE OTHER WITNESS.

THAT IS JENNIFER WILLIAMS THAT WORKS IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

WHEN SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT LISTENING IN ON THAT JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

SHE USED TWO VERY CLEAR WORDS.

SHE SAID SHE THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

SOMEONE THAT CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT, SOMEONE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE TO MAKE THAT KIND OF STATEMENT, IS THAT A CONCERN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> IT'S A CONCERN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THAT THIS IS ANOTHER WITNESS SAYING THAT SHE FOUND AS THOUGH THIS CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS CONCERNING TO HER.

AS SHE NOTED AND OTHERS HAVE NOTED, HER SUPERIORS WERE ALSO ON THE CALL.

SO IN SOME WAYS, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN LOOK AT JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND SAID SHE DIDN'T DO WHAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

SHE DIDN'T GO TO HER SUPERIORS AND SAY WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS OR STOP IT.

THAT BEING SAID, THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE THE CASE THAT WHEN HE LOOKS AT THE TRANSCRIPT AND HE RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE FELT COMFORTABLE RELEASING THAT CALL.

FELT COMFORTABLE LETTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HE SAID TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

HE THINKS THAT'S THE WAY FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD WORK.

THAT'S A STANCE THAT THIS WHITE HOUSE HAS MAINTAINED, THE PRESIDENT PUSHING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO DEMOCRATS, AN INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF CORRUPTION.

THAT IS THE CASE HE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE.

>> MARGARET, WHEN IT COMES TO THE WAY FOREIGN ASSISTANCE DOES WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADVISED ON FOREIGN APPROPRIATIONS AND ASSISTANCE, THERE'S THE ISSUE OF THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE FILLING IN THE DETAILS NOW.

A LOT ASKED OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS ABOUT THIS MEETING IN WARSAW BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE AID, WHEN WILL IT BE RELEASED.

TEN DAYS LATER, IT WAS RELEASED.

DEMOCRATS SAY THAT IS UNUSUAL.

BUT IS THAT THE WAY THESE THINGS UNFOLD?

>> SO IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAY THINGS WOULD HAVE UNFOLDED.

IN A NORMAL SORT OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE SUCH HIGH LEVEL INTERESTS IN A PROGRAM.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF NECESSARILY WEIGHING IN ON THINGS OR THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

THINGS WOULD GO ON THEIR OWN UNLESS THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

THIS OBVIOUSLY WAS A VERY HIGH PROFILE-TYPE OF PACKAGE OF ASSISTANCE, A VERY IMPORTANT PACKAGE OF ASSISTANCE, SOMETHING THAT UKRAINIANS REALLY NEEDED.

WHAT IS UNUSUAL TO ME IN MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT HAD WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE ENTIRE POLICY PROCESS FROM THE LOWER LEVELS FROM PCC ALL THE WAY UP, IT WAS HELD TO THE VERY LAST MINUTE.

I THINK IT WAS HELD BY APPARENTLY MICK MULVANEY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

SO THIS WOULD TO ME BE AN UNUSUAL THING IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ARE TYPICALLY SORT OF APPROVED AND MOVED THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

IN ADDITION, WE HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF THESE WITNESSES THAT THE RELEVANT CERTIFICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO RELEASE THE ASSISTANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

SO IF THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION, ONE WOULD THINK THOSE WOULD HAVE COME UP SPECIFICALLY IN THAT PROCESS OF CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RELEASE THE REST OF THE MONEY.

BUT INSTEAD, THIS HOLD ON THE ASSISTANCE CAME MUCH LATER.

RIGHT BEFORE IT WAS REALLY READY TO MOVE.

>> ALSO A STRUCTURAL ISSUE HERE.

IN A TYPICAL ADMINISTRATION, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF WOULD CALL THE DIRECTOR OF MB SAID THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO HOLD THE AID.

HE SAID WE'RE READY TO GO.

WHY.

WHAT IS HAPPEN SOMETHING THERE WOULD BE A DISCUSSION.

HERE YOU HAVE THE CHIEF OF STAFF IS THE DIRECTOR OF OMB.

SO THERE'S NO CONVERSATION.

SO THE STEP IS NOW MISSING BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.

THAT MAKES THIS DECISION HARDER TO IMPLEMENT OR HARDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT DOES THE WAY IT DOES.

IT'S STRUCTURALLY DIFFERENT.

>> WE'RE GETTING MORE DETAILS OF THE JULY 25th CALL THAT SPARKED THESE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

THERE'S THIS JULY 25th TEXT EXCHANGE THAT WAS FLICKED AT EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY.

WE'RE SURE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.

THAT WAS BETWEEN KURT VOLCKER AND AN ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT AND MIGHT WE HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT?

>> WHAT WE'LL HEAR IN THE AFTERNOON IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DID OR DIDN'T KNOW, THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE AMERICANS WERE OR WERE NOT TELLING THEM.

VOLCKER HAS THIS INTERESTING ROLE.

REMEMBER, HE WAS CALLED BY REPUBLICANS.

REPUBLICANS DO BELIEVE THAT HE WILL HELP THEIR CASE.

VOLCKER HAD THE INTERESTING ROLE OF TRYING TO BE PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY ON UKRAINE, WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED SPECIFIC CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS.

RIGHT?

NOW THE VANILLA INVESTIGATIONS AS ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IN THIS PLAY SAID.

THE PRESIDENTIAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT'S 2016 AND THAT'S BIDEN.

SO VOLCKER HAS A SERIES OF TEXTS AND MESSAGES BACK AND FORTH THAT END WITH HEY, AS LONG AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CAN CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT TRUMP WANTS WILL BE DONE, THEN YOU'LL HAVE YOUR MEETING.

FAST FORWARD A COUPLE MONTHS.

THEN THE MILITARY AID LIFTED.

THAT WILL BE WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT VOLCKER.

HE WAS TRYING TO DO TWO THINGS.

HE WAS TRYING TO ENACT THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY, THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY AFTER ALL AT THE END OF THE DAY AND TRYING TO ENACT THE ADMINISTRATION'S MODELSY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY IS ON OVERALL CORRUPTION AND GETTING THE ASSISTANCE.

ONE OF THE EXAMPLES IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP BIDEN, THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BRINGS UP BURISMA.

THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO INVESTIGATE UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION.

WHAT THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT IS TO INVESTIGATE AMERICAN CORRUPTION.

>> WEIGH-IN HERE, YAMICHE.

THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY AND SETS THE PRIORITIES FOR US EVER SEAS REPUBLICANS SAY.

THAT IS ALL ACCURATE.

WE HEARD CONGRESSMAN WILL HURD SAYING THIS PRESIDENT IS KNOWN FOR NOT STICKING TO TALKING POINTS.

SHOULD BE SURPRISING THAT MANY THE TALKING POINTS, THE NOTES GIVEN TO HIM BEFORE A CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER WEREN'T FOLLOWED EXACTLY.

HAS THAT BEEN A CORE PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE SO FAR?

>> IT'S A CORE PART.

ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY SAID IT.

HE SAID GET OVER IT.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ESSENTIALLY SHOULD DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO NOW THAT HE'S AN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE SAYS THAT IT'S THE WAY FOREIGN POLICY WORKS.

THAT ONCE A POLITICAL PARTY COMES INTO OFFICE, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT STUFF FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND COUNTRIES TO DO THINGS IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP AND SUPPORT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING IN THE EYES OF DEMOCRATS.

THEY WOULD SAY UNLIKE OTHER PAST ADMINISTRATIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE AN APOLITICAL GOAL, WE MIGHT WANT TO STOP THE CORRUPTIONS.

DEMOCRATS SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO GET A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT OUT OF SOMETHING THAT HE WAS FORCING THE UKRAINE TO DO.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE WAY THE PRESIDENT OPERATES AND THAT PEOPLE KNEW THAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR SOMEONE THAT WAS UNORTHODOX, SOMEONE THAT SOMETIMES IMPROMPTU AND SOMETIMES MAKES DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT HIS GUT IS TELLING HIM AND NOT WHAT TRADITION HAS TOLD OTHER PRESIDENTS TO DO.

>> MARK, TO THAT POINTS, A LOT OF TODAY'S TESTIMONY HINGED ON WHAT YOU SEE HE WAS ASKING FOR AS A FAVOR OR DEMAND.

THERE WAS A DIFFERENT OF OPINIONS BETWEEN BOTH WITNESSES.

>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT, WHETHER HE'S IN MILITARY OFFICER OR NOT ASKS YOU FOR A FAVOR, THAT'S MORE THAN A FAVOR.

HE'S THE PRESIDENT.

I DON'T CARE WHETHER HE'S -- HE'S THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

HE'S MILITARY.

WHEN THE MANPRESIDENT ASKS YOU A FAVOR, IT'S SERIOUS.

THE SECRETARY STATE ASKS YOU FOR A FAVOR, IT'S SERIOUS.

IT MAY NOT BE -- SOMETIMES PRESIDENTS DEMAND THINGS.

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY WELL, HE JUST WANTS A FAVOR.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

>> YOU THINK THIS IS A MATTER OF JUDGMENT?

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID I'D BE HAPPY TO DIG DEEPER AND SAY I SAW IT AS A DEMAND.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS WON'T GO THAT FAR.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

IF THE PRESIDENT ASKS FOR SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

>> ANOTHER STRIKING MOMENT.

AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN NUNES AND VINDMAN.

LISA ON CAPITOL HILL.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.

AT THE HEART OF ALL OF THIS IS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, OF COURSE.

THAT LAUNCHED THIS ENTIRE INQUIRY.

THERE WAS A MOMENT IN WHICH IT SEEMED AS IF SOME OF THE LINES OF QUESTIONING WERE TRYING TO GET CLOSER AND CLOSER TO REVEAL WHO THAT WAS.

I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU THAT EXCHANGE.

IT WAS A STRIKING MOMENT EARLIER TODAY.

TAKE A LISTEN TO THIS AND LET'S TALK ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS.

>> PLEASE STOP -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THROUGH THE USE OF 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.

I WANT TO ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY.

>> MR. VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

>> RANKING MpMBER, IT'S 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.

THAT 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 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

>> THIS IS -- ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT HEAR SOMETHING.

>> OF COURSE I AM.

>> WOULDN'T THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR YOU TO COME TO TO TESTIFY WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ABOUT SOMEONE WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY?

>> RANKING MEMBER, PER ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL AND 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 IS THAT THESE WERE PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUAL WITH A NEED-TO-KNOW.

>> LISA, THAT WAS A TENSE MOMENT AS WE WATCHED IT VIA SCREEN.

YOU WERE THERE IN THE ROOM AS IT UNFOLDED.

HOW DID THAT PLAY OUT IN THE ROOM?

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT LISTEN OF QUESTIONING?

>> THAT WAS VERY TENSE.

IT WAS A MOMENT WHEN EVERYONE SHOT UP IN THEIR CHAIRS AND LISTENED CLOSELY.

A MOMENT THAT YOU COULD SEE REPUBLICANS HAD COME INTO THIS HEARING WITH A VERY CLEAR STRATEGY.

IN THAT CASE, THEY WERE ALMOST TOO CLEVER.

THEY KNOW THE REASON WHY VINDMAN IS NOT NAMING NAMES HERE.

THEY KNOW THAT EVEN IF HE DOESN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS, IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THE PEOPLE HE BRIEFED AND ONE PERSON HE BRIEFED COULD BE THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER.

THE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE THE I DON'T KNOW IS SMALL.

LIKELY HAD CONTACT WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

SO WHILE HE DIDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND REPUBLICANS WEREN'T LOOKING FOR THAT ANSWER.

THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE VINDMAN HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE HERE.

HE WAS PUT IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF INTERCEDED.

REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO BREAK DOWN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS HERE.

ONE OTHER THING I NOTICED WITH, TALKING WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AFTERWARDS, THERE WERE HUGE GAMES IN THE SECOND HALF THAT I HAVEN'T PICKED UP BEFORE IN THESE HEARINGS IN THE PAST WEEK.

THIS PART OF THE HEARING ALMOST FELT LIKE IT WAS JUST ABOUT LARGER AMERICAN DIVIDES AS IT WAS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT ITSELF.

YOU HEARD THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT IMMIGRANTS AND WHO IS AMERICAN.

YOU HEARD PASSIONATE TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT.

YOU ALSO HEARD REPUBLICANS MAKING MAYBE THEIR STRONGEST ARGUMENT, THE STRONGEST CASE TO THEIR VOTERS, WHICH THEY THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION AND DEMOCRATS TRYING TO UNSEAT THE PRESIDENT AND WHAT ELSE DID JIM JORDAN SAY?

HE SAID REMEMBER 63 MILLION VOTERS.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE 2020 ELECTION.

REPUBLICANS KNOW THAT THIS HEARING COULD IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION.

SO DO DEMOCRATS.

THIS LAST SECTION IS WHERE YOU SAW THAT THE MOST VISIBLY.

>> MARGARET, TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT.

OBVIOUSLY THERE'S THESE WITNESSES ARE APPEARING AS FACT WITNESSES.

THERE'S AN INQUIRY TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED, WHO KNEW WHAT, WENT.

FILL IN THE DETAILS.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S AN ELECTION A YEAR AWAY.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN POLITICS AT PLAY ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS.

IT'S COMING IN A TIME WHEN THE COUNTRY IS DIVIDED ABOUT HOW THIS INQUIRY IS EVEN MOVING FORWARD.

HOW DOES THAT INFORM HOW THE PROCESS INCHES ALONG?

>> I THINK DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE IN A SORT OF CONSTANTLY REEVALUATING THE POLITICS AROUND ALL OF THIS.

THEY HAVE TO.

THAT'S THEIR JOB.

THEY NANCY PELOSI'S JOB.

IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO CREATE A PROCESS HERE THAT SEEMS CREDIBLE, THAT IS BRINGING WITNESSES, THAT HAVE RELEVANT TESTIMONY.

THERE'S ANOTHER PHASE OF THIS INQUIRY WHERE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO PRESENT AN INQUIRY THAT IS CREDIBLE FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

THAT'S ONE OF THEIR GOALS.

AT THE SAME TIME, AS THE CORRESPONDENT SAID, REPUBLICANS WANT TO MAKE IT SEEM NOT CREDIBLE.

THAT IS THEIR PRINCIPAL GOAL, IT WOULD SEEM.

IT'S TRUE.

BOTH SIDES ARE CONSTANTLY REEVALUATING THE POLITICS OF THIS IT WILL GOVERN HOW LONG THIS INQUIRY LASTS.

THE MOMENT THAT THIS INQUIRY SORT OF LOSES MOMENTUM AND ISN'T CONVINCING TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMERICANS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, DEMOCRATS WILL DECIDE IT'S TIME TO STOP AND EITHER TAKE A VOTE OR NOT.

SO I'D BE LOOKING FOR THE MOMENTUM OF HOW THIS PROCESS MOVES FORWARD.

IF THERE'S NOT CHANGING OPINIONS, WE'LL SEE IT COME TO A CLOSE.

>> THAT IS A PERFECT PLACE FOR ME TO REFLECT A NEW POLL OUT TODAY.

PBS NEWS HOUR, NPR AND MARIST ASKED AMERICAN VOTERS ABOUT THEIR VIEW ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

65% OF AMERICANS SAY THEY CAN'T IMAGINE ANY INFORMATION OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY'RE LEARNING FROM THIS PROCESS WHERE THEY MIGHT CHANGE THEIR MINDS ABOUT THE POSITION ON IMPEACHMENT.

MARK, TALK TO ME ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY IN THIS.

WE HEARD RANKING MEMBER NUNES IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT ISSUE A WIDE SALVO OVER THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN COVERED BY THE MEDIA, OVER THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DEMOCRATS AND ATTACKING LESS THE PROCESS AND MORE SORT OF HOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> WELL, ALL RIGHT.

FIRST OF ALL, IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A LEGAL PROCESS.

IT'S BY DEFINITION A POLITICAL PROCESS.

THIS IS THE FOURTH IMPEACHMENT WE'VE GONE THROUGH.

ALWAYS POLITICAL AND PARTISAN.

NOTHING NEW ABOUT THAT.

IT WAS DENNY WEBSTER SAID YOU CAN'T ARGUE THE LAW, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING BOTH.

NUNES IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT IS ABOUT THE PRESS.

THE PRESS IS -- THE MAINSTREAM -- THE PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

THIS IS PART OF THAT CONTINUING ASSAULT ON THE PRESIDENT THAT JIM JORDAN WAS TALKING ABOUT.

FIRST THEY TRIED TO DO THAT.

THEN THEY WENT OFF TO -- THEY WERE HARD PRESSED WITH VINDMAN.

THEY WANT TO BREAK HIM DOWN.

YOU DON'T WANT TO ATTACK A SERVING OFFICER THAT IS A COMBAT VETERAN.

SO THEY'RE APPEALING TO THEIR BASE.

DON'T BELIEVE THIS.

DON'T LEAVE US NOW.

STAY WITH THE BASE.

IT'S SORT OF A DEFENSIVE THING.

THEY CAN'T GAIN ANY GROUND REALLY.

THE WORST THEY CAN DO IS RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS?

PEOPLE'S MIND ABOUT THE LEGITIMATESY OF THE PROCESS.

THAT'S THE ROAD THEY'RE AN.

>> I WANT YOUR TAKE ON THIS.

MESSAGING IS A HUGE PART OF THIS.

WE'VE HEARD RESPONSES FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE END OF EACH OF THESE DAYS.

WE'RE ON THE BEGINNING, DAY THREE, BUT IT'S DAY ONE OF WEEK TWO IN THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THERE ARE NINE WITNESSES THIS WEEK THAT WILL BE APPEARING ON CAPITOL HILL.

DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC STRATEGY COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT NOW OR WILL THEY BE REACTING IN REAL TIME TO THE TESTIMONY AS IT COMES OUT?

>> SPECIFIC STRATEGIES BY THE WHITE HOUSE IS TWO FOLD.

ONE IS DEFEND PRESIDENT TRUMP, DEFEND HIM BY MAKING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS THE SECOND IS TO LEAN ON REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A LOUD SPEAKER IN HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT, A LOUD SPEAKER ON HOW HE CAN GO ON DIFFERENT NATIONAL NETWORKS TO TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS AND THEIR MESSAGING.

THEY WANT THE PARTY TO LINE UP BEHIND THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS CORE BELIEVES HE'S THE BEST MESSENGER.

WHILE HE HAS A PRESS SECRETARY AND A COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, THE PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS RELYING ON HIMSELF.

HE THINKS HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT IS THE WAY FOR HIM TO TALK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

HE'S INTERESTED IN WHAT HIS BASE IS THINKING.

THAT'S WHY THE WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT ECHOS THE PRESIDENT'S TWITTER ACCOUNT.

THE PRESIDENT IS RELYING ON HIMSELF TIME AND TIME AGAIN AS PEOPLE HAVE COME IN, DIFFERENT CHIEFS OF STAFFS HAVE CYCLED THROUGH.

WHAT IS CONSTANT, THE WAY THE PRESIDENT FEELS PERSONALLY A GRIEVED BY A LOT OF THIS AND THE PRESIDENT HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY AND HAS -- BECAUSE OF THAT HAS LASHED OUT AT ANYONE THAT THINKS IS ATTACKING HIM.

>> AND LISA, OVER TO YOU ON CAPITOL HILL.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT OPENING STATEMENT THAT MARK JUST MENTIONED FROM THE RANKING MEMBER.

IT WAS LARGELY FOCUSED ON THE PRESS.

IT WAS LARGELY FOCUSED ON THE MEDIA AND HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

IS THAT THEIR TACTIC RIGHT NOW?

>> I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICAN AND MANY TRUMP VOTERS FEEL IS HE'S THE FIRST WITNESS THAT IS NOT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NOT A CAREER OFFICIAL.

HIS EXPERIENCE IS FROM HERE.

HE'S A LONG-TIME CAPITOL HILL STAFFER REPUBLICAN FOR THE DEFENSE COMMITTEE.

SO HE'S GOING TO KNOW HIS WORLD UP HERE.

I'M FASCINATED TO SEE WHETHER WE SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND HOW HE ENGAGES OR HOW HE UNDERSTANDS THE PROTOCOL OR THE MEANING OR IMPACT OF WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

WHEN YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY, HE GOES FURTHER.

HE SAYS SOME THINGS THAT -- HE HAD SOME OPINIONS INCLUDING ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN THAT WILL SURPRISE YOU IN HIS TEAM.

HE'S CRITICAL OF HIM AND FIONA HILL.

HE DOESN'T HAVE HARD AND FAST OPINIONS ON THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

I'M FASCINATED TO SEE HOW THIS FORMER HILL STAFFER DOES WHEN HE'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DESK IN A LITTLE BIT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE HAVE A WHOLE OTHER PANEL, TWO MORE WITNESSES AHEAD OF US.

I WANT TO ASK NICK ABOUT THOSE IN A MINUTE.

I'D LOVE TO WELCOME MICHAEL ALLEN AND MARK HAS LEFT US.

MICHAEL ALLEN IS HERE.

HE SERVED AS STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FROM 2011 TO 2013.

HE'S A MANAGING DIRECTOR AT THE ADVISORY FIRM BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES.

WELCOME TO YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH.

>> I'M GOING TO GET YOUR TAKE ON THIS.

I ASSUME YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG.

>> I HAVE.

>> AND TO LISA'S POINT EARLIER ABOUT WHO WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS AFTERNOON AND WHY THEY MATTER SO MUCH.

TELL US ABOUT MORRISON IN PARTICULAR.

>> RIGHT.

AS LISA POINTS OUT, TIM MORRISON WAS A REPUBLICAN STAFFER ON THE HILL.

HE'S A KEY ALLY TO JOHN BOLTON THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

AFTER BOLTON LEFT, MORRISON LEFT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT TIM MORRISON'S TITLE ON THE STAFF WAS TOP RUSSIA AND SENIOR ADVISER FOR RUSSIAN AND EUROPE AND VINDMAN'S BOTH AND RESIGNED BEFORE HIS CLOSED DEPOSITION WITH LAWMAKERS.

RERESIGNED SHORTLY AFTER JOHN BOLTON WAS FIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SO WHY HAVE REPUBLICANS CALLED TIM MORRISON?

THE KEY TO THAT IS THE FACT THAT HE'S GOING TO SAY HE DOESN'T THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

NOTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

THAT'S WHY REPUBLICANS WANT HIM.

HOWEVER, HE'S GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHY HE PLACED THAT CALL OR THE MEMO OF THAT CALL ON MORE SECURE SERVER.

HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKING.

HE'S ALSO GOING TO CRITICIZE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CLOSE TO PRESIDENT UP THIRD READING.

SO BOTH SIDES WILL PULL WHAT THEY WANT OUT OF MORRISON.

WHAT LISA WAS SUGGESTING AND SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO MORRISON ABOUT VINDMAN.

RIGHT?

IT WAS MORRISON THAT SAID, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT AND MORRISON'S DEPOSITION AND THAT FIONA HILL WAS CONCERNED ABOUT JUDGMENT.

WE WERE READING THE DEPOSITION EARLIER.

THERE'S A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT VINDMAN LEAKING.

MORRISON HAVE ASKED, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT VINDMAN LEAKED?

NO.

WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT VINDMAN?

YES.

THAT ISN'T EXPLAINED IN THE DEPOSITION BUT WE'LL HEAR THAT AND WE'LL ALSO HERE FROM AMBASSADOR VOLCKER WHO AGAIN, DEMOCRATS WILL TALK ABOUT HOW THIS REGULAR CHANNEL TOOK HOLD, REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY HEY, DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THE HOLD ON MILITARY WASN'T SIGNIFICANT?

THAT'S WHY THE AID WAS A PAUSE AND VOLCKER HELPED MAKE SURE THAT THE AID WAS DELIVERED.

>> TALK ABOUT THESE WITNESSES THIS AFTERNOON.

THESE ARE AS NICK MENTIONED THE FOLKS THAT WANTED TO HEAR FROM.

WE CAN ASSUME NEY WILL HELP REPUBLICANS.

WHAT ARE THE KEY POINTS THAT WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM?

>> FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT BOTH OF THESE INDIVIDUALS JUST FULL DISCLOSURE I HAD A CHANCE TO WORK WITH AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH AND ALSO DURING MY TIME IN THE CONGRESS.

I THINK BOTH OF THEM ARE VERY HARD-NOSED, STRAIGHT SHOOTER TYPE OF STAFFERS.

DETAIL ORIENTED PEOPLE WHAT REALLY IN THIS CASE AS IT PERTAINS TO RUSSIA WERE VERY MUCH RUSSIAN HAWKS.

I THINK WHAT YOU'VE SEEN SO FAR FROM FIRST VOLCKER WAS HIM TRYING TO BE A STRAIGHT SHOOTER.

HE'S TRYING TO SAY WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO GO IS SEMI LEGITIMATE BECAUSE IT WAS PERVASIVE.

UKRAINE WAS PERVASIVE WITH CORRUPTION.

WHILE HE DIDN'T APPROVE THE WAY THE PRESIDENT PUT THINGS ON THE PHONE CALL, I THINK HE UNDERSTOOD WHERE THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO GO.

THAT WAS HE NEEDED TO SEE AND WE NEEDED TO SEE SOMEPLACE -- GO SOMEPLACE BETTER OR CORRUPTION MATTERS.

UNFORTUNATELY THESE END AND MEANS GOT CONFLATED TOO MUCH AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE REST.

THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO BE COMING FROM.

THEY'RE GOING TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES AND YOU'LL SEE IT.

>> AND YOU'RE SAYING THE END WAS JUSTIFIED.

IT'S THE WAY THAT THEY WERE GETTING THERE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WHEN YOU -- EVEN SONDLAND, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE GET ALONG BETTER AND WE CAN MOVE ALONG AND ADVANCE THE RELATIONSHIP.

IT'S THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY DECIDED TO DO IT PARENTALLY SONDLAND IN PARTICULAR LESS SO MORRISON WHO WAS DISAPPROVING AND EVEN KURT VOLCKER THAT WAS TRYING TO STEP HIS WAY CAREFULLY THROUGH THIS.

I THINK THEY PROBABLY, YOU KNOW ADVANCED THE CORRUPTION PLACE THAT IT ADVANCED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

THAT'S WITH WHERE I WENT TO FAR.

>> WE HEARD FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT THAT, THE TRANSCRIPT, WHY IT WAS MOVED TO A MORE SECURE LOCATION.

SOME QUESTIONS DIGGING INTO THAT.

AN INSINUATION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING NEFARIOUS ABOUT IT.

HE DIDN'T GO THAT FAR.

>> QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

DEMOCRATS HAVE QUESTIONED WHETHER THERE'S A COVER UP, QUESTIONED THE MOMENT THAT THAT CALL WAS MADE WHETHER PEOPLE REALIZED THAT SOMETHING ILLEGAL HAD HAPPENED.

VINDMAN SAYS NO, THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT HAPPENED.

THAT OFFICIALS ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE DECIDED THAT THERE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS.

THEY WERE -- THEY DECIDED INCLUDING TIM MORRISON, THEY DECIDED THAT UKRAINE POLICY WOULD EFFECTED IF THE CALL CAME OUT.

THAT'S WHY IN PARTICULAR THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS.

MEANING IF SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE PRESIDENT USED GOT OUT, MAYBE RUSSIA OR OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD SAY HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.

THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T HAVE UKRAINE'S BACK AND VINDMAN SAID THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS ABOUT MOVING IT TO A SECURE LOCATION.

IT WAS TO PREVENT LEAKS AND HE SAID THAT HE APPROVED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A COME OF THE THINGS ME WANTED TO ADJUST.

HE SAID THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS ABOUT THE STAFFERS THAT WROTE THE TRANSCRIPT WROTE.

HE JUST SAID HEY, THEY JUST MISSED IT.

I TRIED TO CORRECT IT.

THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

NOT A BIG DEAL.

>> THOSE WERE TWO KEY PARTS OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LAYING OUT.

THERE WAS THIS COVER UP.

THERE WERE STUFF LEFT OUT, SHUTTER AD WAY TO A MORE SECURE SERVER.

DID THEY DO DAMAGE TO THEIR CASE?

>> MAYBE A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE HEART OF THE CASE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO MAKE HERE, WHICH IS -- RELATES TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER THAT IS WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE DOING WITH THE TRANSCRIPT AFTER THE FACT NECESSARILY IS CRUCIAL TO THAT CASE.

WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

WHAT IT DOES GO TO, HOW DID PEOPLE FEEL AND WHAT DO THEY THINK ABOUT THIS PHONE CALL.

FOR EXAMPLE, TIM MORRISON SAID I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMANS DIDN'T SEE SOMETHING AND WENT TO THE LAWYERS TO TALK ABOUT IT.

FROM TIM MORRISON'S TESTIMONY, IT SEEMS THAT HE DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LIMITING ACCESS TO THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT.

HE WENT TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND SAID LIMIT ACCESS.

IT WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THAT PUT IT ON THIS SUPER SECRET SERVER.

TIM MORRISON SAID LIMIT ACCESS TO IT ON THE SAME SYSTEM.

NOT PUT IT ON THE SUPER SECRET SERVER.

THERE WILL BE MORE DISCUSSION IN THIS NEXT PANEL.

>> IS SUPER SECRET THE TECHNICAL TEAM?

>> NO.

>> SO MUCH REVOLVES AROUND THAT ONE PHONE CALL.

YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE UNPACKED.

MORRISON WAS ON THE CALL.

I DO WANT TOO PLAY FOR YOU, MICHAEL, A BIT OF SOUND FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS.

HE WAS ASKED ABOUT HER REACTION TO THE CALL.

SHE USED SPECIFIC WORDS IN HER ANSWER.

IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER CALLS THAT SHE LISTENED IN TO, TAKE A LISTEN TO WHAT JENNIFER WILLIAMS HAD TO SAY ABOUT HER REACTION TO THAT PHONE CALL.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

>> HOW MANY CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT -- >> JUST A MOMENT.

STAY WITH US.

I THINK WE'RE WORKING OUT SOME GLITCHES.

THIS IS A MOMENT FROM EARLIER TODAY.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS, THE SPECIAL ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TALKING ABOUT HER REACTION TO THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

TAKE A LISTEN.

>> PRESIDENT 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 IS THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CALLS I LISTENED TO.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL IN NATURE.

WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?

>> I THOUGHT THE REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON INSTRUCT ME AS POLITICAL IN NATURE GIVEN THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

>> SHE DID NOT RAISE HER CONCERNS TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE SAME WAY THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN DID.

BUT TO SAY IT WAS POLITICAL IN NATURE.

SHE WENT ON TO SAY IT WAS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT?

>> SHE'S BEING VERY CAREFUL.

SHE'S A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

SHE HAS JUST A WONDERFUL CAREER AND WONDERFUL SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

I THINK SHE'S LISTENING IN ON A CALL THAT SHE VERY CLEARLY THINKS IS IRREGULAR.

I DON'T THINK IT'S HER PLACE THOUGH TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.

IT WAS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR COLONEL VINDMAN TO GO TO THE NSC LEGAL OFFICE AND SAY I HAVE CONCERNS.

I WOULDN'T INDICT ANYONE THAT LISTENED TO THE CALL AND DIDN'T THEN GO REPORT.

TO THE LAWYERS.

AS YOU HEARD ADAM SCHIFF SAID THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A STAFFER'S CALL TO MAKE SOME -- IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A STAFFER'S CALL LISTENING IN TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

I THINK THIS IS A LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.

IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GO AND ASK FOR THE LAWYERS ADVICE ON HOW THINGS WENT DOWN ON THE CALL.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK SHE ANSWERED IT CAREFULLY AND PRECISELY AND THOUGHT SHE ACQUITTED HERSELF VERY, VERY WELL.

>> THERE IS OF COURSE ALL THE QUESTIONS WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO.

WHAT JENNIFER WILLIAMS DIDN'T SAY SHE HAD FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT.

IT'S WORTH TAKING A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM WHOM WE ARE NOT HEARING AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY THAT COULD FILL IN SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

ONE IN PARTICULAR WHOSE NAME INST WAS INVOKED SEVERAL TIMES TODAY, THAT IS AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON.

WHO DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW ANY OF THOSE FOLKS ARE WEIGHING WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL COOPERATE WITH THE TESTIMONY OR WE WON'T HEAR FROM THEM.

>> FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON AND HIS DEPUTY ARE WAITING TO SEE IF A COURT JUDGE, FEDERAL JUDGE, WILL TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO EITHER COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA FROM CONGRESS OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN LISTEN TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND NOT SHOW UP FOR A SUBPOENA, NOT SHOW UP TO CONGRESS AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I SHOULD ADD THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN REACTING IN REAL TIME.

THE PRESS SECRETARY STEPHANIE GRISHAM PUT OUT A STATEMENT THAT SHADE WE LEARNED NOTHING NEW HERE.

THIS IS REALLY THE DEMOCRAT'S CONTINUING TO OVERTURN THE 2016 ELECTION.

ALSO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, THE VICE PRESIDENT, MIKE PENCE, I WAS OUT JUST MOMENTS AGO.

HE SAID THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT -- HE DID NOT GO TO THE INAUGURATION OF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SHORT WINDOW OF TIME AND HE COULDN'T MAKE IT WORK.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS SAID BEFORE THERE WAS A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT THE DATE WAS FOR THE INAUGURATION, HER OFFICE SAID TO STOP WORKING ON THE TRIP.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TENSION THERE BECAUSE MARK SHORT IS SAYING ONE THING AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS SAYING ANOTHER.

HE'S ALSO SAYING THAT HE DOESN'T SAY ON THE HOUSE SPEAKER, NANCY PELOSI IS TRYING TO HOLD UP THE USMCA, THE NEW TRADE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY DO AWAY WITH NAFTA, THE ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT GOT WORKING WITH MEXICO AND CANADA.

HE IS SAYING THAT SHE WANTS TO HOLD UP THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO TRY TO CONVINCE MORE MODERATE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THERE'S NO ED OF THAT JUST YET BUT THE WHITE HOUSE IS AGAIN PUTTING OUT THEIR STATEMENTS AND PUTTING OUT THEIR OFFICIALS TO MAKE THE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> MARGARET TAYLOR, YOU MENTIONED LAST WEEK MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY WAS FROM DIPLOMATS, FOLKS THAT SERVE ON THE FRONT LINE.

ANOTHER PERSON CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO WHO HAVE NOT HEARD.

HIS NAME HAS BEEN INVOKED SEVERAL TIMES AS WELL.

DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING TODAY THAT YOU THINK LEADS TO MORE QUESTIONS THAT SOMEONE LIKE HIM COULD ANSWER?

>> I'M NOT SURE WE HEARD ANYTHING TODAY.

I THINK THAT MAY CHANGE THIS AFTERNOON.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SPECIAL ENVOY VOLCKER PRESUMABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SECRETARY STATE POMPEO.

SPEAKING WITH HIM, JUST THROUGH SOME KIND OF CHAIN OF COMMAND.

I DO ANY THAT SECRETARY POMPEO HAS BEEN LARGELY ABSENT IN A LOT OF THIS TESTIMONY.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT AND WAS EVENTUALLY WITHDRAWN FROM THE POST, IT SEEMS LIKE SECRETARY POMPEO DIDN'T REACH OUT TO HER.

WE SAW FROM ANOTHER WITNESS WHO MAY NOT BE TESTIFYING BUT DID DO A CLOSED DOOR ADVISOR TO SECSAR -- SECTARY POMPEO.

HE DIDN'T SEE THE SUPPORT FOR MARIA YOVANOVICH.

I BELIEVE SECTARY POMPEO IS CURIOUSLY ABSENT IN ALL OF THIS GIVEN THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT A WHAT'S GOING ON.

IT'S A QUESTION MARK.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT GETS SOLVED.

DO YOU SEE HIM COMING BEFORE THE INQUIRY?

>> I DON'T.

IF YOU CONSIDER CHARLES JOHN BOLTON'S DEPUTY.

IF WE DID A COMPLETE INQUIRY THAT WASN'T RUSHED THERE WOULD BE THREE WITNESSES YOU WOULD WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA AND ORDER FROM YOUR BOSS.

THIS IS THE SITUATION WITH POMPEO.

HIS AMBASSADOR IS UNDERMINED BY FALSE INFORMATION THROUGH A KAROSIVE OUTSIDE CHANNEL.

BEFORE HE COULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT SHE HAD BEEN DISCREDITED IN THE EYES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND POMPEO WASN'T DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

HE DIDN'T PUT A POLITICAL HACK IN THE JOB THERE HE PUT BILL DAY I DON'T REMEMBER OVER THERE.

HIS INSTINCTS WOULD BE BASED ON HOW HE TREATED PEOPLE WOULD BE DESERVE FEND HIS PEOPLE WHEN HE KNOWS THE PRESIDENT IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION HE'S CAUGHT AWKWARDLY BETWEEN PROTECTING HIS PEOPLE THAT'S WHY HE'S IN THE MIDDLE HERE.

>> BOTH WITNESSES ARE TECHNICALLY APPEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE GUIDANCE NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INQUIRIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT.

IT IS PEOPLE SAY I DON'T WANT TO BE CAUGHT BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

IN BOTH CASES I BELIEVE THEY WOULD KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIM.

THEY WOULD SAY I CAN'T GET INTO A DIRECT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED.

THAT'S VALID AND RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT.

ONE LAST THING BY POMPEO IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR HIM TALK ABOUT BILL TAYLOR WROTE IN A CABLE ALL OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT WITHHOLDING AID.

BY THE NEWS PAPER ACCOUNTS HE TOOK IT, PRINTED IT.

TOOK IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND MADE HIS CASE TO THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S AN INTERESTING EPISODE.

I'M NOT SURE WE WILL HEAR ABOUT IT TOO MUCH.

WHO KNOWS.

>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT BEFORE I REMIND PEOPLE OF SOMETHING EARLIER TODAY.

>> THE SECTARY OF STATE WILL TAKE HIS MASSAGES TO THE PRESIDENT IN PRIVATE AND WON'T DO ANYTHING THAT WILL UNDERMINED HIS OWN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THERE ARE THREE CASES OF THAT.

ONE THE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVICH IS THE VICTIM OF THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN.

NO STATEMENT IN SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A REQUEST.

AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT SAID NOW WE KNOW THAT WOMAN WILL GO THROUGH THINGS.

NO STATEMENT OF SUPPORT.

MCKINLEY THE TOP FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER RESIGNED.

YESTERDAY REPORTERS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM GAVE THE SECTARY OF STATE THE OPPORTUNITY DESERVE FEND THE PEOPLE THAT HE CHOSE NOT DESERVE FEND.

HE WOULDN'T DEFEND THEM BY NAME, AGAIN.

HE WILL DEFEND THE GENERAL NOTION OF WHAT THEY DO.

HE WOULDN'T DEFEND THE PEOPLE THAT HE KNEW THE PRESIDENT HAD A NEGATIVE OPINION OF.

SECTARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS BUT THEY STAY IN PRIVATE AND UNWILLING DESERVE FEND HIS PEOPLE.

>> SO INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO SAY IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO SAY.

ONE PERSON IS LIEUTENANT CORONAL ALEXANDER VINDMAN.

THIS IS THE OPENING STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER VINDMAN.

>> I HAVE SEVERED AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

I HAD MANY TOURS INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND GERM MY AND DEPLOYED TO IRAQ FOR COMBAT OPERATIONS.

I HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS.

I SEVERED IN THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA.

I WAS THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR THE CHAIRMAN CHIEF OF STAFF TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND INFLUENCE.

IN JULY OF 2018 I WAS ASKED TO SEVER AT THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

AT THE NFC I'M THEÑi PRINCIPAL ADVISOR.

THIS WAS ON UKRAINE AND OTHERS.

MY ROLE IS DESERVE DEVELOP AND COORDINATE TO MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC ISSUES TO COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO.

MY FUNCTION IS THE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES.

THE COMMITTEE HEARD ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UKRAINE AND AGGRESSION.

IT'S IMPORTANT TOE NOTE THE POLICY OF SOLVE ENTITY.

THEY PROMOTE UKRAINE PROCESS PARITY.

HAVE A FREE UKRAINE.

IT'S BIPARTISAN OBJECTIVE ACROSS VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN.

THE PRESIDENT'S ELECTION IN APRIL OF 2019 CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR STRATEGIC AGENDA.

THE THEN PROSECUTOR AND FORMER MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY PROMOTING FALSE NARRATIVES THAT UNDERMINED THE UNITED STATES' UKRAINE POLICY.

THE NFC AND PARTNERS GREW CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SUCH INFORMATION THAT IT'S HAVING ON OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL SEQUITURTY OBJECTIVES.

ZELE NSKY WON THE ELECTION.

I WAS THE STAFF OFFICER THAT PRODUCED MATERIALS AND ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS THAT LISTENED TO THE CALL.

THE CALL WAS POVERTY AND WORKED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED A INVITATION.

AFTER THE DEBRIEFING HE SIGNED A LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

ALEXANDER THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ADVICE DEPOSITED WASHINGTON D.C. TO VISIT BOLTTON.

AMBASSADORS WERE IN THE MEETING.

BOLLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT WHEN SONDLAND ABOUT HE MEETING SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING THERE WAS A SHORT DEBRIEFING WHEN HE EMPHASIZED THEY DELIVERING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTION.

I STATED THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SEQUITURTY.

DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED HIS COMMENTS WERE INA PROP ATE.

WE DECIDED WE WOULD TELL JOHN ISENBERG.

IN JULY 25th THE CALL OCCURRED I LISTENED INÑi ON THE CALL-IN THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES.

I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.

WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS.

IT'S IMPROPER THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE ON A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

I ALSO STATED IT WAS CLEAR IF THEY PERSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS IT WOULD BE INTERRUPTED AS A PARTISAN PLAY.

THIS WOULD HAVE UKRAINE LOSE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

I WANT TO EMPHASIS TO THE COMMITTEE WHEN I REPORT MY CONCERNS AND ON JULY 25th RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

I REPORTED MY CONCERNS PRIVATELY THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THE CONCERNS BECAUSE OF NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNTRY.

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SIT HERE TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE ABOUT MY ACTIONS.

WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS MY OUGHT THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND CARRY OUT MY DUTY.

I'M MILY RETURNED TO WORK TO ADVANCE OUR PHONE POLICY OBJECTIVES.

I FOCUSED ON WHAT I HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT MY CAREER I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE APPEARED AND SCHEDULED TO APPEAR.

THE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS IS REP REP PREHENCEBLE.

WE ARE BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS.

WE COME TOGETHER TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE DON'T SEVER ANY POLITICAL PARTY BUT THE NATION.

I'M HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SEVER IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD.

THE ARMY IS THE ONLY PROFESSION I HAVE EVER KNOWN.

I WANTED TO SPEND MY LIFE SEVERING THIS NATION AND GAVE MY FAMILY REFUGE.

FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT THE GREAT COUNTRY.

NEXT MONTH WILL MARK FOUR 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 LIFE.

HIS DECISION INSPIRED A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE AND INSTILLED A SENSE OF DUTY AND SERVICE.

ALL THREE OF US HAVE SEVERED IN THE MILITARY.

MY LITTLE BROTHER SITS BEHIND ME HERE TODAY.

OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE IS A SPECIAL PART OF OUR FAMILY HIS HISTORY AND STORY IN AMERICA.

I ALSO RECOGNIZE MY SIMPLE ACT OF APPEARING HERE TODAY JUST LIKE MY COLLEAGUES THAT ALSO TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WOULDN'T BE TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.

IN RUSSIA MY ACT OF EXPRESSING CONCERN IN A PRIVATE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE SEVERE REPROACCUSATIONS AND OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD COST ME MY LIFE.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR MY FATHER'S BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40 YEARS AGO AND THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN AND PUBLIC CITIZEN.

DAD, I'M SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITAL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS.

THIS IS PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION TO LEAVE AND COME TO THE UNITED STATES' OF AMERICA FOR A BETTER LIFE.

DO NOT WORRY, I'LL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUST.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> I APPEAR TODAY IN PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA AND WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR 14 YEARS.

I WORKED FOR THREE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.

THREE REPUBLICAN AND ONE DEMOCRATIC.

I CAME IN 2006 AFTER SEVERING IN HOMELAND SECURITY.

IT'S WITH GREAT PRIDE I SWORE AN EARTH ORTHO TO UPHOLDE CONSTITUTION.

FORMER SECTARY OF STATE RICE.

AS A CAREER OFFICER I'M COMMITTED TO SEVERING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.

I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED IN THAT JOURNEY.

I'M PROUD TO COLOTHESE PEOPLE COLLEAGUES.

ACROSS THE FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE, MILITARY, AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

I HAVE SEVER OVERSEAS TOURS IN KINGSTON JAY MA -- JAMAICA, LEBANON, AND MORE.

I HAVE SEVERED AS AN ADVISER ON MIDDLE EAST ISSUES.

THIS SPRING WAS THE GREATEST ON HORROR NOVEMBER MY CAREER TO SEVER AS A SPECIAL ADVISER.

I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH THE DEDICATED MEN AND WOMEN OF THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATIONS AGENDA.

I WORKED CLOSELY WITH TALENTED AND COMMITTED COLLEAGUES.

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHER AGENCIES TO ADVANCE AND PROMOTE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.

IN CAPACITY I HAVE ADVISED AND PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT IN ENGAGEMENT OF THE UKRAINE.

AS YOU ARE AWARE ON NOVEMBER 7th I APPEARED FOR A CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE MY RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE EVENTS I MIGHT BE ASKED ABOUT.

ON APRIL 24th VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WON THE ELECTION.

THE PRESIDENT CALLED TO CONGRATULATE HIM.

HE ACCEPTED AN INNOVATION TO ATTEND HIS UPCOMING INAUGURATION PROVIDING THE SCHEDULING WORKED OUT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT ONLY HAD A NARROW WINDOW OF AVAILABILITY AND THE THEY WOULDN'T MEET TO SET A DATE UNTIL AFTER MAY 14th.

WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO KNOW IF HE COULD ATTEND UNTIL MAY 14th AT THE EARLIEST.

WE MADE TRIP PREPARATIONS IN EARLY MAY.

ON MAY 13th AN ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF CALLED AND INFORMED ME THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T ATTEND THE INAUGURATION IN UKRAINE.

SHE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY FARTHER PLANNING.

I INFORMED THE NFC THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T ATTEND SO THEY COULD IDENTIFY A HEAD OF DELEGATION TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES AT THE INAUGURATION.

ON JULY 3, I LEARNED THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PLACED A HOLD.

ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED OMB WAS REVIEWING IF THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES.

I ATTENDED MEETINGS WHERE THE HOLD ON UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE WAS DISCUSSED.

DURING THE MEETINGS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ADVOCATED THE HOLD SHOULD BE LIFTED AND REPORTED THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF DIRECTED THE HOLD SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE.

ON SEPTEMBER 11th I LEARNED THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN RELEASED.

I NEVER LEARNED WHAT PROMPTED THAT DECISION.

ON JULY 25th ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO A CALL.

THE CONSENTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.

PRIOR TO JULY 25th I PARTICIPATED IN A DOZEN OTHER PHONE CALLS.

DURING MY CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION THEY ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND IF I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL.

AS I TESTIFIED THEN I FOUND IT 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 25th N UPDATE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A CALL.

A HARD COPY TRANSCRIBING THE CALL WAS IN THE BOOK.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY TRANS.

TRANSCRIPT.

I DIDN'T DISCUSS THE CALL WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE.

I LEARNED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD TRAVEL TO POLAND TO MEET WITH HIM ON THE 21st.

AT THE MEETING I ATTENDED THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT NEWS ARTICLES REPORTING A HOLD ON U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT RESPONDED THEY HAD HIS UNWAVERING SUPPORT.

DURING THE MEETING THEY DISCUSSED IT DURING THE PHONE CALL.

>> THOSE WERE THE OPENING STATEMENTS DELIVERED BY THIS MORNING'S WITNESSES ON DAY THREE OF THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENTS PROVEHICLE PROJECT IMT INFORMATION S PRO -- PROCEEDINGS.

YOU ARE WATCHING NEWS HOURS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS ON CALL TOP CL HILL THIS MORNING.

ALSO THERE IS LISA.

LISA, WE ARE IN A BREAK BETWEEN THE TWO PANEL OF WITNESSES.

WE WILL HAVE TWO MORE TAKING THEIR SEATS THIS AFTERNOON.

CONGRESS IS GOING ABOUT IT'S BUSINESS.

WHAT IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE THE INQUIRY TODAY.

>>Reporter: THERE IS IMPORTANT BUSINESS GETTING DONE.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING RUNS OUT THURSDAY NIGHT AT MIDNIGHT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

THERE IS NOT A FUNDING PLAN YET MY COAL COLLEAGUE HAS N DOING CONCERN ABOUT THE U.S./MEXICO TRADE DEAL.

BOTH CHAMBERS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT.

DEMOCRATS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

THERE IS PROGRESS BUT A FEW MORE SNAGS.

THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING CONGRESS WOULD LIKE TO GET DONE BY DECEMBER 20th.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND THE HEARING EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THINGS TO GET DONE.

YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS CHANGING THE ATMOSPHERE UP HERE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THEY ARE WATCHING MINUTE TO MINUTE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BIG THINGS THEY NEED TO BE DOING.

>> LISA, TO THAT POINT WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE TIMELINE.

WE HEARD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE EXACTLY THIS IS GOING AND HOW THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD.

WE HAVE NINE WITNESSES THIS WEEK ALONE.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

>> IF YOU SPEAK TO LAWMAKERS ON THE COMMITTEE THE ONES THAT SLOW LAIN TO THE FAST AND GIVE YOU AN OPINION THEY WILL TELL YOU THE DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS THROUGH TO A FULL VOTE ON THE HOUSE SHOULD THERE BE ONE.

BY THAT WEEK OF DECEMBER 20th BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

OVER HOWEVER, IF YOU TALK TO STAFF MEMBERS THERE ARE FAR MORE X FACTORS HERE AND UNSURE HOW LONG THIS WILL TAKE.

THEY KNOW THAT'S THE GOAL BUT THE QUESTION IS THIS WEEK GOING TO BE THE LAST WEEK OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

TO MEET THE DECEMBER 20th SCHEDULE THAT'S IDEAL TO END PUBLIC HEARINGS NOW.

THEY WILL WRITE AND FORWARD A REPORT TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THOSE WILL BE IN A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNCIL WILL ASK WITNESS QUESTIONS.

THEY CAN CROSS EXAM AND OBJECT.

THAT WOULD NEED TIME WE WOULD THINK.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD WRITE AND MARK UP THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S A LINE BY LINE EDIT OF THE DEBATE PROCESS.

THAT WOULD TAKE TIME.

THAT'S WHY THE TIMELINE IS SO COMPRESSED.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE A FEW MORE STEPS TO GO.

WHEN YOU TALK TO HOUSE INTELLIGENCE MEMBERS THEY WILL SAY THEY MAY NEED TO CALL MORE WITNESSES DEPENDING ON WHERE THE TESTIMONY GOES.

I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION YESTERDAY.

WE KEEP ASKING AND THEY HAVE NOT DECIDED IF THIS IS THE LAST WEEK OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NOT.

THEY HAVE TO GIVE A ONE WEEK NOTICE FOR APPEARINGS AHEAD.

IF WE DON'T GET NOTICE TODAY WE ARE BUMPING UP AGAINST HOLIDAY TIME.

I QUESTION IF WE HAVE MORE THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING.

WHO KNOWS, THEY ARE TRYING TO THREAD A NEEDLE HERE.

>> YOU MENTIONED HOW THE PRESIDENT COULD BE INVOLVED MOVING FORWARD.

WE WILL MOVE OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DOING REPORTING ON ONE OF THE AITNESSES IN PARTICULAR FROM THIS MORNING.

WE MENTIONED AND NICK TOLD US HOW THE CORONAL WILL RETURN TO HIS JOB ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF AFTER DELIVERING THE TESTIMONY HE DID.

HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IMPROPER AND INAPPROPRIATE.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THAT ROLE?

>> THEY TELL ME THE ARMY HAS ASSURED HIM HE WON'T BE RETALIATED AGAINST.

AN OFFICIAL CALLED HIS FAMILY TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE CLEAR EVEN THOUGH THEY GO BEFORE CONGRESS AND BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING HE SHOULD KNOW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS HIS PLACE WHERE HE WILL BE WORKING UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

WHAT WE HAVE IS THE CORONAL HAS DETAILED THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE'S NOT A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE.

HE'S SOMEONE DEPLOYED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE'S SOMEONE THAT THE ARMY IS LOOKING AT VERY CLOSELY AND MAKING SURE THEY HAVE HIS BACK.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY BECAUSE HE SAID I'M DOING WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT.

THE REASON I'M DOING THIS IS BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

HE WAS VERY ELOQUENT IN DESCRIBING THE FACT FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.

HE MIGHT LOSE HIS LIFE BY GOING UP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

HE FELT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO DO THIS.

WE HAVE A MILITARY SERVICE CALLING HIS FAMILY SAYING WE HAVE YOUR BACK.

>> I'M JOINED BY NICK, MARGARET, AND MICHEAL.

NICK, WEIGH-IN ON THIS HERE WHAT HE JUST MENTIONED.

HE WON'T BE AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOREVER.

HE'S A FUTURE DIPLOMAT.

I HAVE TALKED TO OTHERS ABOUT WHAT THE LIEUTENANT CORONAL IS DOING.

YOU CAN SEE THEM PHYSICALLY RESPOND IF I HAD TO DO THAT WOULD I HAVE THE STRAIGHT OR WILLING TO DO THAT.

THERE IS A REAL CONCERN OF CALLING OUT YOUR BOSS, THE ULTIMATE BOSS FOR THE MILITARY AND USING SUCH SPECIFIC WORDS.

THAT CONCERN IN THE ARMY LEAD TO WHAT WE JUST HEARD.

THAT ALSO LEAD TO THE SECTARY OF DEFENSE BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS A WEEK AGO.

THEY SPECIFICALLY MADE A COMMENT.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE FEAR OF RETALIATION.

THAT WAS SEEN AS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT STATEMENT.

THE CHAIRMAN AND JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF GAVE A SPEECH A YEAR AGO ABOUT DISOBEYING ORDERS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO SPEAK TRUE TO POWER.

HE REALLY MADE THE POINT THAT THESE MILITARY OFFICERS SHOULD FEEL THEY HAVE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

THE MILITARY, AT LEAST OFFICIALLY, HAVE RALLIED AROUND VINDMAN TO SAY YOU KEEP GOING, WE HAVE YOUR BACK.

YOU WILL HAVE YOUR JOB AND CAREER WILL PROCEED AS IT SHOULD AND THERE WILL BE NO RETALIATION.

>> YEAH, SOME INCREDIBLY POWERFUL MOMENTS IN THAT TESTIMONY.

MARGARET TAYLOR, EARLIER TODAY.

THERE WERE SOME TENSE MOMENTS.

THIS AFTERNOON WE WILL HEAR FROM TWO MORE OFFICIALS.

ONE OF THEM CURT VOLKER.

WHAT QUESTIONS WOULD YOU HAVE FOR HIM?

>> THIS WILL BE AN INFORMATIVE AFTERNOON.

I WOULD HAVE THREE KINDS OF QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

THE FIRST WOULD BE, HE'S THE MAIN PERSON IN CONNECTION WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

HE'S THE MAIN PERSON TALKING AND TEXTING WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

HE SET UP A MEETING BETWEEN RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND YERMAK WHO IS AN ADVISER FOR ZELENSKY.

THE SECOND QUESTION IS I'M INTERESTED IN HIS CONNECTION WITH THE JULY 10th, NATIONAL SECURITY MEETING.

WE HEARD THIS MORNING ON, JULY h , THERE WAS A MEETING THAT INCLUDED AMBASSADOR V OLKER THAT ENDED ABRUPTLY.

IZE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIS IMPRESSION OF THAT.

THEY HAD A PHOTO AND WENT TO THE AWARD ROOM.

THAT'S WHERE THE LIEUTENANT CORONAL VINDMAN GOT SPECIFIC ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

HE USED BIDEN, 2016 ELECTION, AND BUI SMA.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT AND WHAT WAS GOING ON.

THAT CONNECTS TO MY THIRD POINT.

IN HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY HE BASICALLY SAID HE DIDN'T PUT IT ALTOGETHER.

HE DIDDENED UNDERSTAND THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INTERESTED IN THE BIDEN'S UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED.

I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

HOW COULD THAT BE?

HOW WORKING AS ONE OF THE THREE AMIGOS.

>> YOU ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT A CREDIBLE STATEMENT.

HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN?

>> IT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR HOW HE COULDN'T PUT THAT TOGETHER.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT MICHAEL.

>> I HAD THIS SAME POINT.

FIRST V OLKER WILL EXPLAIN I WAS TRYING TO CORRECT THE MISCONCEPTIONS THE PRESIDENT HAD.

HE WILL SAY I WAS ONBOARD WITH A STATEMENT THAT MENTIONED CORRUPTION.

HE SHADES IT AGAIN AND SAYS, YOU WELL, FINE, YOU WILL IMPORT BU R URI -- BURISMA INTO THIS.

HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY I HAD NO PART OF WHAT WE CALLED THE QUID PRO QUO IN RELAYING CONDITIONING OUR MILITARY AIDE TO THE YOU YOU -- UKRAINIAN FOR AID.

HE WILL USE THE OLD PHRASE WHEN DID YOU KNOW?

HOW DID YOU KNOW IT?

>> HE TRIED TO NAVIGATE.

HE TRIED TO LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT WANTED SPECIFIC CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION.

ALSO HE WANTED TO KEEP THE POLICY ON TRACK WHICH IS ANTICORRUPTION.

I THINK THE FINE LINE THAT HE WILL TRY TO WALK IS WHEN I SAY BURISMA THAT MEANS UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION INTO UKRAINIANS.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT USED IT DID HE MEAN CORRUPTION OR BIDEN.

WHAT VOLKER SAID IT HE MEANT BIDEN.

STEER THE CONVERSATION TO CORRUPTION.

WE KNOW THIS IS A CORRUPT COMPANY THAT HAD HUNTER BIDEN WORKING FOR THEM.

WHETHER IT'S SKEPTICISM, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE.

>> TO BE CLEAR, HELP US UNDERSTAND THE TWO.

SOMEONE IN HIS ROLE AND WHAT PART OF THE SYSTEM THEY WOULD NAVIGATE AND KNOW ABOUT.

HIS ROLE WOULD BE TO TRY TO NAVIGATE FOR UKRAINIANS ON THE GROUND WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> HE'S AN INTERESTING HISTORY.

LONG TIME FOREIGN OFFICE AND POLITICAL APPOINTEE TO NATO.

HE WAS SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE YOU UKRAINE.

THAT WAS A SPECIAL POSITION.

HE HAD DIPLOMATIC EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

HE'S A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEE.

HE WILL TRY AGAIN TO ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT SET THE POLICY BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY IS ABOUT THE VANILLA CORRUPTION.

I TRIED TO NAVIGATE THAT.

HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED A SPADE OR SPADE OR SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED.

THE PANEL SAID YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

THIS IS WHERE HE IS COMING FROM.

HE'S THE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

>> I SPOKE ABOUT MISCONCEPTIONS.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN ABOUT THAT?

>> I THINK THAT HE, KURT VOLKER WILL EXPLAIN.

THERE WAS A STORY PUBLISHED ABOUT VOLKER.

I LEARNED MORE SINCE I TESTIFIED AND GAVE MY DEPOSITION IN PRIVATELY IN A ROOM SOME WEEKS AGO.

HE WILL SAY HE LEARNED MORE SINCE THEN, THE QUESTION FOR HIM IS CAN HE CONVINCE THE MEMBERS THAT HE WAS NOT PART OF JUST THE DEAL THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY TO THE UKRAINIANS WHICH IS YOU BETTER INVESTIGATE BIDEN.

>> AT THE HEART IS THE UKRAINES WERE INVOLVED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND METALING IN SOME FORM.

NICK EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE.

WE CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS ENOUGH.

WHAT'S AT THE HEART OF THE CLAIM.

WHAT DO WE KNOW TO BE TRUE.

>> ON THE CALL THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHT.

HE DOESN'T SAY INVESTIGATIONS INTO UKRAINIANS THAT DIDN'T LIKE ME.

HE SAID CROWDSTRIKE AND BIDEN.

HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD AT BURI SMA AND CROWDSTRIKE.

THE COUNTRY THAT HACKED US WAS RUSSIA.

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY TO DISTRACT FROM RUSSIAN'S INVOLVEMENT IS THAT SOMEHOW UKRAINE CREATED THIS FALSE HACKING TO DISCREDIT RUSSIA.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

CROWDSTRIKE IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST ONE TO SAY IT WAS RUSSIA THAT HACKED INTO THE DNC.

THAT'S WHY THEY WERE ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT EASAL 'S ALLIES.

THIS IS IRRELEVANT.

AFTER THE HACK OF THE DNC AAND THISSED OVER TO THE FBI THE IMAGES OF THE HARD DRIVE.

BASICALLY, AS IT'S BEEN DESCRIBE ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE HARD DRIVES.

THERE ARE PHYSICAL SEVERS SOMEWHERE.

THE COPIES HAVE THE IN POINTS AND OUTPOINTS.

THE SEVER IS SOMEWHERE BUT NOT RELEVANT THEY DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE SEVER BUT SEEP I DON'T REMEMBER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS CRITICIZING CAGE DATE TRUMP FOR HIS POLICY.

HE SAID MAYBE CRIMEA.

THEY OPPOSED CRANDATE TRUMP.

>> ALL OF THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THIS WE SAW QUESTIONING FROM REPUBLICANS.

THIS IDEA THAT WE HEARD FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS IS PART OF A CONSTANT EFFORT BY DEMOCRATS TO UNDERMINED THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

OF COURSE HE'S LOOKING AHEAD TO 2020.

>> HE IS LOOKING AHEAD TO 2020 AND WEIGHTING THE IDEA AS HE DEFENDS HIMSELF HE HAS TO KEEP MAKING THE CASE HE'S THE BEST PERSON TO BE RE-ELECTED TO BE PRESIDENT.

THIS IS DEMOCRATS ANGRY AND TRYING TO FIND AWAY DESERVE FEET HIM IN 2020.

THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO GET A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO METAL IN THE ELECTION BY TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND THEY SAW HIM AS A FRONT RUNNER TO BE PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALSO MAKING HIS CASE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO SAY LOOK, THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE ANGRY ABOUT ALL OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED AS PRESIDENT.

THEY HAVE LISTED OVERALL SORTS OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

HE THINKS THAT ALL OF THIS IS REALLY GOING TO NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE SHOULD BE RE-ELECTED TO PRESIDENT.

NICK POINTED OUT A CLAIM ABOUT THE SEVERS IN THE UKRAINE.

THE PRESIDENT TOLD MULTIPLE OFFICIALS THAT HE THINKS UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN.

THAT WAS AT THE HEART OF ALL OF THIS AS YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE UKRAINE TO DO.

HE DID SAID THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS THAT DIDN'T WANT TO SEE HIM ELECTED.

>> I'LL GO THROUGH THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT WE MIGHT SEE THIS AFTER NEW JERSEY.

LARGELY SOW FAR WITH THE WITNESSES WE SAW EARLIER TODAY.

DEMOCRATS WORK TO REMOVE NARRATIVE DETAILS AND WHAT THEY SEE AS FACTS AND FROM THEIR FACT WITNESSES THERE.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS AND UNDERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LIEUTENANT CORONAL VINDMAN.

THESE ARE TWO PEOPLE REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM.

WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM REPUBLICANS IN TERMS OF THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT ON.

YOU WILL SEE MORE OF AN ATTACK AT THE SUBSTANCE HERE.

AS YOU GUESTS HAVE MENTIONED THESE ARE TWO WITNESSES THAT BOTH WERE PRIVILEGED TO WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE PRESIDENT INCLUDING THE PHONE CALL ON JULY 25th.

NEITHER OF THEM FELT ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS GOING ON.

TIM HAD SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATION OF THE PHONE CALL.

THEY MIGHT HAVE A PARTISAN EFFECT ON HOW THEY WERE VIEWED AT THE CAPITAL.

HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF DIDN'T MEANS SAY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ILLEGAL.

WE HAVE A PORTION ABOUT WHAT IS ILLEGAL FOR AN ACTING PRESIDENT.

I THINK WE WILL GET MORE ON THE SUBSTANCE.

DEMOCRATS WILL SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH THE WITNESSES CONNECTING DOTS.

THEY WILL TRY TO CONNECT THEM WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND SONDLAND.

WHY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF WHERE TALKING TO THE UKRAINE.

THAT'S WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT IT, WHEN IT HAPPENED, AND TRYING TO CONNECT THAT BACK TO THE OFFICE AND MULVANEY AND ASSOCIATE WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE DEBATED.

HE WAS RUNNING ALL OF THESE AGENCIES AND OF COURSE HE WAS INVOLVED.

MARGARET, LISA MENTIONED A KEY QUESTION ABOUT THE MILITARY AID ABOUT WHO INITIATED THE HOLD.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KEY QUESTIONS.

THE OTHER TESTIFYING THIS AFTERNOON IS TIMOTHY MORRISON.

WHAT IS LEFT OUTSTANDING THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL IN AT THIS POINT.

HE CAME ON THE SCENE A LITTLE LATE.

SHE HAD BEEN IN THAT POSITION A LONG TIME.

THAT'S WHEN MORRISON CAME ONBOARD.

HE SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT HE HAD A LOT OF COMING UP TO SPEED TO DO.

HE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HILL BEFORE SHE LEFT.

HE JUST HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I DEFINITELY WOULD WANT TO ASK HIM WHEN WOULD YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

YOU WERE LISTENING TO THIS JULY 25th CALL AND YOU MADE VARIOUS ACTIONS AFTERWARDS.

WHY DID YOU TAKE ACTION TO LIMIT ACCESS TO THE CALL.

IN TERMS OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IT'S CLEAR FROM THE NUMB BENEFIT OF DEPOSITIONS TRANSCRIPTS IT WAS MICK MULL VAIN -- MICK MULVANEY.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, IT'S WORTH NOTING OTHER PEOPLE ON THAT CALL INCLUDING AN AID TO VICE PRESIDENT PRESENCE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

TIM MORRIS SAID HE DIDN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IMPROPER ON THE CALL.

>> TIM WILL HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HERE IN ACCESSING AS A POLICY STAFFER THEY WILL BRING THAT FORCE BEHIND FOREIGN POLICY.

THIS IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS LEFT BY THE CONSTITUTION.

THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL IF THEY THOUGHT IT WASN'T ILLEGAL.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A LINE TO WALK HERE.

THEY VERY MUCH LIKE JENNIFER WILLIAMS HAVE CALLED THIS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER.

THE DEMOCRATS WILL SAY THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB THAT'S OUR JOB THE REPUBLICANS WILL ESSENTIALUATE -- SAY THEY WERE INVOLVED.

>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE HEARING ROOM.

WE WILL BE RETURNING THERE MOMENTARILY.

FOLKS ARE STARTING TO FILL BACK IN.

MEMBERS ARE MAKING THEIR WAY BACK.

OF COURSE WE WILL HAVE TESTIMONY FROM K URTVOLKER AND TIM MORRISON.

I WOULD LIKE TOE ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING WE HAVE HEARD FROM TIM MORRISON.

HE DID BE THE BELIEVE ANYTHING ON THE CALL WAS IMPROPER.

HE WILL FILL IN DEAT A TIMES ABOUT REGULAR CHANNELS WE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT.

TELL US WHAT TO HEAR ON THAT.

>> BY THE TIME HE ARRIVES IT'S MID-JULY.

SO, THE I IRREGULAR R CHANNEL HAS GOTTEN YOVANOVITCH WAS FIRED.

MORRIS WAS THERE BY THE TIME THE CALL WAS MADE.

WE ARE ABOUT TO BE IN THE POINT OF THIS TIMELINE IN WHICH UKRAINE KNOWS A BIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT MILITARY AIDE IS AID IS BEING HE.

MORRISON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.

HE WILL TALK ABOUT THE CALL AND HIS IMPRESSIONS OF THE CALL AND WHY HE WOULD LIKE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO IT.

THIS IS NOT A COVER UP.

HE WILL TALK ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY IN JULY AND AUGUST.

HE WILL TALK ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR AS WELL AND HIS ROLE IN THIS.

IT WAS SONDLAND THAT WAS IN CHARGE OF ENACTING THE PRESIDENT'S VERSION OF THE POLICY.

THAT WAS GETTING UKRAINE TO COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND BEFORE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE COULD START THROWING AGAIN.

HE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT AND DESCRIBE HOW HE WAS PART OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

AS HE SAID THE PRESIDENT EMPOWERED HIM TO DO THAT.

AGAIN, A REGULAR POLICY OFFICER TRYING TO NAVIGATE BETWEEN THE REGULAR POLICY AND IRREGULAR POLICY THAT HE CREATED AND SONDLAND LEAD AND WOULD LEAD UNTIL SEPTEMBER WHEN THE ASSISTANCE RESUMED.

>> WE WILL LIKELY HEAR A LOT ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HIS INVOLVEMENT.

WE HEARD THIS MORNING FROM VINDMAN ABOUT SONDLAND AND THE MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE IN VOLKER'S OFFICE.

HE WAS RAISING THE QUESTIONS AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ENDED THE MEETING.

>> I THINK THEY ARE SETTING THE TABLE TO BLAST SONDLAND TOMORROW.

LAST WEEK WAS TO ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT HAD MISTREATED A SERIES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICERS DUE TO THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

THEY ARE PUSHING BACK ON HEARSAY.

NOW THEY WILL SCULPT WHAT THE CRIME WAS.

HERE WERE THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW DIRECTLY OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING AND HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORROSIVE THINGS.

THEY WILL SET IT UP NICELY TO HAVE A BIG DAY TOMORROW.

>> MARGARET, WALK US THROUGH.

LISA MENTIONED HOW THIS COULD UNFOLD PROCEDURE ALLY FROM THE STAFF MEMBERS PROSPECTIVE.

YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS MORE THAN THE PEOPLE WE SEE TALKING ABOUT IT.

WHAT'S HELPING BEHIND THE SCENES THAT WILL HELP US FORM WHAT'S HAPPENING TOMORROW AND HOW DOES THE TIMELINE PLAY OUT?

>> I MEAN, FROM WHAT I THINK IS GOING ON WITH THE STAFF IS THEY ARE WORKING VERY HARD.

THIS IS A LOT OF MATERIAL GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SO THEY CAN BE RELEASED IS A TON OF EFFORT.

PREPARING YOUR BOSSES FOR THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS AND LINE OF QUESTIONING.

COORDINATING WITH OTHER MEMBERS.

IT'S A LOT OF WORK ANDS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT I WAS ONE OF THOSE FOLKS.

YOU DON'T GET PAID A LOT UP THERE.

THERE ARE MOMENTS WHEN YOU JUST WORK A LOT OF HOURS.

I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.

YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT STAFF ARE TRAINED TO UNDERSTAND THINGS MIGHT CHANGEOVER TIME AND YOU NEED TO KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN.

MEMBERS, OF COURSE, SPEAK TO THE PRESS AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE CERTAIN POSITIONS AND THE STAFF IS MORE REALISTIC.

MY SENSE IS THEY WILL STILL BE DRIVING PRETTY HARD ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY CAN.

YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT FEW STAGES OF THE PROCESS.

YOU CAN TRY TO MOVE THROUGH IT QUICKLY.

I DON'T SEE A LOT OF BENEFIT TO DRAG THIS OUT, UNLESS, THERE ARE VARIOUS COURT CASES THAT ARE MAKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPEALS COURT.

THERE IS A CASE WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE HOUSE MAY GET THE PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURNS.

IF THAT HAPPENS THAT COULD BE A LIGHTNING BOLT AND CHANGES IT.

WHEN YOU WORK ON THE HILL YOU HAVE TO GET USED TO LIGHTNING BOLTS COMING IN.

>> I HAVE TO POINT THAT OUT THAT'S TRUE IN THE NEWS MADE I CAN'T AS WELL.

>> I FIND THIS FASCINATING FROM THE BEHIND THE SCENES PROSPECTIVE.

AFTER THE LAST TWO DAYS OF TESTIMONY LAST WEEK.

IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN STAFFER FOR SOMEONE LIKE NUNES WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PREPARE?

>> THEY ARE CERTAINLY ON THE PHONE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE TRYING TO ASSESS HOW WE THOUGHT THE MORNING WENT AND WHAT MASSAGES DO WE WANT TO TRY TO DRIVE THEREAFTER NOON.

A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE WATCHING THIS CLOSELY WANTED TO SEE IF JIM JORDAN HAD ANY REALLY HARD QUESTIONS FOR THIS MORNINGS WITNESSES.

HE REPEATED WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, CHARADE, HOAX, WE HAVE WAISTED A LOT OF TIME.

THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.

ALL OF THESE META-MASSAGES.

THAT MIGHT BE WHAT THEY DO TODAY.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE FIRST THING OUT OF THEIR MOUTH WAS DO NOR HARM.

DON'T TWEET IN THE MIDDLE OF A PERSON TESTIFYING AND HAVING AN UPHILL BATTLE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DISCIPLINED.

HE'S RE-TWEETING THINGS BUT NOT ASSAULTING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TODAY.

I WOULD LOVE TO GET YOUR TAKE ON THAT.

YOU FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S TWEETS VERY CLOSELY.

AFTER THE PRESIDENT TWEETED MID TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVICH.

>>Reporter: THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T SEE THIS AS POSSIBLEMATIC.

HE'S SEEING HIMSELF AS IT STREET FIGHTER.

THEY GO AFTER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY PERSONALLY BLOCK AT HIM.

THEY SAY IS THERE SOMEONE OVER AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WILL TAKE THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE AWAY TOMORROW.

PEOPLE SURROUNDING THEM SAID THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL.

HE'S THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF THAT WILL TELL HIM DON'T TWEET THAT.

THIS IS PART OF THE OVERALL GOAL AND CHARACTER.

HE WAS USHERED INTO OFFICE.

LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT HE WAS ABLE TO BE ON TWITTER AND TALK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHAT WE WILL SEE IS THE PRESIDENT CONTINUING TO DO THAT AND OF COURSE TODAY WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THE WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT ECHOING HIS OWN WORDS.

HE WAS GOING AFTER HIS BOSS THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT JUDGMENT.

THE WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT WASN'T ACKNOWLEDGING WHILE ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS.

HE WAS ALSO SAYING, LOOK, I HAVE EVALUATIONS FROM MY OTHER SUPERVISORS THAT SAY I WAS A GOOD MILITARY SERVICE OFFICE.

THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO BE HIMSELF AND RESPONDING IN REALTIME.

>> WE AWAIT THE BEGINNING OF THIS AFTERNOONS PROCEEDINGS.

WHO WILL YOU BE WATCHING?

>> OF COURSE, SCHIFF AND JORDAN.

THERE ARE ALSO RISING STARS OR CURRENT STARTES IN BOTH PARTIES.

THE PRESIDENT POINTED TO ELISE STEFANIK.

HE WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT AND WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

CUOMO WAS AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY REGARDED MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.

HE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF CAUCUS UNTIL HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT.

PEOPLE WEREN'T CONSULTING WITH HIM ANYMORE.

NOW THAT HE'S BACK ON HIS GAME HE WILL REBUILD THAT CAPITAL VERY QUICKLY.

WITH ARE SEEING WHAT HE'S GOOD AT.

DIRECT QUESTIONING AND THE HUMAN ASPECTS.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

WE'LL GO LIVE NOW TO THE HEARING.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS THE FOURTH IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE HOUSE WILL HOLD.

WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR WOULD BE AUTHORIZED DESERVE DECLARE A RECESS AT ANY TIME.

WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN TO QUESTIONS.

>> WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE ]XSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT INTO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J. TRUMP.

THE 45th PRESIDENT.

>> WE WILL HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WITH THE NATIONAL'S COUNCIL.

WE WILL HEAR FROM DAVID HALE TOMORROW.

WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING TO ENTER THE RACE IN 2020 HIS PERSONAL LAWYER RUDOLPH GIULIANI BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CANDIDACY BY PUSHING THEM TO INVESTIGATE HIM AND HIS SON.

TO CLEAR WAY OF OBSTACLE TO THE SCHEME.

DAYS AFTER THE YOU CRAN -- YOU UKRAINIAN ELECTION.

HE ALSO CANCELED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S ATTENDANCE TO THE INAUGURATION.

THESE THREE RETURNED FROM THEIR FIRST INTERACTIONS WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION.

HOPES THAT TRUMP WOULD A DEGREE WERE DIMINISHED WHEN HE PUSHED BACK.

ACCORDING TO VOLKER HE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.

HE SAID I HEAR HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVES UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN.

HE TOLD THE THREE AMIGOS.

VOLKER TESTIFIED HE PUSHED BACK ON RUDOLPH GIULIANI'S ACTIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN.

ON JULY 22, DAYS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL TALK ABOUT IT.

ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY AS IT CALL BETWEEN RUPTURE AND ZELENSKY.

HE SAID QUOTE, HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE CONCERNED HIM TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

IN 2016 WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATES IN WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK, EXCLAMATION POINT.

HE RESPONDED TO UKRAINE'S AAPPRECIATE -- APPRECIATE.

I WOULD LIKE US TO DO A FAVOR.

THEY INSOLVED THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS.

HE WASN'T ON THE CALL BUT WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT IT REFLECTED HE SAID NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE A FOREIGN LEADER TO INTERFERE IN THE U.S. ELECTION.

AMONG THOSE LISTENING IN WAS TIM MORRISON.

THE SENIOR DIRECTOR AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS IS ONLY DAYS BEFORE.

THEY HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY HIS PREDECESSOR.

THE REGULAR CHANNEL WAS OPERATING TO THE OFFICIAL ONES.

THE LIEUTENANT CORONAL WE SPOKE WITH THIS MORNING HE WAS TROUBLED AND CONCERNED ENOUGH THAT HE WENT TO SEE THE LEGAL ADVISORS AFTER IT ENDED.

HIS FEAR WAS THE PRESIDENT BROKE TO LAW YOU POTENTIALLY BUT MORRISON SAID IT'S HIS CONCERN WAS THE CALL COULD BE DAMAGED AS IT RELATES.

SOON AFTER THIS LAWYERS WITH THE NFC.

THE CALL RECORD WAS HIDDEN A WAY TO RESTORE CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE.

FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORKED WITH HIS ADVISER ON A STATEMENT THAT WOULD SATISFY RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

WHEN HE SENT OVER THE DRAFT THAT FAILED TO INCLUDE THE SPECIFIC WORDS HE SAID THIS WOULD LACK CREDIBILITY.

BOTH WERE AWARE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD BE CUTOFF.

AS UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY ASSIST -- ASSISTANCE AND SCHEDULING OF THE MEETING THEY DRAGGED ON AND THE PRESSURE INCREASED AND ANY PRETENSE THERE WAS NO LINKAGE DROPPED AWAY.

PENCE AND ZELENSKY MET AND HE RAISED THE SUSPENDED SECURITY.

HE APPROACHED HIM TO TELL HIM WHAT HE BELIEVED COULD HELP MOVE THE AID IF THEY WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND SAY HE'S OPENING THE INVESTIGATION.

ON SEPTEMBER 7th HE HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH TRUMP AND ASKED WHAT HE WANTED FROM THE UKRAINE.

HE SPOKE WITH HIM AFTER THE CALL AND TRUMP INSISTED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MUST ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.

IF HE DIDN'T AGREE TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT THE U.S. AND UKRAINE WOULD BE AT A STALE MEAT MEANING IT WOULDN'T RECEIVE THE ASSISTANCE.

HE KNEW HE KNEW IT WAS BEING ASKED OF ZELENSKY HIMSELF.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

HIS INSISTENCE THAT ZELENSKY MUST PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS WHETHER IT'S AT A STALE STALEMATE THAT MAE SURE TWO ACTS THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID WERE CONDITIONED ON WHAT TRUMP WANTED.

INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS CAMPAIGN.

THE EFFORTS WOULD CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL DAYS.

IT ABRUPTED ENDED AFTER THEY ASKED TO LOOK INTO THE SCHEME.

ONLY THEN WOULD THE AID BE RELEASED.

I RECOGNIZE DEVIN NUNES.

>> WELCOME BACK TO THE CIRCUS.

WE ARE HERE FOR WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAY IS A PROCESS TO OVERTHROW A DUALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

IF SUCCESSFUL THE END RESULT WOULD BE TO DIS ENFRANCHISE THOSE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

NOT ON THE PARTY THAT'S SUPPOSE TO OVERSEE THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

IT'S STRANGE HOW WE HAVE MORPHED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE PRESIDING OVER A MATTER THAT HAS NO INTELLIGENT COMPONENT WHAT SO EVER.

IMPEACHMENT IS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND NOT THE INTELLIGENCE.

PUTTING THIS IN OUR COURT PROVIDES TO MAIN ADVANTAGES.

IT'S EASIER TO SHROUD THEIR DEPOSITIONS AND NOT GIVE TOO BIG OF A ROLE TO ANOTHER DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN IN WHICH THEY HAVE NO CONFIDENCE.

WHO CAN CREW THESE PROCEEDINGS AS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

THEY HAVE SPENT THREE YEARS SATURATING THE AIRWAYS.

THESE OUTLANDISH ATTACKS CONTINUE ON THIS VERDE.

JUST THIS WEEKEND IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST A CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE DENOUNCED PRESIDENT TRUMP AS A ARTHRITIC TO OUR COUNTRY.

HE VOWED WE WILL SEND THAT CHARLOTTETON TO THE THRONE HE CAME FROM.

HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO WOULD SAY THAT WOULD CONDUCT A FAIR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

IT'S OBVIOUS THEY ARE TRYING TO TOPPLE THE PRESIDENT.

THEY PROMISED TO IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL WIN REELECTION NEXT YEAR.

NO WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED A CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

LAST WEEK THEY TOLD US THE INFRACTION WAS ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO.

THIS WEEK, BRIBERY.

WHO KNOWS WHAT CRIME THEY WILL ACCUSE HIM OF NEXT WEEK.

WITNESSES THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED A PARADE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT DON'T LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE POLICY.

THEY ACKNOWLEDGED HE PROVIDED THEM WITH LETHAL MILITARY AID AFTER A OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO DO SO.

THEY RESENT THE CONDUCT OF POLICIES THROUGH CHANNELS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN AUTHORITY.

THE ACTIONS THEY ARGUE LINK THE INTERAGENCY CONTENTION.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT ALONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE POLICY.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECT THE PRESIDENT NOT AN INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS.

OF COURSE OUR PREVIOUS AGENCY HAD NEW INFORMATION.

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T DESIGNED TO UNCOVER NEW INFORMATION AND SHOWCASE A HAND LOOK OF WITNESSES.

THAT'S CONDUCIVE.

BY THE TIME ANY WITNESS SAID ANYTHING HERE PEOPLE ARE HEARING IT.

SECOND WHEN THEY PUBLISH THOSE.

OF COURSE THERE ARE NO TRANSCRIPTS.

THEY CAN TESTIFY ABOUT THE JOB OR ALEXANDER.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL OFFICIAL.

THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO LET US KNOW.

WE ARE LEFT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRUMP ZELENSKY THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE PUBLIC.

THAT MEANS THE PEOPLE CAN READ IT THEMSELVES.

THEY CLAIM HE MUST BE LYING WHEN HE SAID THE CALL WAS FRIENDLY.

THERE IS IRONY.

WE HEARD THE DEMOCRATS TALK ABOUT THE DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT CAUSED TO RELATION.

WHEN HE CONTRADICTED THEIR ACCUSATIONS THEY SAID HE WAS A LIAR CALLING HIM A LIAR.

THERE IS A POLICIES ON LETHAL AID.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION TO HIM AND DIPLOMATS TESTIFIED THEY ALWAYS ASSUME WOULD BE LIFTED WHICH IT WAS.

WITHOUT THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ACTION THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING COERCED INTO DOING IT.

THE PROCESS WASN'T SOBER.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT PRAYERFUL IT'S AN AMBITION ATTACK OF THE PEOPLE TO ELECT A PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS TENDONITIS DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE.

DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT.

IF THAT AS TRUE IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT THAT POSES THE DANGER.

I YIELD BACK.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR K URT VOLKER.

YOU SEVERED FOR 30 YEARS WORKING ON POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES UNDER FIVE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION.

THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND LATER AS IT DEPUTY ASSISTANT.

IN 2008 PRESIDENT TRUMP BUSH 2008 PRESIDENT BUSH APPOINTED HIM TO NATO WHERE HE SEVERED UNTIL 2009.

HE WAS APPOINTED TO BE THE U.S. SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL HE RESIGNED IN SEPTEMBER.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO WELCOME MR. MORRISON.

HE WILL BE A STAFFER.

MR. MORRISON WAS THE DIRECTOR WITH THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.

JOINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL FOR COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOLLOWING THE DEPARTURE OF HILL.

HE ASSUMED THE POSITION OF SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA AND EUROPE.

TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE THEY ARE SWORN THE FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITION AS PART OF THE INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE.

ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL BE AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL.

ANY INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

SECOND CONGRESSMAN WON'T TOLERATE THE REPRISAL AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 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 THE DEMOCRAT YOU ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE ONLY TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?

LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK THANK YOU AND PLEASE E SEATED.

THE MYO MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE.

WITH THAT YOU WILL RECOGNIZE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER.

YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES I'M HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT YOUR TIME AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

AS RELATED TO THE UKRAINE AND ASSISTANCE TO THAT COUNTRY.

I WILL PROVIDE THE MOST COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION.

WHETHER IT CONDUCT THE SUBJECT OF THE INQUIRY MAR IT'S IMPEACHMENT FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I WILL NOT WAIST TIME RESTATING THE DETAILS OF MY DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 31, 2019 THAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC.

I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE KEY POINTS.

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED I DON'T 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 COLLEAGUES.

I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO QUESTION THEIR CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY.

MY RECOLLECTIONS OR JUDGEMENTS ARE MY OWN.

SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES RECOLLECTIONS MAY DIFFER FROM MINE.

I DON'T SAY THAT'S OF AN UNTOWARD PURPOSE.

I COULDN'T TO BELIEVE THE UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINE OF A COMPETITION BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA.

RUSSIA IS A FAILING POWER BUT A DANGEROUS ONE.

THE U.S. AIDED UKRAINE SO THEY COULD FIGHT RUSSIA OVER THERE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER HERE.

THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN OBJECTIVE.

THIS MUST CONTINUE TO BE.

AS I STATED DURING MY DEPOSITION I FEARED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL HOW THIS DISCLOSURE WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL CLIMATE AND MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED.

I BEG YOU NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE MILITARY CONFLICT IN THE UKRAINE TODAY.

THE ONGOING BATTLE WITH CRIMEA.

EVERYTHING IS CENTERED ON THESE PROCEEDINGS INSTEAD OF THOSE MATTERS.

FINALLY, ICON I CONCLUDED Y LAST DAY THE DAY BEFORE I TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU.

I LEFT ON MY OWN AND FELT NO PROCESSES SURE TO RESIGN.

I MADE THIS CAREER CHOSE SOMETIME BEFORE I DECIDED TO TESTIFY ON OCTOBER 31st.

I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

>> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR VOLKIR.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THI TO P 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, I VOLUNTARILY PROVIDEED RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IN MY POSSESSION IN ORDER TO BE COOPERATIVE, CLEAR AND COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE.

I'M 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.

ON OCTOBER 3rd IN PRIVATE, AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN TODAY.

LIKE MANY WHO HAVE TESTIFIED, 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, AND BARACK OBAMA.

MY LAST THREE POSITIONS BEFORE LEAVING THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2009 WERE AS DIRECTOR FOR NATO IN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, PRINCIPLE ASSISTANT DEPUTY 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 GOOD TO SUPPORT THE 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 U.S. UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS BY FOCUS WAS TO ADVANCE THE FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN PARTICULAR, I HAD BEEN 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 COULD STOP AND REVERSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE, WE CAN PREVENT IT ELSEWHERE.

IF UKRAINE, THE CRADLE OF SLAVIK CIVILIZATION PRECEDES A SECURE DEMOCRACY, RUSSIA MAY ONE DAY CHANGE, PROVIDEING A BETTER LIFE FOR RUSSIAN PEOPLE, AND OVERCOMING THE CURRENT PLAGUE OF AUTHORIAATISM, AGGRESSION, AND THREATS TO NATO AND THE UNITED STATES.

THE STAKES OF THE UNITED STATES AND A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE COULD NOT BE HIGHER.

AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE OF OR KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN.

AS YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I HAVE PROVIDEED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAUP NOT A TOPIC OF THE DISCUSSION.

I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL WAS RELEASEED ON SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019.

FROM JULY 7, 2017 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27th, 2019, I WAS THE LEAD U.S.

DIPLOMAT DEALING WITH RUSSIA'S WAR ON UKRAINE.

MY ROLE IS NOT SOME REGULAR CHANNEL.

IT'S THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL.

I REPORTED DIRECTLY TO SECRETARIES OF STATE, TILLERSON AND POMPEO.

KEPT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AWARE OF MY EVENTS, AND WORKED WITH THE NSC DIRECTOR HILL, AND SUCCESSOR TIM MORRISON.

AND THEN WES MITCHELL AND HIS SUCCESSOR ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PHIL WREAKER.

AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY, COOPER, AND MANY, MANY OTHERS.

I'VE KNOWN MANY OF THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT.

WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LEFT KIEV, I IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDED BILL TAYLOR TO SECRETARY POMPEO SO WE WOULD HAVE A STRONG SEASONED PROFESSIONAL ON THE GROUND.

FOR TWO YEARS AFTER THE EVENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE, I WAS THE MOST SENIOR U.S.

DIPLOMAT VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE, AIDING WITH VICTIMS OF RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION, URGING INCREASED SECURITY ASSISTANCE INCLUDING LETHAL DEFENSE WEAPONS.

WORKING WITH POROSHENKO AND HIS SUCCESSOR AND THEIR TEAM.

WORKING WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY, PRESSING FOR SUPPORT FROM THE NATO, THE EU, AND OSCE.

SUPPORTING THE OSCE SPECIAL MONITORING MISSION, AND ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH 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 TOWARD UKRAINE.

WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION LIFT SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA.

WOULD IT MAKE A GRAND BARGAIN WITH RUSSIA TO TRADE OIGZ OF RUSSIA'S SEIZURE OF UKRANIAN TERRITORY FOR SOME OTHER DEAL IN SYRIA OR ELSE WHERE?

WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZE RUSSIA'S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEIA.

THERE WERE ALSO A NUMBER OF KEY VACANCIES, AND NO ONE WAS DIRECTLY REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS ABOUT ENDING THE WAR IN EASTERN UKRAINE.

OVER TWO YEARS OF MY TENURE AS U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE FUNDAMENTALLY TURNED U.S. POLICY AROUND.

POLICY WAS STRONG, CONSISTENT AND ENJOYED SUPPORT ACROSS THE ADMINISTRATION, BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS AND SUPPORT AMONG OUR ALLIES AND UKRAINE.

WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE COMMON LEAP USED TO DESCRIBE RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION.

THAT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION'S MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA'S RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE WAR.

I VISITED THE WAR ZONE THREE TIMES MEETING WITH SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS ALIKE, ALWAYS BRINGING MEDIA WITH ME TO RAISE THE PUBLIC VISIBILITY OF RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION AND HUMANITARIAN XW IMPACT ON THE CITIZENS.

WE COORDINATED WITH ALLIES TO MAINTAIN AN ALLIANCE AGAINST RUSSIA AGGRESSION, AND INFORMED SOVEREIGN INTEGRAL INTEGRITY.

UKRAINE SOVEREIGNTY IS ONE AREA WHERE THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN ALLIES HAD BEEN IN LOCK STEP.

HELPED TO STRENGTHEN U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA AND MAINTAIN EU SANCTIONS AS WELL.

ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION, I STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING THE BAN ON THE SALE OF DEFENSIVE ARMS TO UKRAINE.

ADVOCATED FOR INCREASING U.S. SECURITY TO THE UKRAINE AND URGED OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT.

MY TEAM AND I DRAFTED THE POMPEO DECLARATION OF JULY 25th, 2018 IN WHICH THE SECRETARY DEALER AND DEFINITIVELY LAID OUT THE U.S. POLICY OF NON-RECOGNITION OF RUSSIA'S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA.

>> AND HOLDING RUSSIAN FORCES AND DISMANTLING OF THE REPUBLICS, AND RESTORING SOFRNLT AND INTEGRITY.

WE KEPT U.S. POLICY STEADY THROUGH THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE AND WORKED HARD TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S. UKRAINE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP HELPING A TRANSITION OF POWER IN THE UKRAINE.

IN SHORT, TWO YEARS AGO, MOST OBSERVERS WOULD HAVE SAID TIME IS ON RUSSIA'S SIDE.

BY 2019 WHEN I DEPARTED WE TURNED THE TABLES, AND TIME WAS NOW ON UKRAINE'S SIDE.

IT'S A TRAGEDY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE THAT OUR EFFORTS IN THIS AREA WHICH WERE BEARING FRUIT HAVE BEEN THROWN INTO DISARRAY.

ONE OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF MY ROLE WITH SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES WAS THAT THE MOST SENIOR OFFICIAL TO WORK ON THE UKRANIAN PORTFOLIO, I NEEDED LEADERSHIP.

IF WE NEEDED TO ADOPT U.S. POLICY, I NEEDED TO STEP FORWARD ON IT.

IF ANYONE NEEDED TO SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY, IL WOULD DO IT.

WHEN WE FAILED TO GET A TIMELY STATEMENT ON SEIZURE OF UKRANIAN SAILORS I TWEETED ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE ACT.

IF A PROBLEM AROSE I KNEW IT WAS MY JOB TO FIX IT.

THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE WHEN I LEARN THAT WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM THAT WAS IMPEDING OUR PROBABILITY TO STRENGTHEN THE UKRAINE NEW PRESIDENT IN EFFORTS TO FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED REFORMS.

I FOUND MYSELF FACED WITH A CHOICE, TO BE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND 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 PARTED OF THE U.S. DELEGATION THAT ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RECEIVING A DIFFERENT NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THAT NARRATIVE WAS FUELED BY ACCUSATIONS BY THE THEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND CONVEYED TO THE PRESIDENT BY FORMER MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI.

AS I PREVIOUSLY TOLD THE COMMITTEE UI BECAME AWARE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT WAS HAVING ON POLICY EFFORTS WHEN FOUR OF US WHO WERE PART OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION PRESIDENT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd.

WE STRESSED OUR FINDINGS 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 SAYS 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 CONVEYED BY THE OFFICIAL DELEGATION ABOUT THE NEW PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A DEEPLY NEGATIVE VIEW BASED ON UKRAINE 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 SIGNED THE CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INCLUDING 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 HAVE SEEN IN THE OVAL OFFICE DISCUSSION.

AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE UKRANIANS, IT WAS JUST A SCHEDULING ISSUE, I DECIDED TO TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION REACHING THE PRESIDENT FROM MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI.

I DID SO IN A BILATERAL MEETING IN TORONTO ON JULY 2nd, 2019 WHERE I LED THE U.S. DELEGATION.

I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY TO RENEW THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS COMMITED TO INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION, THINGS ON WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BASED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

I WAS CONVINCEED THAT GETTING THE TWO PRESIDENTS TO TALK WITH EACH OTHER WOULD OVERCOME THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HARBORED.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR AIDE.

ANDRIY YERMAK APPROACHED ME TO BE CONNECTED TO MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI.

I AGREED TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION.

I DID SO BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NEW UKRANIAN LEADERSHIP WANTED TO CONVINCE THOSE LIKE MAYOR GIULIANI WHO BELIEVED A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE HAD CHANGED.

AND THAT UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UKRAINE IS WORTHY OF U.S. SUPPORT.

UKRANIANS BELIEVE THAT IF THEY COULD GET THEIR OWN NARRATIVE ACROSS IN A WAY THAT CONVINCEED MAYOR GIULIANI THAT THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND ADVANCING REFORM, MAYOR GIULIANI WOULD CONVEY THAT ASSESSMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP OF CORRECTING PREVIOUS NEGATIVE NARRATIVE.

THAT MADE SENSE TO ME, AND I TRIED TO BE HELPFUL.

I MADE CLEAR TO THE UKRANIANS, THAT MAYOR GIULIANI WAS 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 WAS THE OTHER WAY FROM UKRAINE TO MAYOR GIULIANI CLEARING UP THE INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP O. JULY 10th AFTER HEARING FROM MR. YERMAK, , AND FINALLY WE MET FOR PRESIDENT FOR A LONGER DISCUSSION.

AT THAT MEETING I TOLD MR. GIULIANI THAT IN MY VIEW, THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WITH WHICH HE WAS SPEAKING, MR. LUTSENKO WAS NOT CREDIBLE, AND HE WAS ACTING IN A SELF-SERVING CAPACITY.

MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI SAID HE HAD ALREADY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, AND MENTIONED THE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND STRESSED THAT ALL HE WANTED TO SEE WAS FOR UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND APPLY ITS OWN LAWS.

CASONCERNING THE ALLEGATION I STRESSED NO ONE IN UKRAINE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

THEY WERE MAKING TELEVISION SHOWS AT THE TIME, AND I ALSO SAID IT'S NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN NRxá*NSED BY FINANCIAL MOTIVES.

IN ADDITION, SOME UKRANIANS MAY HAVE THOUGHT THEY COULD BUY INFLUENCE.

THAT'S AT LEAST PLAUSIBLE GIVEN UKRAINE'S REPUTATION FOR CORRUPTION.

BUT THE ACCUSATION THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY DIDN'T SEEM CREDIBLE TO ME.

AFTER THE MEETING I CONNECTED MAYOR GIULIANI, AND MR. YERMAK BY TEXT AND BY PHONE.

THEY MET IN PERSON ON AUGUST, 2019.

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ME FOLLOWING THAT MEETING WHICH I DID NOT ATTEND, MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT HE STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PAST, AND THAT MR. YERMAK STRESS THAD HE TOLD MR. GIULIANI IT'S A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT REFORMS AND THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS ANYWAY.

MRLT GIULIANI SAID HE BELIEVED UKRANIAN PRESIDENT NEEDED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, AND THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THIS WITH MR. YERMAK.

I SAID I DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS A PROBLEM SINCE THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ANY WAY.

I FOLLOWED UP WITH MR. YERMAK, AND HE SAID THEY WERE PREPAREED TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT WOULD REFERENCE BURISMA AND 2016 IN A WIDER CONTEXT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS OF ROADING OUT CORRUPTION ANY WAY.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

RATHER REFERENCES BURISMA IN 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. YERMAK WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ANY UKRANIANS HAD ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY.

AT THIS TIME I WAS FOCUSED ON THE GOAL OF GETTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH EACH OTHER.

I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE DOING SO WOULD OVERCOME THE NEGATIVE VIEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOWARDS UKRAINE.

I WAS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHEN WE MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

AS A PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMAT I WAS COMFORTABLE EXPLORING WHETHER THERE WAS A STATEMENT UKRAINE COULD MAKE ABOUT INTENTIONS TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN, AND GIVE MR. GIULIANI SOMETHING TO CONVEY A MORE POSITIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT DIDN'T MENTION BURISMA OR THE 2016 ELECTION BUT WAS GENERIC.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. GIULIANI WHO SAID THAT IN HIS VIEW IN ORDER TO BE CONVINCEING THAT THIS GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED REAL CHANGE IN UKRAINE IT SHOULD CONTAIN STATEMENTS TO BURISMA AND 2016.

AGAIN, NO MENTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE CONVERSATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I DISCUSSED THESE POINTS, AND I EDITED TO INCLUDE THE POINTS TO SEE HOW IT LOOKED.

I DISCUSSED IT FURTHER WITH MR. YERMAK, AND HE SAID FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT MR. LUTSENKO WAS STILL OFFICIALLY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MENTION BURISMA OR 2016.

I AGREED, AND THE IDEA OF PUTTING OUT A STATEMENT WAS SHELVED.

THESE WERE THE LAST CONVERSATIONS I HAD ABOUT THIS STATEMENT, WHICH WERE ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 17 OR 18.

MY LAST CONTACT WITH MR. GIULIANI WAS ON 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 HAD BEEN DEFINITIVELY SCRAPPED N. SEPTEMBER I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THERE HAD BEEN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UKRANIANS ABOUT PRESIDENT STxá*EL ZELL POSSIBLY MAKING THESE STATEMENTS IN AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. MEDIA SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

SINCE THE EVENTS AND SINCE I GAVE MY TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 3rd.

A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS COME TO LIGHT.

I LEARNED MANY THINGS THAT I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME IN QUESTION.

FIRST, AT THE TIME THAT I WAS CONNECTING MR. YERMAK AND MR. GIULIANI AND DISCUSSING A POSSIBLE STATEMENT THAT COULD BE MADE BIEF THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT, I DID NOT KNOW OF ANY LINKAGE TWNL THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN UKRAINE PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS.

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT TO ME, AND I NEVER CONVEYED THE LINKAGE TO THE UKRANIANS.

I OPPOSED THE HOLD ON JULY 18th, AND THOUGHT WE COULD TURN IT AROUND BEFORE THE UKRANIANS NEW OR BECAME ALARMED.

I DIDN'T KNOW THE REASON FOR THE HOLD BUT VIEWED IT AS A PROBLEM WE NEEDED TO FIX INTERNALLY AND WAS CONFIDENT WE WOULD DO SO.

I BELIEVE THE UKRANIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AUGUST 29th, AND NOT BEFORE.

THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUT THE HOLD BY FORWARDING AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN POLITCO.

I SPOKE TO UKRANIANS ABOUT THE HOLD AFTER AUGUST 29th.

INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM TO DO SOMETHING TO GET THE HOLD RELEASED I TOLD THEM THE OPPOSITE.

THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BEA ALARMED AND WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT FIXED.

I DIDN'T KNOW OTHERS WERE CONVEYING A DIFFERENT MESSAGE TO THEM AT THE TIME.

SECOND, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE STRONG EXPRESSIONS BY JOHN BOLTON TO MEMBERS OF THE NSC STAFF REGARDING THE DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS.

I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON, AND UKRANIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL.

AS I REMEMBER THE MEETING WAS OVER WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE A COMMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

THE CONVERSATION DIDN'T CONTINUE, AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED.

LATER ON IN THE WARD ROOM I MAY HAVE ENGAGEED IN A SIDE CONVERSATION, OR LEFT THE COMPLEX BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSIONS OF BURISMA.

THIRD, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS BELIEVED ANY INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA WHICH HAD A HISTORY OF ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION WAS TONTAMENT TO INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

I DREW A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

IT'S LONG BEEN U.S. POLICY UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE AND FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION.

I WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH UKRAINE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT ITS OWN POLICY OF INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION AT HOME.

AT THE ONE IN PERSON MEETING I HAD WITH MAYOR GIULIANI JUL 19th, MAYOR GIULIANI RAISED AND I REJECTED THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN MAY HAVE BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY PAID TO HIS SON.

AS I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR 24 YEARS.

HOOxá*Z AN HONORABLE MAN, AND I TOLD HIM IN THE HIGH OAST REGARD.

I NEVER KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND AS YOU KNOW FROM THE EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT I PROVIDEED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS NOT A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.

I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I WASN'T AWARE OF THE BIDEN UNTIL THE PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT WAS MADE PUBLIC.

I URGED THE UKRANIANS TO MAINLY TAIN A DISTINCTION.

I DID NOT KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD RAISED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE INVESTIGATIONS OR CONFLATED CORRUPTION WITH THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.

IN RETROSPECT, FOR THE UKRANIANS IT WOULD HAVE BE CONFUSING.

IN HINDSIGHT I SEE THAT THEY THOUGHT INVESTIGATING COMPANY BURISMA AS EQUIVALENT TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

I SAW THEM AS DIFFERENT.

THE FORMER APPROPRIATE AND UNREMARKABLE, THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE N. RETROSPECT I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT DIFFERENTLY, AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED OBJECTION.

4th, MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF THE THREE AMIGOS IN REFERENCE TO SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MYSELF.

I NEVER USED THAT TERM, AND CRINGEED WHEN I HEARD IT.

THE THREE AMIGOS WERE ALWAYS SENATOR MCCAIN, LIEBERMAN AND SENATOR GRAHAM IN REFERENCE TO THEIR EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE SURGE IN IRAQ.

I WAS NEVER AWARE OF DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE PUTTING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR THE THREE OF US AS A GROUP IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.

RATHER, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, EACH OF US IN RESPECTIVE OFFICIAL CAPACITIES CONTINUEED TO WORK TOGETHER AFTER THE ATTENDANCE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION TO PUSH FOR SUPPORT OF UKRAINE.

LEADING DIPLOMACY AROUND UKRANIAN NEGOTIATIONS HAD LONG BEEN MY OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I WELCOMED THE ADDED SUPPORT AND INFLUENCE OF A CABINET MEMBER AND OUR EU AMBASSADOR.

FIFTH, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT TO THE 26th WHILE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I WERE VISITING THE COMBAT ZONE.

ALLOW ME TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.

I BELIEVE THAT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE, AND I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR OPENING STAI.S.

WE'LL NOW GO TO THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

45 MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS.

FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES FROM THE RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY COUNSEL.

I WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR QUESTIONING AROUND THE 5 MINUTE RULE, AND EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

I WAS GOING TO YIELD TO COUNSEL, BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE POINTS I. ED TO ASK ABOUT FIRST.

FIRST, YOU SAID THAT NOW FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL LUTSENKO WAS NOT CREDIBLE.

MR. LUTSENKO IS THE AUTHOR OF A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE SHARED WITH JOHN SOLOMON OF THE HILL, AND A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

WHY IS IT THAT YOU FOUND MR. LUTSENKO NOT CREDIBLE, AND TOLD MR. GIULIANI SO?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE ALLEGATIONS THEMSELVES, INCLUDING THOSE AGAINST IMP AMBASSADOR YOVANOVI DIDN'T APPEAR CREDIBLE.

SHE'S A PROFESSIONAL, AND I WORKED WL HER FOR MANY YEARS, A SUGGESTION SHE WAS ACTING IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER WERE NOT CREDIBLE.

I'VE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME.

THOSE ACCUSATIONS WERE NOT CREDIBLE.

AND I WAS AWARE OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE PRESIDENT POROSHENKO APPEARED TO NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE POSITION GOING INTO THE ELECTION WHERE IT WAS KNOWN THAT CANDIDATE ZELENSKY WOULD WIN, AND A CHANGE IN PROSC PROSECUTORIAL POWERS.

AND THERE WERE EFFORTS AT PROSECUTING THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT.

I THINK MR. LUTSENKO IN MY ESTIMATION, AND I SAID THAT TO MR. GIULIANI WAS INTERESTED IN PRESERVING HIS OWN POSITION.

HE WANTED TO AVOID BEING FIRED BY A NEW GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF, AND POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF, AND POSSIBLY THIS IS SOMETHING PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WOULD HAVE WELCOMED AS WELL, BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE AVOIDED EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE POROSHENKO AS WELL.

BY MAKING ALLEGATIONS LIKE THIS, AND MAKING SURE THEY WERE REACHING U.S. MEDIA, I THINK THAT MR. LUTSENKO WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF APPEAR TO BE AN INFLUENTIAL PLAYER IN THE UNITED STATES >> AMBASSADOR, LET ME ALSO ASK YOU ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN.

THAT HAS BEEN A CONTINUING REFRAIN FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL.

WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN RELATED TO HIS SON OR BURISMA NOT TO BE BELIEVED?

>> SIMPLY BECAUSE I'VE KNOWN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME.

I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE, AND IT'S JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACT AS 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 NOW UNDERSTAND HOW OTHERS SAW INVESTIGATING BURISMA AS EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

I SAW THEM AS DIFFERENT.

THE FORMER APPROPRIATE, AND UNREMARKABLE, THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE.

IN RETROSPECT, YOU SAID I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY, AND HAD I DONE SO, I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS.

WHAT IS IT NOW, AMBASSADOR, IN RETROSPECT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAW DIDN'T AT THE TIME THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE RAISED THESE OBJECTIONS.

>> THAT OTHERS DID NOT SEE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE THINGS AS I SAW IT.

AS I SAID, THERE'S A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THERE'S A HISTORY WITH THE COMPANY OF BURISMA.

IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED.

THAT IS WELL KNOWN.

THERE'S A SEPARATE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ACTING INAPPROPRIATELY.

HIS SON WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF THIS COMPANY, BUT THOSE THINGS I CALL DISTINCT.

IN WORKING WITH UKRANIAN, I WAS TRYING TO THREAD A NEEDLE AND IF IF THERE WERE THINGS THEY COULD DO AS PART OF UKRAINE'S POLICY OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION THAT HELPED CLARIFY IT FOR OUR PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THAT VERY EFFORT.

THERE'S A WAY TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EFFORT TO TRY AND FOLLOW THAT PROBLEM.

AS IT TURNS OUT, I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T SEE OR DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS DISTINCTION, AND THAT TO THEM IT WAS SYNONYMOUS.

>> WERE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT SYNONYMOUS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL THE CALL RECORD WAS RELEASED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CALL ASKED FOR AN 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.

>> >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE FOLLOW-UP ON THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

WHEN YOU SAY THREAD THE NEEDLE, YOU MEAN YOU UNDERSTOOD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON AND BURISMA, BUT YOU WERE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TWO OF THEM IN YOUR MIND, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE SEPARATE.

I REFERENCED THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. GIULIANI AS WELL, WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE SELF-SERVING AND NOT CREDIBLE.

AND WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION OF UKRANIANS WHO MAY HAVE TRIED TO DO CORRUPT THINGS.

INDEED, THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS, AS I SAID, I THINK THE FORMER IS UNACCEPTABLE.

>> BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA.

>> I KNEW HE WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE COMPANY.

THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION.

>> FOCUS ON THE JULY 25 CALL FOR A MOMENT.

MR. MORSOFRISON, WHEN DID YOU TAKE OVER?

>> I TOOK OVER ON THE 15th, A FEW DAYS AFTER BEING IN THE OFFICE.

>> YOU TESTIFIED IN DEPOSITION THAW RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SHORTLY AFTER THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> I BELIEVE IN THAT E-MAIL AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP 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.

ON JULY 25th, DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY OCCURRED?

>> I DID.

>> DID IT HAPPEN?

>> YES.

>> ON ANOTHER OCCASION WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, DID YOU SEEK CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT?

>> ON SOME, YES.

>> ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU DID SEEK TO CONFIRM THAT THEY HAD SPOKEN, WHAT DID YOU FIND?

>> THEY HAD.

I WANTED TO PULL UP A TEXT MESSAGE ON JULY 25th -- OH, YEAH, SORRY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WITH YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

AT 7 P:54 SONDLAND SAID CALL ASAP, AND YOU RESPOND.

IS THE SCREEN WORKING IN FRONT OF YOU, OR JUST TO THE SIDE.

>> YES.

>> COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND READ WHAT YOU SAID AT 9:35.

>> YES.

HI, GORDON, GOT YOUR MESSAGE, HAD A MESSAGE WITH YERMAK, AND SEE EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE.

>> AND WHO IS YERMAK?

>> ANDRIY YERMAK IS THE SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF THE UKRAINE.

>> WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED?

>> THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE CLEAR, CONVINCEING, 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 PREPAREED TO BE REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY YES FOR THE DATE VISIT SCHEDULED.

>> DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SPOKEN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> I WASN'T SURE WHETHER HE HAD OR NOT.

MR. MORRISON JUST SAID HE DOES SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I KNEW HE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN GENERAL, I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE LEADING UP TO THIS.

>> ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU THAT SAME MORNING AT 8:36 IN THE MORNING TO ANDRIY YERMAK.

>> YES.

I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE TIME DIFFERENCE THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE AFTERNOON IN UKRAINE.

>> SO THIS IS EAST COAST TIME?

>> RIGHT.

>> THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BETWEEN THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> YES.

>> CAN CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE?

>> AND JUST AFTER I HAD LUNCH WITH YERMAK.

GOOD LUNCH.

HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, HE'S CONVINCEED HE WILL INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 AND NAIL DOWN VISIT FOR VISIT IN WASHINGTON.

>> DOES THIS ACCURATELY RELAY THE MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

>> YES.

>> NOW, MR. MORRISON DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THIS CALL?

>> THE NSC STAFF DID, YES.

>> AND PER USUAL CUSTOM, WERE THESE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY OBJECTIVES?

>> THEY WERE.

>> SINCE THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE DISPUTE WHAT THAT MEANS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IS DETERMINED THROUGH THE INNERAGENCY PROCESS?

>> WE OPERATE UNDER NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM 4.

IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET THAT.

LAYS OUT HOW THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO BE PROVIDEED OPTIONS FOR HIS DECISIONS.

> >> THERE'S EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO FINALIZING POLICY, STHARTD?

>> SOMETIMES.

YOU LISTENED TO THIS CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IN THE DEPOSITION ROOM.

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 SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT CONCERNING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S REFORM AGENDA, GIVEN WHERE WE WERE AT THE TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE OVERWHELMING MANDATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PARTY HAD RECEIVED.

AND THAT IS THE UKRANIAN PARLIAMENT.

THAT ELECTION OCCURRED FOUR DAYS EARLIER?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY WON IN A LANDSLIDE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THEY RECEIVED MORE THAN A MAJORITY.

>> SO AT LEAST IN UKRAINE THERE WAS TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR ZELENSKY'S ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> AT THE TIME.

>> AND WITHIN THE INNERAGENCY, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS THERE BROAD SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR GIVING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A CHANCE.

HE HAD SHOWN HE PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH WAS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, YES.

>> NOW, I WANT TO SHOW A COUPLE OF EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL RECORD TO EACH OF YOU.

THE FIRST IS PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDING TO A COMMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELATED TO DEFENSE SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES AND THE PURCHASE OF JAVELINS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT, AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I'D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.

I GUESS YOU HAVE THE SERVER.

THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT EXCERPT WHERE 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, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROTION CUSHION.

IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

WERE THE REFERENCES TO CROWDSTRIKE AND THE SERVEIR IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE PRESIDENT'S TALKING POINT?

>> THEY WERE NOT.

>> WERE THEY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?

>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF MUCH OF THIS AT THE TIME.

>> IN FACT, SUBSEQUENT TO THIS CALL YOU DID NOTHING TO IMPLEMENT THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP -- THE REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO.

>> AND YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE WITHIN YOUR -- YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE DOING THAT EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT HEARING THIS CALL CONFIRMS WHAT YOU CALL THE PARALLEL PROCESS THAL 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 HANDOFFS 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 NSC PROCESS, AND THE PARALLEL PROCESS.

IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING THE PARALLEL PROCESS, SHE MENTIONED ISSUES LIKE BURISMA WHICH WERE NOTEWORTHY TO ME AT THE TIME BECAUSE I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THEM BEFORE.

UPON HEARING THEM IN THE CALL, IT WOUND OUT CONFIRMING THAT THERE'S SOMETHING HERE.

>> WHO DID SHE INFORM YOU WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PARALLEL PROCESS?

>> AS I RECALL IT WAS XWAxá*TION SONDLAND AND I BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI.

AND AFTER SHE INFORMED YOU OF THIS COMPANY BURISMA WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT WAS?

>> AFTER THAT HANDOFF MEETING, I PROCEEDED TO LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET.

I GOOGLED IT.

>> DID YOU FIND IT HAD ASSOCIATION WITH HUNTER BIDEN?

>> YES.

>> 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 RELEASEED ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

YOU ALSO SAID THAT AFTER READING THE CALL RECORD, IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE BIDEN BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE CALL WERE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID THAT?

>> >> I DON'T RECALL THAT LANGUAGE FROM MY TESTIMONY OCTOBER 23rd TESTIMONY.

WAS IT?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO PHRASE IT IN MY OWN WORDS NOW IS, I DEENT THINK RAISING 2016 ELECTIONS OR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR THE THINGS I CONSIDER TO BE CONSPIRACY THEORIES CIRCULATED BY THE UKRANIAN, PARTICULARLY THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL ARE -- THEY'RE NOT THING THAT IS WE SHOULD BE PURSUING AS PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY WITH UKRAINE.

WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY, STRUGGLE AGAINST RUSSIA, ITS DEFENSE CAPABILITIES.

THESE ARE THE HEART EVER WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

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 RIGHT AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> AND YOU INDICATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, OR AT LEAST FROM YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG OUT OF CONCERN OVER THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL FALLOUT SINCE 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 FORMER GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL RIVAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU NOT?

>> IT'S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS.

>> NOW, IN A SECOND MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, WHAT DID YOU RECOMMEND THAT HE DO TO PREVENT THE CALL RECORD FROM LEAKING?

>> I RECOMMENDED THAT WE RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE PACKAGE.

>> HAD YOU EVER ASKED THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER TO RESTRICT ACCESS BEFORE?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU SPOKE WITH EISENBERG?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU LEARN THAT THE CALL RECORD HAD BEEN PUT IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?

>> WE DID.

>> AND WHAT REASON DID MR. EISENBERG GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT IN THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

>> THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE.

>> A MISTAKE?

>> IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

>> ISN'T IS TRUE THAW HAD AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM IF YOU WANTED TO?

>> I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE INSTRUCTED APPROPRIATE STAFF TO DO THAT.

>> SO WHY DID YOU GO TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER TO DO THAT?

>> I WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS ISN'T LISTENING ROOM THAT SAY, I DIDN'T THEN OR NOW RECALL ANY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LEGAL ADVISER'S OFFICE AS THEY WERE OFTEN ON STATE CALLS -- >> WE ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY FROM THE TABLE NOW TO PREPARE FOR TONIGHT'S NEWS HOUR.

BUT STAY HERE.

LIVE COVERAGE OF TODAY'S PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS CONTINUES HERE.

JOIN US FOR FULL ANAL SILLS AT THE REGULAR TIME.

>> TO REVIEW THIS TRANSCRIPT.

>> AND YOU WANTED THEM TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, NOT BECAUSE ANYTHING WAS WRONG?

>> CORRECT.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES IS AN UMBRELLA TERM I USE TO DESCRIBE AFFECTS I FEARED WOULD HAPPEN WHEN THE CONTENT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE CONTENT LEAKED.

>> SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, MR. MORRISON, YOU HEARD THE CALL, YOU RECOGNIZED PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE TALKING POINTS THAT THE NSC HAD PREPARED BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT FIONA HILL HAS WARNED YOU ABOUT, AND THEN YOU REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER.

IS THAT THE CORRECT CHAIN OF EVENTS HERE?

>> 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.

IN SPNTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONS MR. GIULIANI ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS DURING THIS CALL.

YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A MAY 23rd MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHERE THE PRESIDENT SPOKE NEGATIVELY ABOUT UKRAINE AND HOW IT WAS TRIEFING TO TAKE HIM DOWN.

HE ALSO REPEATED ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS MAKING, 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, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> HE -- >> I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

HE SAID, THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEAR.

WHEN WE WERE GIVING OUR ASSESSMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WHERE UKRAINE WAS HEADED.

HE SAID, I HEAR HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM.

TALK TO RUDY.

I UNDERSTOOD IN THAT CONTEXT, HIM SAYING THAT'S WHERE HE HEARS IS FROM.

I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS INSTRUCTION.

>> SO WHEN HE SAID TALK TO RUDY YOU TAKE IT TO YOU TO TALK TO RUDY?

>> I DIDN'T TAKE IT THAT WAY.

I TOOK IT AS JUST PART OF THE DIALOGUE.

I HEAR OTHER THINGS.

I HEAR THEM FROM RUDY GIULIANI OR OTHER PEOPLE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING ON.

TALK TO RUDY.

IT JUST SEEMED LIKE PART OF THE DIALOGUE.

>> WELL, AFTER THAT MEETING DID YOU, IN FACT, TALK TO RUDY?

>> NOT IMMEDIATELY, NO.

THIS IS MAY 23rd.

WE CONTINUEED TO PROCEED WITH OUR EFFORT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SCHEDULED AND TO KEEP RAMPING UP SUPPORT FOR THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT AND THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT.

I DID, HOWEVER, ON JULY 2nd, AS I WAS BECOMING CONCERNED THAT HE WERE NOT SUCCEEDING AT THIS TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

AND THE PROBLEM IS NEGATIVE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MR. GIULIANI.

>> AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SBRUELSED MR. YERMAK TO MR. GIULIANI AND THEY EVENTUALLY MET, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW DURING THIS WHOLE TIME IN JULY AND AFTER THE CALL IN EARLY AUGUST WHEN THEY MET, UKRAINE STILL DESPERATELY WANTED THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT WILL ZELENSKY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU WANTED THAT PER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHY WAS THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> I THINK HE FELT HE WAS OBJECT WELL OONLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE'S A CHARISMATIC LEADER WHO RAN A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE AGAINST THE LEGACY OF CORRUPTION AND POLITICS THAT HAD BEEN THERE AND A MASSIVE SHOWING OF 73% SUPPORT.

HE BELIEVES HE WAS LEADING A MOVEMENT OF MAJOR CHANGE IN UKRAINE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SEE THAT OR APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT IN THE END, HE WANTED TO SIT DOWN AND SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP FACE TO FACE.

HE BELIEVED HE COULD BE VERY CONVINCEING ABOUT THAT, AND I AGREED WITH HIM.

>> THAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT, RIGHT?

>> IT WAS MY ASSESSMENT, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ALSO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S.

>> AND 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 WITH THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT MR. GIULIANI AND MRL YERMAK, ZELENSKY'S AIDE MET WITH THE AUGUST 2nd, WHERE DID THEY MEET?

>> IN MADRID.

>> DID YOU LEARN THAT MR. GIULIANI REQUESTED ANYTHING OF THE UKRANIANS 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 THAT, AND HE SAID YES, AND WE WERE PREPAREED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND THAT KICKED OFF A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS.

>> 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 THE CALL YOU HAD?

>> HE SAID SOMETHING MORE GENERAL AS I RECALL.

I RECALL HIM SAYING FIGHT CORRUPTION, THAT THEIR COMMITMENT -- MR. YERMAK TOLD ME AS I RECALL, THAT THE STATEMENT WOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BURISMA AND 2016.

>> LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE TEXT MESSAGES, SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO SAID WHAT.

FIRST, LET'S START ON AUGUST 9th.

THIS IS A TEXT EXCHANGE BETWEEN YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WRITES AT THE TOP, MORRISON READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS.

WHAT DID YOU RESPOND?

>> I SAID EXCELLENT.

HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM WITH A SMILE AFTER WARDS.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, I'M NOT SURE I DID.

I THINK POTEUS WANTS THE DELIVERABLE.

WHAT DID YOU SAY?

>> HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT.

>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID LOTS OF CONVOS GOING ON.

HAD YOU DISCUSSED CONFIRMING A DATE FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WITH > PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AT THIS TIME.

>> I LIKELY WOULD HAVE.

>> DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ABOUT A STATEMENT THAT UKRAINE WAS -- THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO MAKE?

>> I DID NOT.

>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT -- DID YOU YOURSELF KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MEANT BY DELIVERABLE?

>> I DID NOT AT THE TIME.

I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING NOW.

>> WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING NOW?

>> THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HELP IN VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS.

TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS PART OF THE PARALLEL PROCESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?

>> YES.

>> THE NEXT EXHIBIT IS A TEXT MESSAGE BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

WHERE SONDLAND SAYS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK ANDRE FOR A DRAFT STATEMENT TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO COVER EVEN THOUGH ZELENSKY DOES A LIVE, THOUGHT?

AND HOW DID YOU RESPOND?

>> AGREE.

>> AND THIS RELATES TO THE STATEMENT THAT GIULIANI WANTED?

>> IT RELATES TO A STATEMENT THAT HE AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER DISCUSSED.

>> ON THE NEXT DAY ON AUGUST 10th THERE'S ARTH TEXT EXCHANGED BETWEEN YOU AND MR. YERMAK, THE SAME AIDE THAT MR. GIULIANI MET IN MADRID.

IF YOU COULD READ WHAU WROTE AT THE TOP AT >> I WROTE I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH.

LET'S IRON OUT THE STATEMENT AND USE THAT TO GET AID, 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, BURISMA, AND ELECTION MEDDLING IN INVESTIGATIONS."

AND 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.

>> 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 UKRANIAN POLITICIANS.

I WANT IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

WE TEND TO INITIATE A TRANSPARENT AND UNBIASED INVESTIGATION OF ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES WHICH, IN TURN, WILL PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE 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?

>> THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THAT AFTER THE CONVERSATION WE HAD >> AND IT DOESN'T MENTION BURISMA OVER 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE?

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MAYOR GIULIANI HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS DRAFT AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND MR. GIULIANI STADE THAT IF THE STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTION IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW, THIS WAS THE SAME RUDOLPH GIULIANI THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DISCUSSING IN THAT MAY 23rd MEETING, AND ASKS YOU AND THE OTHERS TO TALK TO, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S THE SAME MR. GIULIANI.

>> EVEN AT THAT POINT ON MAY 23rd.

YOU WERE AWARE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS PUBLICLY PROMOTING, CORRECT.

I KNEW HE HAD ADOPTED THE CONSPIRACY THEORY FROM MR. LUTSENKO.

>> BACK IN MAY?

>> CORRECT.

>> HE WAS INSISTING ON A PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> YES.

>> AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE ENGAGED IN COORDINATING FOR THE STATEMENT, DID YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL THAT 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 COMMITED TO REALLY CHANGING UKRAINE AFTER HIS ENTIRELY NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE COUNTRY, THAT HE WOULD WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING MORE FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BE CONVINCEED THAT OKAY, I'LL GIVE THIS GUY A CHANCE.

>> AND PERHAPS HE ALSO WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD LOCK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TO DOING THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE THOUGHT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM?

>> AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY THESE INVESTIGATIONS, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD US TO BE TALKING ABOUT WAS UKRANIAN CORRUPTION.

>> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> RIGHT.

>> WE CAN AGREE ON THAT.

WE'RE 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.

IT WOULD BE A WAY OF BEING CONVINCEING TO MAYOR GIULIANI AND ALSO THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS TEAM IN UKRAINE IS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, AND REFORM, AND THEY WERE DIFFERENT, AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A MORE POSITIVE ATTITUDE, AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING SCHEDULED.

IT WOULD BE USEFUL.

>> AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

IT WAS IT WAS A NECESSARY CONDITION, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> I WOULDN'T CALL IT A NECESSARY CONDITION.

WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR LATER THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO AGREE ON AN AGREEMENT THAT THE UKRANIANS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH, OUR VIEW WAS 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 BY THIS POINT IN AUGUST WITH THE 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 NUANCE, I GUESS.

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 HE WOULD GET THE DATE FOR A MEETING.

IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A STATEMENT, I WASN'T GIVING UP.

AND THINKING WE'LL NEVER GET A MEETING.

>> GO TO THE NEXT DAY WHERE THERE'S ANOTHER TEXT EXCHANGED.

AT THE TOP, COULD YOU READ THE FIRST TEXT THERE.

>> "HI, ANDRE, GOOD TALKING.

FOLLOWING IS THE TWO KEY ITEMS.

WE'LL WORK ON THE OFFICIAL REQUEST.

QUTSDS.

AND THEN THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL TO YOUR PREVIOUS ONE AND INCLUDING -- >> CORRECT.

>> INCLUDING THESE INVOLVING BURISMA SXTD 2016 ELECTIONS?

>> RIGHT.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT GIULIANI INSISTED ADDING TO THE STATEMENT?

>> HE SAID IT WAS NECESSARY TO BE CREDIBLE.

>> AND THE UKRANIANS MATLY DID NOT RELEASE THAT STATEMENT, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND APPROXIMATE ZELENSKY DID NOT GET THE OVAL OFTION MEETING DID HE?

>> NOT YET.

>> I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER, EARLY SEPTEMBER WHEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEGINS TO MORE OVERTLY BE USED AS PRESSURE TO THE UKRANIANS TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

MR. MORRISON YOU ACCOMPANIED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO WARSAW WHEN HE MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RIGHT?

>> I WAS IN WARSAW WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED AS THE PRESIDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

I WAS ACCOMPANIED AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

>> YOU WERE AT THE BILATERAL MEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT?

>> I WAS.

>> IN THAT MEETING WERE THE UKRANIANS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY CLEARANCE?

>> SECURITY CLEARANCE?

>> MILITARY ASSISTANCE, RATHER?

>> YES.

>> WHAT DID THEY SAY?

>> IT WAS THE FIRST ISSUE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED.

THEY TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THE RELATIONSHIP.

>> WHAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT'S PENCE'S RESPONSE.

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT REPRESENTED THAT IT ADDRESSING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN PRIORITIZATION ABOUT GETTING THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> DID HE DIRECTLY EXPLAIN TO THE UKRANIANS THAT THOSE WERE THE ACTUAL REASONS FOR THE HOLD, OR WAS HE JUST COMMENTING ON GENERAL CONCERNS OF THE PRESIDENT?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED A HOLD.

HE MENTIONED THAT WE WERE REVIEWING ASSISTANCE.

THAT'S THE WAY I HEARD IT AND WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT.

AND THOSE WERE THE POINTS HE RAISEED TO HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WERE IN OUR PROCESS.

>> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THOUGH, ON SORT OF THE STAFF LEVEL AS THE COORDINATOR, YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE REVIEW OF THE UKRANIAN SECURITY, ASSISTANCE MONEY, WERE YOU?

>> WE HAD BEEN RUNNING AN INNERAGENCY PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO GENERATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S CONSIDERATION AS TO THE STATE OF THE CONTINUING UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> AND THE ENTIRE INNERAGENCY SUPPORTED THE CONTINUATION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AFTER THIS LARGER MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU TESTIFIED AT DEPOSITION THAT YOU SAW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY GO OVER AND PULL ANDRIY YERMAK ASIDE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEFT THE ROOM, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE LEFT THE ROOM, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR YERMAK HAD THIS DISCUSSION.

>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT HE TOLD MR. YERMAK?

>> THAT THE UKRANIANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL >> Mark: A STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE CONDITION OF HAVING THE INPUT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU.

WHY NOT?

>> WELL, WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I SAW AS ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO ACCOMPLISHING WHAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO HELP ACCOMPLISH, WHICH WAS GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION HE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY AND SECTOR ASSISTANCE GO FORWARD.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, A WHOLE WRINKLE TO IT, RIGHT?

>> THERE WAS KNOW APPEARANCE OF ONE BASEED ON WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPRESENTED.

>> AND YOU TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I PROMPTLY REACHED OUT TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO A SECURE PHONE CALL.

>> AND IN DEPOSITION YOU TESTIFIED THAT HIS TESTIMONY, WITH A SPECIAL SDICHGZ BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS ACCURATE AS TO WHAT YOU TOLD HIM, CORRECT?

>> ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION, YES.

>> AND YOU GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU CONFIRMED EVERYTHING THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD YOU EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE THING, AND A MINISTERIAL MATTER IN THE LOCATION OF A MEETING, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON AS WELL?

>> I REQUESTED HIS AVAILABILITY FOR A SECURE PHONE CALL.

>> WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE TO YOU.

>> TELL THE LAWYERS.

>> DID YOU GO TELL THE LAWYERS?

>> WHEN I RETURNED TO THE STATES, YES.

>> DID HE EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED YOU TO TELL THE LAWYERS?

>> HE DID NOT.

>> ON SEPTEMBER 7th, YOU SPOKE AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO TOLD YOU HE HAD JUST GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> SOUNDS CORRECT.

>> WHAT ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO HIM?

>> IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THIS IS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELATED THAT THERE WAS NO QUID QUO PRO, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT, AND THAT HE HAD TO WANT TO DO IT.

>> BY THAT POINT, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE BIDEN AND 2016 INVESTIGATION?

>> I THINK I DID, YES.

>> AND THAT THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONDITION FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED.

>> AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

THAT'S WHAT HE REPRESENTED.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT HEARING THIS INFORMATION GAVE YOU A SINKING FEELING.

WHY WAS THAT?

>> I BELIEVE ON SEPTEMBER 7, THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR IS SEPTEMBER 30th.

THESE ARE ONE YEAR DOLLARS, THE DOD AND DEPARTMENT STATE FUNDS -- WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME, AND BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED A 15 DAY REQUIREMENT NOTICE ON THE STATE FUNDS, THAT MEANS SEPTEMBER 15th, IN ORDER TO SECURE A POSITION FROM THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO GO FORWARD.

>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL.

>> YES.

>> WHAT DID HE SAY?

>> HE SAID TELL THE LAWYERS.

>> WHY DID HE SAY TELL THE LAWYERS?

>> HE DIDN'T EXPLAIN.

>> BUT HE DOESN'T TELL YOU TO TELL THE LAWYERS BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING UP ON THE DEADLINE, RIGHT?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE DIRECTED THAT.

IT SEEMS REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY.

>> AND YOU WEREN'T GOING TO TELL THEM BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS.

YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED TO YOU, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO WE'RE CLEAR, YOU REPORTED TWO CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO THE LAWYERS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER IN WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM HIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE TO GET UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THIS SPECIFIC POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS SAYING WERE REQUIREMENTS, YES >> AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE THE TWO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCEED ON THE JULY 25th CALL, CORRECT?

>> BY THIS POINT, YES.

>> AND DURING THE EARLY SEPTEMBER TIME PERIOD, DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT THIS?

>> I BELIEVE WE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION.

>> WHAT DO YOU RECALL ABOUT THE CONVERSATION?

>> I BELIEVE ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 6th, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS IN TOWN FOR SOME ACTIVITIES, AND THAT HE PROVIDEED THAT UPDATE, AND THEN WE HAD AN ONE ON ONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS SEPARATE PROCESS.

>> AND WHAT DO YOU RECALL SAYING HIM ABOUT THE SEPARATE PROCESS?

>> I THINK I WAS INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING HIS UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS.

>> DID EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS WAS?

>> I THINK I WAS PRIMARILY ON RECEIVE MODE.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DO YOU RECALL THIS CONVERSATION?

>> THANK YOU.

I DO REMEMBER A CONVERSATION WITH TIM.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING.

I LEFT AROUND THAT TIME TO GO ON A TRIP.

SO IT MAIFBL A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING.

WHAT I DO REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION BEING IS TIM ASKING ME WHAT IS MY IMPRESSION OF THE ROLE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLAYS.

AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT WAS, I FIND IT HELPFUL THAT HE HAS POLITICAL CONTACTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

I DON'T HAVE THOSE CONTACTS.

WORKING NATIONAL SECURITY DIPLOMATIC FRONT, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE POLITICAL CONTACTS.

SO HE'S ABLE TO USE THOSE TO SUPPORT THE SAME GOALS THAT WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS.

INDEED, THAT'S HELPFUL.

>> THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT, THE SEPTEMBER 8 TEXT EXCHANGE WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

AND IMPASSE SONDLANDICIZE, MULTIPLE COY'VE COLONEL VOY, ZELENSKY, POTE, LET'S TALK.

AND THEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, 15 MINUTES LAxá*ERT SAYS GORDON AND I JUST SPOKE, I CAN BRIEF YOU, MEANING AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IF YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DON'T CONNECT.

AN HOUR LATER, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THE NIGHTMARE IS IF THEY GIVE THE INTERVIEW, AND DON'T GET THE ASSISTANCE.

AND I QUIT.

>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND?

>> I'M NOT IN THE LOOP, TALK MONDAY.

>> SO YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP IN TERMS OF ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WERE HAVING?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND NOW ULTIMATELY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, IS THAT RIGHT, AMBASSADOR VOLKER?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> MR. MORRISON WERE YOU AWARE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11th THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT CHARACTERULATING THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

>> BUT YOU WERE OF A REQUEST TO PRESERVE RECORDS, WERE YOU NOT?

>> WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF THOSE REQUESTS.

I HAVE A GENERAL RECOLLECTION OF ONE RELATEED TO UKRAINE.

>> AND FINAL QUESTION.

WHEN YOU WAS THE HOLD LIFTED?

>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PRESIDENT GIVE IT ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 11th.

I WAS FAMILIAR WITH A LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.

>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MAJORITY 45 MINUTES.

BEFORE I TURN TO THE MINORITY, ARE YOU OKAY, OR DO YOU NEED A BREAK?

>> RANKING MEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES.

>> WELL, AMBASSADOR, MR. MORRISON, I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR YOU.

RATINGS ARE WAY DOWN.

DON'T HOLD IT PERSONALLY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S YOU GUYS.

WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THE DEMOCRATS ARE COOKING UP, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN'T BUYING IT.

I KNOW YOU BOTH ANSWERED THIS IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO BRING A LITTLE MORE CLARITY TO IT.

MR. MORRISON, I'LL START WITH YOU.

DID ANYONE EVER ASK YOU TO BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYONE AT ANY TIME DURING YOUR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> NO, SIR.

>> YOU WERE THE TOP PERSON FOR UKRAINE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CORRECT?

>> AT THE NSC LEVEL REPORTING TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

I WAS AT SENIOR PERSON, YES.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU HAVE A STORIED CAREER, AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> DID ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE ASK YOU TO BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYTHING OUT OF ANYONE AT ANY TIME?

>> NO, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

I YIELD TO MR. CASTOR.

>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DEPOSITION.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE ON OCTOBER 3rd, AND MORRISON, YOU WERE WITH US ON HALLOWEEN.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

MR. MORRISON, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU AS A LONG TIME HILL STAFFER.

I HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR THAT.

NEARLY 20 YEARS.

AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, A PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT.

CREDIBLE PART OF THE COUNTRY.

VERY PROUD OF IT.

I'M FROM NEARBY.

I WANT TO TALK THROUGH SOME OF YOUR POSITIONS.

YOU WERE SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND THEN YOU WERE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND FUR PORTFOLIO SPANS MUCH OF WHAT I BELIEVE GEORGE KENLT HAS CURRENTLY?

>> I WAS THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANCE SECRETARY, AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AND PARTICULAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR NATO, AND WESTERN EUROPE.

>> AND THEN YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL.

YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR FOR NATO IN WESTERN EUROPE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU WERE THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND URASIAN AFFAIRS?

>> ACTING DIRECTOR FOR SIX MONTHS OR SO.

>> AND MR. MORRISON -- I WILL NOTE THAT ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WE'VE INTERACTED WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID YOU WERE A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT.

VERY HIGH PRAISE.

>> AND FOR OVER TWO YEARS YOU SERVED AS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE UKRANIANS.

>> AND YOU SERVED FOR FREE?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> YOU SERVED ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS?

>> I G. >> AND YOU PUT TIME AND EFFORT INTO THAT JOB, DIDN'T YOU?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND THE TAXPAYERS GOT THEIR MONEY'S WORTH?

>> THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO SAY.

>> AND YOU BELIEVE AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHEN DURING YOUR TENURE AS A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WHEN I LOOK BACK AT THE RECORD, I THINK WE DID AN AWFUL LOT FOR UKRAINE.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAVE PART OF THAT IS DUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY, PROVIDEING LETHAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT, AND A STATEMENT TO CRIMEA.

>> AND FOR MANY YEARS THERE'S AN INITIATIVE FOR LETHAL DEFENSE WEAPONRY, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND IT WASN'T UNTIL PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION CAME IN, THAT THAT WENT THROUGH?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THE DELEGATION TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IN MAY >> AND INCLUDED IN THE DELEGATION WAS SECRETARY PERRY -- >> SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MYSELF, SENATOR RON JOHNSON WAS THERE, AND ALWAYS THE CHARGE DE'AFFAIRES.

ANDISM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION CAME TOGETHER QUICKLY?

>> IT DID.

>> THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEAD THAT EFFORT.

AS IT TURNED OUT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO LEAD IT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO YET 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 IN THE DELEGATION?

>> NO.

>> YOU TESTIFIED DURING YOUR DEPOSITION THAT SAID GETS HELD UP FROM TIME TO TIME FOR AN ASSORTMENT OF REASONS, IS THAT TRUE?

>> SOMETIMES IT'S SOMETHING IN OMB, AND SOMETIMES THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND SOMETIMES ON THE HILL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP FOR 55 DAYS FOR UKRAINE, THAT DIDN'T IN AND OF ITSELF STRIKE YOU AS UNCOMMON?

>> NO.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN MY CAREER IN THE PAST.

I'VE SEEN HOLD UPS OF ASSISTANCE.

I ASSUMED IT WAS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SOMEBODY AN AN OBJECTION, AND WE HAD TO OVERCOME IT.

>> AND IN FACT THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WASN'T GOING TO BE THE REFORMER HE CAMPAIGNED ON?

>> THAT WAS A SUPPOSITION BECAUSE OF THE MEETING I HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT ON MAY DWAErd.

>> AND IN FACT, THE AID WAS LIFTED SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE A PARLIAMENT?

>> I BELIEVE HE -- >> LET ME GET THE DAYS STRAIGHT.

I BELIEVE HE CONVENED PARLIAMENT AROUND THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER, AND THE AID WAS RELEASEED ON THE 11th.

AND WHEN HE CONVENED PARLIAMENT HE WAS ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES?

>> THAT BEGAN WITH THE PARLIAMENT THAT DAY.

IT WAS A 24 HOUR SESSION.

THEN IT CONTINUEED FOR SOME TIME.

AND THAT WAS AN ENCOURAGING SIGN?

>> IT STARTED OFF IN A VERY ENCOURAGING WAY, YES.

>> AND OTHER THAN THESE THINGS GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND THAT PUT A PAUSE ON THE AID, THE U.S. RELATIONS WITH THE UKRAINE YOU TESTIFIED ARE ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU'D WANT THEM TO BE?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

>> YOU TESTIFYED IN DEPOSITION THAT ONCE THE AID WAS LIFTED DESPITE ALL THE THINGS IN THE BACKGROUND THAT U.S. UKRANIAN RELATIONSHIPS WERE STRONG?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU REFERENCED THAT THE SECURITY SECTOR AND ASSISTANCE WAS LIFTED AND ANY HOLD ON THAT, THERE WAS A POSITIVE MEETING IN NEW YORK, 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 A DEEP ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEW ON THE UKRAINE AND THEIR CORRUPTION ENVIRONMENT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE OF HIS VIEWS BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?

>> YES, IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017, I WAS INVITED BY SECRETARY TILLERSON TO DO A PRE-BRIEF WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HIS MEETING WITH THE POROSHENKO BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

>> I DID THE PRE-BRIEF AND TOOK PART IN THE BILATERAL MEETING.

>> SO LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A FLEGATIVE VIEW?

>> YES.

HE HAD A STRONG NEGATIVE VIEW.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING HE SAID OR DID THAT GAVE YOU THE FEELING THAT HE HAD THESE NEGATIVE FEELINGS?

>> YES.

I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE, BECAUSE THIS WAS A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT CLASSIFIED MATERIAL.

BUT MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT HE HAD A STRONGLY NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE AT THE TIME.

>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM IN YOUR DEPOSITION AS A REASONABLE POSITION?

>> YES.

>> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOST PEOPLE WHO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD POSSIBLY THINK THAT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU VIEWED IT AS PART OF YOUR ROLE TO HELP CHANGE HIS MIND, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A GENUINE REFORMER, AND THAT HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR SELF-ENRICHMENT.

HE WAS INDEED A GOOD PERSON?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DURING THE MAY 23rd MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, COULD YOU JUST RELATE TO US THE CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT ARTICULATED ABOUT THE UKRAINE?

>> YES.

THE PRESIDENT CAME INTO THE MEETING AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED SPEAKING.

HE HAD JUST A STRING OF COMMENTS THAT UKRAINE IS A TERRIBLE PLACE.

THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT.

THEY'RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE.

THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN.

I TRIED TO EXPLAIN ALONG WITH THE OTHERS THAT WERE THERE, EACH OF US TOOK TURNS SPEAKING.

I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU.

HE WAS ELECT THE BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION IN UKRAINE, AND HE HAS A STRONG MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE TO CHANGE IT.

THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ACTUALLY SHOW HIM STRONG SUPPORT NOW.

BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT CONVINCEED, AND HE SAID THAT ZELENSKY IS NO DIFFERENT, THAT HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT I HEAR ABOUT UKRAINE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US.

I HEAR THAT THE -- NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

TALK TO RUDY.

THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE AS I DESCRIBED.

>> AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE UKRANIANS TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO?

>> I BELIEVE HE WAS REFERRING TO THE RUMORS OF EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION BY PROVIDEING DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OR ABOUT PAUL MANIFORT TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE RUMORS THAT HAD BEEN OUT THERE, AND HAD GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT FROM THE UKRANIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

>> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE PRESIDENT GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT, RIGHT?

>> I BELIEVE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED.

BUT HE BROUGHT IT UP.

>> ASK MR. MORRISON, YOU WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICAL VIEW OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY?

>> YES.

AND THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT FOREIGN AID PRETTY BROADLY?

>> YES, SCRUTINIZE AND MAKE SURE THE U.S. TAXPAYERS WERE GETTING THEIR MONEY'S WORTH?

>> YES.

>> AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO INTERESTED, WAS HE NOT IN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED BURDEN SHARING AMONG THE EUROPEANS?

>> YES.

>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

>> THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE UNITED STATES SEEMED TO BEAR THE EXCLUSIVE BRUNT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE, AND WANTED TO SEE THE EUROPEAN STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE MORE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> AND WAS THERE ANY INNERAGENCY ACTIVITY WHETHER WITH THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO THAT 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'S EVENTS, AND THE INNERAGENCY TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM?

>> YES.

>> IN LATE AUGUST, WE DISCUSSED WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT A WAS THERE HOPE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH SOME OF THE REFORMS?

>> YES.

AND DID YOU HOPE DURING THIS 55 DAYS WHEN THE AID WAS PAUSED THAT ESSENTIALLY ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HE WAS BRONIFIED AND WOULD GET THE AID?

>> YES.

>> IN FACT, YOU TRAVELED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO THE UKRAINE RIGHT AROUND LABOR DAY WEEKEND, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON I BELIEVE AUGUST 29th?

>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND I STAFFED THAT MEETING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE RATA HAD MET AND THEY WERE PUSHING THROUGH REFORMS?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE IT WAS THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEW RATA.

>> AND SOME OF THESE REFORMS INCLUDED NAMING A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

>> A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND BRAND NEW CABINET, YES.

>> AND PUSH THROUGH LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATED IMMUNITY FOR RATA MEMBERS?

>> YES.

>> AND IT PROVIDEED COLOR INTO THIS EXPERIENCE OF THIS MEETING.

YOU SAID THAT THE UKRANIANS HAD BEEN UP ALL NIGHT WORKING ON SOME OF THESE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES?

>> YES.

THE UKRANIANS WITH WHOM WE MET WITH EXHAUSTED.

>> AND WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENCOURAGED BY THE ACTIVITY?

>> YES, HE WAS.

>> AND WAS THE MEETING FAVORABLE?

>> QUITE.

>> AT THAT POINT IN TIME AFTER THE MEETING AMBASSADOR BOLTON -- DID HE HEAD OFF TO WARSAW WAT VICE AW WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR -- I KNOW YOU WENT TO WARSAW?

>> WE HAD A FEW STOPS BUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON PROCEEDED TO WARSAW WHERE WE WERE ENSURING EVERYTHING WAS SAFE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S ARRIVAL.

>> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE VICE PRESIDENT?

>> I DID NOT.

>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON?

>> HE D. >> AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON SHARED WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE ZELENSKY MEETING?

>> I WAS NOT THERE.

THE ISSUE I REMEMBER STARKLY WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS ANNOYED WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

BUT THE AMBASSADOR HAD EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THE VICE PRESIDENT WERE -- >> 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.

>> AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR BOLTON INDICATED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOINGS ON IN UKRAINE WERE POSITIVE?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS ADVOCATING FOR A LIFT OF THE AID?

>> HE HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME, YES.

>> AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE WARSAW MEETING?

>> WE HAD A REDUCED SCHEDULE FROM WHAT HAD BEEN ARRANGED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT.

BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT DUDA OF POLAND.

>> AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER OF THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> HE SEEMED VERY POSITIVE.

>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE AID, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND HOW DID THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPOND?

>> HE REPRESENTED HIS SUPPORT FOR THE AID.

HE REPRESENTED A STRONG COMMITMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UKRAINE, AND EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, BECAUSE THIS IS AFTER THE POLITCO ARTICLE CAME OUT THAT THERE WAS A HOLD.

HE EXPLAINED WHAT WE WERE DOING, THE INNERAGENCY 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 THERE ANY DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WE'VE COME TO TALK ABOUT?

>> NO.

>> BURISMA WASN'T RAISED OR THE 2016 ELECTION WASN'T RAISED?

>> NO.

>> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T MENTION ANY INVESTIGATIONS AT ALL, DID HE?

>> NO.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUGUST 28th POLITCO ARTICLE.

IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU BELIEVE THE UKRANIANS HAD A REAL SENSE THAT THE AID WAS ON HOLD?

>> YES.

>> SO FROM THE 55 DAYS PERIOD SPINEING JULY 18th TO SEPTEMBER 11th, IT DIDN'T BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL AUGUST 28?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I HAD A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT DID THE UKRANIANS KNOW YET, BECAUSE WE BOTH FFLT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THE PRESIDENT WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE AID BEFORE THE UKRANIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.

>> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION?

>> YES, IT IS.

IT WASN'T UNTIL THE POLITCO ARTICLE?

>> YES, I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM AN UKRANIAN COUNTERPART, AND THAT'S THE FIRST THEY RAISED IT WITH ME.

>> CAN YOU SHARE WITH US ABOUT THE YOUR COMMUNICATIONS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD ABOUT WITHHOLDING THE AID?

>> I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UKRANIANS ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID UNTIL AFTER THEY RAISED IT WITH ME FOR THE SAME REASON THAT TIM JUST GAVE, ON THE HOPE WE COULD GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE IT BECAME SOMETHING THAT THEY BECAME AWARE OF.

INSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, I WAS AWARE THAT THE HOLD WAS PLACED -- I WAS AWARE OF THAT ON JULY 18th, AND REFERENCED AS AN INNERAGENCY MEETING, AND I GOT A READ OUT OF THAT FROM ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS.

I IMMEDIATELY SPOKE WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO OBJECT.

I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A BAD DECISION OR A BAD HOLD, AND NOT A DECISION, BUT A PROCESS.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT IT LIFTED.

I SPOKE TO THE PENTAGON WITH COOPER, AND THE SECRETARY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS GOING TO REPRESENT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL MEETING.

I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH OFFICIALS IN THE EUROPEAN BUREAU, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF.

I WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO CONVEY IT NEEDED TO BE LIFTED.

AND I FELT THAT THE BEST PROSPECT FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA IS THE STRONGEST DEFENSE CAPABILITY FOR UKRAINE.

>> AND DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, DID YOU COME TO BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PART OF THE HOLD UP IN THE AID?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> BACKTRACKING JUST A LITTLE BIT ON JULY 3rd, YOU MET IN TORONTO WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME >> YO -- YOU KNOW AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND MR. KENT PROVIDEED TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS APPREHENSION OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED, AND WOULD REAR ITS HEAD IN TORONTO.

I WONDER IF YOU WOULD TELL US IF THAT HAPPENED >> I CAN CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW.

I KNOW WE HAD A CONVERSATION, BILL TAYLOR, AND SONDLAND AND I THAT LATER CONNECTED TO A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE LATTER.

THAT BEING SAID, I WAS CONVINCEED 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 TEMPORIZEING WITH THE UKRANIANS, SAYING IT WAS A SCHEDULE ISSUE.

I TOLD BILL AND GORDON THAT I WAS GOING TO SEE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO, AND I FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO TELL HIM THE TRUTH THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE.

WE'RE NOT GETTING A DATE SCHEDULED, HERE'S WHAT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS.

IT'S THE NEGATIVE INFORMATION FLOW FROM MAYOR GIULIANI.

AND THAT HE WOULD -- I OFFERED TO ADVISE HIM THAT HE SHOULD CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP Pxá*RNLLY, BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO RENEW THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, AND CONVEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT THE 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 SERIES OF MEETINGS, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF PRE-CONDITIONS, 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 WITH HIM ABOUT PRE-CONDITIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS?

>> NOT AT THAT TIME.

I THINK LATER ON THESE THINGS CAME UP WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT STATEMENTS, AND WHETHER THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS.

BUT I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME IN TORONTO, IT WAS REALLY MORE REFERRING TO INVESTIGATIONS JENNERICALLY, THAT THAT IS HOW YOU GO ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, AND THAT ZELENSKY SHOULD REAFFIRM HIS COMMITMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A DIRECT PHONE CALL.

>> OKAY.

>> AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME HAD MR. KENT RAISED CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT ANY OF THIS?

>> NOT AT THAT TIME.

>> THE NEXT EVENT I WANT TO COVER IS THE JULY 10TH MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE.

TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 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?

>> LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I'D LIKE TO COME BACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION TO, IF I MAY.

ON THE JULY 10th MEETING THIS WAS A MEETING WE HAD ARRANGED BETWEEN THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIFFERENCE COUNCIL, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON.

ATTENDING THE MEETING WAS SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MYSELF AND I BELIEVE FIONA HILL, AND ANDRIY YERMAK.

THE PURPOSE WAS REALLY A COUNTERPART VISIT.

I THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY -- THE FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING IN WASHINGTON WITH THE SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UKRANIANS TO MAKE THEIR CASE THAT THEY WERE ON THE NEW TEAM IN TOWN, THE 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 THE REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY STRUCTURES IN UKRAINE, LEGISLATION THAT THEY WERE WORKINGS ON ON, AND NOT THE BIG PICTURE, AND NOT THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.

I WAS A BIT DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT.

AT THE END OF THE MEETING I DO RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THE OTHER TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE POINT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS IN A GENERIC WAY.

THIS WAS AFTER THE MEETING WAS 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.

THEN ALL OF US EXCEPT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WENT TO THE WARD ROOM TO TALK THROUGH FOLLOW-UP ABOUT HOW DO WE FOLLOW UP ON THE 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 HIS ASSISTANTS ABOUT ENERGY REFORM AS PART OF THAT.

I DON'T RECALL OTHER CONVERSATIONS FOLLOWING UP ON THE INVESTIGATION WITH BURISMA.

>> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO PRE-CONDITIONS DISCUSSED, RIGHT?

>> 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 WITHHELD, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE UKRANIANS.

WE WANTED TO FIX IT.

AND THEN A COUPLE WEEKS LATER, THE JULY 25th CALL HAPPENED, AND YOU WERE HEADED TO UKRAINE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD?

>> YES, I WAS ALREADY ON MY WAY TO UKRAINE, I THINK, TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THAT.

>> AND YOU RECEIVED FROM THE U.S. AND THE UKRANIAN SIDE.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

>> I WAS ON ANOTHER PHONE CALL.

I HAD ARRIVED IN UKRAINE AND HAD LUNCH WITH MR. YERMAK ON THE DAY OF THE PHONE CALL.

I HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR THE PHONE CALL.

I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RENEW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS AND CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PARLIAMENT ELECTION.

>> THE READ OUT I RECEIVED FROM MR. YERMAK AND THE U.S. SIDE, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHO FROM THE U.S. SIDE, BUT THERE WAS A READ OUT AND THEY WERE LARGELY THE SAME.

THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL.

IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT WINNING THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, AND HE RECOMMITTED TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

AND THE PRESIDENT REITERATED FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

I WAS NOT SURPRISE AS GETTING THAT READ OUT.

>> AND DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS?

>> AT THAT TIME WE WERE TOGETHER IN UKRAINE AT THE TIME AND WENT THE NEXT DAY TO VISIT THE CONFLICT ZONE, AND I'M SURE HE HEARD THE SAME READ OUT.

>> YOU HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 26TH?

>> YES, WE HAD A MEETING THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL BEFORE HEADING OUT.

>> WERE THERE ANY CONCERNING ELEMENTS THAT SOME WITNESSES RAISED BY OTHERS RAISED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> NO, ONLY THE BARE BONES READ OUT I RECEIVED.

THAT'S ALSO HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO THE EXTENT THERE'S BEEN ASSERTIONS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT DEMANLDS THAT PRESIDENT TUMP TRUMP MADE?

>> I DON'T RECALL THAT >> YOU DON'T RECALL?

>> 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 UPBEAT ABOUT THE CALL.

>> AND TLFLS NO DISCUSSION ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HOW TO NAVIGATE THE VARIOUS -- >> I DON'T RECALL THAT.

>> -- CONCERNS PEOPLE ARTICULATED ABOUT THE CALL?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

>> AND MR. ZELLDEN ASKED YOU IN NO SHAPE OR FORM ON THE READ OUT DID YOU RECEIVE ANY INDICATION OR ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A QUID QUO PRO, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THE SAME WOULD GO FOR THIS NEW ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY?

>> I DON'T REALLY SEE AN ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY.

>> THE SAME COMMENT, INSTEAD OF A QUID QUO PRO NOW IT'S BRIBERY?

>> I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT I CONSIDERED TO BE BRIBERY AT ALL.

>> OR EXTORTION?

>> OR EXTORTION.

>> MR. CASTER MAY I ADDRESS TWO SPECIFIC POINTS?

>> OF COURSE.

>> ONE IS I'M REMINDED THAT THE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOOK PLACE JULY 10, AND I DIDN'T BECOME AWARE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL JULY 18th.

THAT'S A REASON IT DIDN'T COME UP.

>> AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE POTENTIAL PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BREWING?

>> I DID NOT.

AND A SECOND OBSERVATION AS WELL.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I REMEMBER SEEING SOME OF THE TESTIMONY OF MR. KENT, A CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE HELL ASKED ME ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY THEEFRIES THAT WERE OUT THERE IN UKRAINE.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE OF THE CONVERSATION.

AND MY VIEW WAS IF THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT, WHY NOT INVESTIGATE THEM.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING TO THEM.

IF THERE IS, THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF, WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW, BUT I DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WAS >> YOU TESTIFYED IN DEPOSITION, THE ATTEMPT THAT THE INVESTIGATING UKRANIANS FOR WRONGDOING WAS APPROPRIATE, CORRECT?

>> YES, IT HAD BEEN POLICY FOR YEARS.

>> AND SO IF UKRANIANS WERE INVOLVED WITH THE BURISMA COMPANY -- >> THAT, I THINK, IS THE ONLY PLAUSIBLE THING TO LOOK AT THERE.

AS I SAID, I DON'T FIND IT PLAUSIBLE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES AND WHETHER THE UKRANIANS IN THE SOCIETY THAT WE KNOW UKRAINE HAS BEEN FOR DECADES WERE TRYING TO ACT IN A CORRUPT WAY, THAT'S PLAUSIBLE.

>> DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY AMBASSADOR KENT TOLD US THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA TRYING TO RECOUP MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

AND UKRANIANS WERE PURSUING AN INVESTIGATION.

THERE WAS A BRIBE PAID.

WERE YOU TRACKING THAT?

>> I WAS AWARE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

I COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE DETAILS.

I JUST KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REPUTATION AROUND THE COMPANY.

>> OKAY.

AND SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE FACTS AND THE BRIBE BEING PAID, AND THE BURISMA COMPANY WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND HUNTER BIDEN -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

>> AND TO THE EXTENT THE UKRANIANS, AND FOLKS AFFILIATED WITH BURISMA WANTED TO HIRE THOSE PEOPLE FOR THEIR BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES SO THEY COULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN MISDEEDS -- IF THAT WAS A FACT WORTH INVESTIGATING, YOU WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE UKRANIANS TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT, CORRECT?

>> I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WAS MOTIVATING BURISMA OR NOT, THE UKRANIAN AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY UKRANIAN CITIZENS IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE THING FOR THEM TO DO.

>> MR. MORRISON, I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE JULY 25th CALL YOU WERE IN THE ROOM.

DID ANYTHING CONCERN YOU ON THE CALL?

>> NO.

>> AND AFTER THE CALL ENDED, YOU LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, ONE OF YOUR NEXT STEPS WAS TO ENGAGE THE NCS LAWYERS, AND YOUR REASONS FOR DOING THAT WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COLONEL VINDMAN'S.

YOU ARTICULATED THREE CONCERNS.

YOU WANT TO SHARE THEM WITH US OR RATHER I DO IT?

>> I THINK I ARTICULATED TWO CONCERNS.

THE TWO CONCERNS I HAD WERE ONE, I DID NOT SEE REPRESENTATIVES OF NCS LEGAL ON THE CALL.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER AND HIS DEPUTY WERE AWARE OF THE CALL.

AND I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT THE MEMCON LIMITED DISCLOSURE FOR FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT LEAKING.

>> AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT LEAKING BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON POLARIZEED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU WERE ALSO WORRIED HOW THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT HERE IN CONGRESS OF TOWARDS UKRAINE, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU WERE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT AFFECT THE UKRANIANS PERCEPTION NEGATIVELY?

>> YES.

>> AND IN FACT, ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT, HAVEN'T THEY?

>> YES.

>> YOU DIDN'T ASK THE LAWYERS TO PUT IT ON THE CODE WORD SYSTEM, CORRECT?

>> I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THE LEXICON HERE.

I DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MOVEED TO A DEPARTMENT SYSTEM.

>> OKAY.

YOU JUST WANTED THE TRANSCRIPT TO BE CONTROLLED >> I WANTED ACCESS TO BE RESTRICTED.

>> AND WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN STORED ON THE DEPARTMENTAL SERVER, YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, CORRECT?

>> WELL, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE.

I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THAT MEMCON, BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF TURNING UP AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S MATERIALS AND THE PRESIDENT'S MATERIAL FOR WHAT WAS PLANNED TO BE A BILATERAL BETWEEN PRESIDENT POTEUS AND ZELENSKY.

AND WHEN I WENT TO DO THAT I COULDN'T PULL UP THE PACKAGE IN OUR SYSTEM.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS.

I SPOKE TO THE NCS SECRETARY OF STAFF AND ASKED WHY, AND THEY DID RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT HAD BEEN MOVEED TO A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG, WHOM I THEN ASKED WHY.

THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE MADE.

BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.

HE ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE THE DIRECTION, AND HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND REPRESENTED BACK TO ME HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

AND THAT WHEN HE GAVE ORDERS TO RESTRICT ACCESS, THAT WAS AN APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT THAT COULD NOT EXIST ON A LOWER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT?

>> CORRECT.

AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID ANYBODY ON THE NCS STAFF HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR OFFICIAL DUTIES, WAS ALWAYS ABLE TO ACCESS IT, CORRECT?

PEOPLE THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND A NEED TO ACCESS IT?

>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED, YES.

>> OKAY.

THE MEMCON OF THE JULY 25th CALL WAS IN YOUR EXPERIENCE PREPARED NORMALLY?

>> YES.

AND THE EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS SAID ON THE CALL, CORRECT?

>> THERE'S NOTE TAKERS, IN THE SITUATION ROOM, AND THEN THEY PREPARE A DRAFT, AND IT WAS CIRCULATED AMONG THE RELEVANT PARTIES?

>> ESSENTIALLY.

>> AND YOU HAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR COORDINATESING ANY EDITS?

>> YES.

WE LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, THE MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION, AND WE ENSURE THAT THAT TRANSCRIPTION IS AS CLOSE TO ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED HE FELT IT WAS VERY ACCURATE.

DID YOU AS WELL?

>> I VIEWED IT COMPLETELY ACCURATE.

>> COLONEL VINDMAN DID ARTICULATE HE HAD A COUPLE OF EDITS, HE WANTED BURISMA INSERTED ON PAGE THREE OR FOUR.

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 UNDER THIS PROCEEDING OR THE DEPOSITION HE WANTED THAT, YES.

>> AT THE TIME DID YOU UNDERSTAND HE ASKED FOR THAT?

>> I DON'T RECALL THAT.

IT'S MY FRA IF AN EDIT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED THE CALL I ACCEPT IT.

IF IT DIDN'T EXIST IN MY NOTES I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE EDIT.

>> IT'S ON PAGE 4, HE WANTED TO SWAP OUT THE WORD COMPANY FOR BURISMA.

AND WHEN THAT EDIT FROM COLONEL VINDMAN WAS NOT INSTALLED, DID HE GIVE YOU NEGATIVE FEEDBACK THAT IT WAS CRUCIAL TO GET THAT IN THE DOCUMENT?

>> NOT THAT I RECALL.

>> DID HE RAISE CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT?

>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

>> DID HE EVER RAISE CONCERNS TO YOU GENERALLY ABOUT THE CALL?

>> WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE VERSION OF THE MEMCON I BELIEVE HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL.

WE BOTH AGREED HE WANTED A FULL THROATED EMBRACE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S REFORM AGENDA, AND WE DIDN'T GET IT.

>> YOU INDICATED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT WHEN YOU TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL JULY 15th, YOU WERE ALERTED TO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES IN COLONEL VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT.

>> YES.

>> DID SHE RELAY ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO YOU?

WHY SHE THOUGHT THAT?

>> NOT AS SUCH.

IT WAS MORE OF AN OVERARCHING STATEMENT FROM HER AND FROM HER DEPUTY BECAME MY DEPUTY -- THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT JUDGMENT.

>> DID ANY OTHER NSC PERSONNEL RAISE CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN?

>> YES.

>> AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

>> THERE WERE -- >> I INSTRUCT YOU NOT TO ANSWER, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

THESE CONCERNS PRE-DATED ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE UKRANIANS.

>> WELL, DURING THE DEPOSITION, I ASKED YOU MR. MORRISON WHETHER OTHERS RAISED CONCERNS ON WHETHER COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED INFORMATION.

YOU DID ASK THAT, YES.

>> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS?

>> OTHERS REPRESENTED THAT, YES.

>> AND I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU WERE CONCERNED COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP AT ALL TIMES WITH HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES?

>> YES.

>> AND IN FACT, WHEN HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LAWYERS HE DID NOT FIRST COME TO YOU, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU WERE HIS SUPERVISOR IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND IN HINDSIGHT DO YOU WISH HE HAD COME TO YOU FIRST BEFORE GOING TO THE LAWYERS?

>> YES.

>> AND WHY IS THAT?

>> ONE, IF HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF A CALL THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO BE NOTIFIED OF.

I ALSO THINK IT'S A MATTER OF PRACTICE.

WE BOTH WENT TO THE LAWYERS, WE BOTH DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO.

AND THE 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.

>> WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS CONCERNS?

>> WELL, HE WAS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE UKRAINE TRIP THAT HE WAS ON, AND HE DID NOT GO.

HE ASKED ME WHY IT'S MY PRACTICE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ONE ON ONE.

THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS.

>> OKAY.

AND DID YOU RESOLVE HIS CONCERNS, OR DID THEY LINGER?

>> I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY THINKING.

THAT WAS THAT.

>> OKAY.

>> HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES, CORRECT.

>> DID HE EVER RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE EARLY AUGUST TIME PERIOD?

>> ONLY AS YOU SAW REFLECTED IN THE TEXT MESSAGES THEMSELVES WHERE HE SAID IS THIS NOW A LINKAGE OR ARE WE DOING THIS.

HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT JUST IN GENERAL RUDY GIULIANI, WHICH A LOT OF US HAD -- WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT?

ABOUT THE ROLE THAT HE'S PLAYING.

AND AS YOU NOTE, WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT.

NEAR DAILY CONTACT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME PERIOD.

>> DID HE EVER ENGAGE YOU IN AN ONE ON ONE TELEPHONE CALL TO ARTICULATE CONCERNS?

>> WE WERE ON MANY PHONE CALLS BUT DIDN'T RAISE THOSE CONCERNS, NO.

>> AND THIS -- YOU'RE AN EXPERIENCED DIPLOMAT, AND SENATE CONFIRMED.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

SECRETARY PERRY IS THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY -- CERTAINLY NOT -- DOESN'T SOUND IRREGULAR.

DID HE EVER ARTICULATE THAT HE THOUGHT THE THREE OF YOU WORKING ON THE UKRAINE POLICY WAS A PROBLEM?

>> NO.

>> WERE YOU SURPRISED DURING HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE CAME INTO THE TESTIMONY AND HE SORT OF ESTABLISHED THE TRACKS THAT ONE WAS A REGULAR CHANNEL THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF, AND THE OTHER WAS -- >> YES.

I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT.

I HAD BEEN IN MY ROLE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

I HAD BEEN THE LEAD ON U.S. UKRAINE NEW YORKS AND NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA AND THE INNER AGENCY WORK, AND WORK WITH OUR ALLIES.

AND WE HAD A SECRETARY OF ENERGY WHO WAS A CABINET OFFICIAL.

I THINK HAVING SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS U.S. OFFICIALS FOR OUR STRENGTHENING ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE I VIEWED AS VERY POSITIVE THINGS.

IF THE CONCERN IS NOT US SO MUCH, THAT ALL THE U.S. OFFICIALS, BUT MAYOR GIULIANI, I DON'T VIEW THAT AS A CHANNEL AT ALL.

BECAUSE HE'S NOT A RAECHT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

HE'S A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I VIEWED HIM AS AN USEFUL BAROMETER IN UNDERSTANDING THAT MAY BE HELPFUL COMMUNICATION FROM THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT SOMEONE IN A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 5 OR 10 MINUTE BREAK?

IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSS TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST.

WE ARE IN RECESS.

THE DEPOSITION WAS YOUR WORDS AND I ACTUALLY READ THE WRONG PART IN THE QUOTE.

WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID WAS IT CREATES A PROBLEM AGAIN WHERE ALL OF THE THING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO ADVANCE THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, STRENGTHEN THE POSITIONING AGAINST RUSSIA IS NOW GETTING SUCKED INTO A DOMESTIC POLITICAL DEBATE IN THE U.S., DOMESTIC POLITICAL NARRATIVE THAT OVERSHADOWS THAT.

SO YOU WERE RIGHT TO POINT THAT OUT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE THINGS THAT YOU SAID DURING THE MINORITIES ROUND.

CAN YOU REPEAT AGAIN THE READOUT YOU GOT OF THE JULY 25TH CALL?

>> YES.

I RECEIVED A READOUT FROM BOTH UKRAINIAN COLLEAGUE ANDRIY YERMAK AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS MY STAFF OR THE EMBASSY OR WHERE.

THE READOUT WAS IT WAS A GOOD PHONE CALL.

THAT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE COBBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WING IN THE PLAWRMT TREE ELECTION.

THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO REITERATE HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND ADVANCING REFORMS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP RENEWED HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> I BELIEVE YOU SAID THE READOUT WAS EXACTLY HOW YOU EXPECTED THE CALL TO GO.

>> EXACTLY.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DEAL.

>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE JULY 25TH TEXT THAT YOU WROTE TO ANDRIY YERMAK WHICH WAS THE MESSAGE YOU WERE RELATION TO HIM SO HE COULD PREPARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

YOU'LL RECALL THIS, RIGHT, WHERE YOU SAID THIS WAS THE MESSAGE, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE ASSUMING PRESIDENCY.

CONV PRESIDENT Z GETS TO INVESTIGATION.

WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE TO VISIT FOR WASHINGTON.

THAT'S WHAT YOU EXPECTED FROM THE CALL, RIGHT?

>> I EXPECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONVINCING IN HIS STHAIMENT AND COMMENTS WITH PRESIDENT -- STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE WOULD INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE THING THAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

AND THAT HE WAS STRONG IN CONVEYING WHO HE IS AS A PERSON IN TO GO THAT, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE CONVINCED AND RENEW THE INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> RIGHT.

BUT YOU DON'T MENTION CORRUPTION IN THIS TEXT, DO YOU?

>> THIS IS -- >> THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT IN THIS, RIGHT.

>> THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT THERE.

INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT WOULD BE CORRUPT WOULD BE INVESTIGATING RUPTION.

>> YOU SAY A COUPLE TIMES IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

YOU ARE AWARE, OF COURSE THAT MOST INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TO THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE PAST, RIGHT?

>> SURE.

>> SORRY.

>> YES.

>> SO THAT DOESN'T REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE WHETHER IT'S CURRENT OR PAST IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

>> SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE MEETING YOU HAD ON JULY 26TH WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KYIV, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> ON THE 26TH WE HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YES.

>> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE TONIC OF INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT COME UP AT ALL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, I DON'T RECALL THEM COMING UP JUST THE GENERAL PHONE CALL.

>> YOU DIDN'T TAKE NOTES OF THAT CALL OF THAT MEETING, RIGHT.

>> I DID NOT.

>> BECAUSE YOU HAD, THERE WERE STAFFERS THERE TO DO THAT.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND SO IF THERE ARE TWO STAFFERS WHO HAVE, WHO TOOK NOTES OF THAT MEETING AND TESTIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT OF EITHER SENSITIVE TOPICS OR INVESTIGATIONS CAME UP, ARE WE BETTER OFF TAKING THEIR WORD FOR IT THAN YOURS?

>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR NOTES IF THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN CON C CONTELL PREEN ANNUAT THE MEETING.

>> THERE WAS A PHONE COBBLE WITH YOU ON AUGUST 20M DO YOU RECALL HAVING THAT MEETING WITH HER BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT IN YOUR DEPOSITION.

>> YES, I DID.

I DID MENTION THAT I HAD BEEN MAKING THE ROUNDS TO WEIGH IN ON LIFTING THE HOLD ON SECURITY SYSTEMS TO DO THAT WITH ALL OF THE INTERAGENCY PLAYERS.

>> SHE RECALLED WITH SOME SPECIFICITY WITH THAT MEETING WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ALSO BASED ON HER NOTES THAT YOU DESCRIBED THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE TO, AND I'LL QUOTE WHA SHE SAID, DISAVOW INTERFERENCE IN U.S. AND SPILL TO PROSECUTE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

IF HE AGREED TO DO THAT, SHE TESTIFIED THEN YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT HELP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE CONVERSATION AS WELL?

>> NO.

>> HOW DID YOURS DIFFER.

>> I RECALL TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENT WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN IN THE SUBJECT OF THESE EXCHANGES BETWEEN MR. YERMAK AND MYSELF, MYSELF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI AND THEN BACK TO YERMAK.

SO I DISCUSSED THIS IS AN EFFORT WE ARE DOING, THAT THIS COULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A RESET OF THE THINKING OF THE PRESIDENT, THE NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE THAT HE HAD.

AND 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 STUFF ON TRACK WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION BUT YOU DON'T DOUBT THAT WHAT SHE TESTIFIED IS INACCURATE, DO YOU?

>> I BELIEVE SHE ACCURATELY REFLECTED WHAT SHE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CONVERSATION.

>> YOU TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE JUNE 28TH CONFERENCE CALL THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

I'M NOT SURE OF DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT WAS ON THE LINE AND SECRETARY PERRY BEFORE YOU LOOPED IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS OF THAT OR IS SECRETARY PAYERLY NOT ON IT?

>> I AM PRETTY SURE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT WAS NOT ON IT.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER SECRETARY PERRY WAS ON IT AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER I STAYED ON FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DURING 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 OURSELVES TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WERE THE MESSAGES WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO CONVEY.

>> AT THAT POINT WE HAD OTHER TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE WHO DID TAKE NOTES THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OR WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO, WHAT THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> I RECALL SEEING THAT IN AMBASSADOR TESTIMONY.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN A TEXT MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT.

AGAIN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

BECAUSE WHAT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE LOOKING INTO AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION SPURNLLY AND BEING CONVINCING ABOUT THIS PRESENTING THE NEW PRESIDENT AND NEW CHANGE IN UKRAINE.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE BURISMA AND THE 201 ELECTION, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> YOU INTERPRETED THOSE, YOU INTERPRETED THOSE TO BE OKAY BECAUSE IN THEORY THEY WERE LOOKING INTO UKRAINIANS.

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT WE CAN AGREE, CAN WE NOT, THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS, ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WERE BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

WHAT YOU THEN AMENDED YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY TO SAY THAT IN RETROSPECT, IF YOU DO NOT REALIZE THAT THE PURPOSE FOR MR. GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WANT THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION WAS FOR POLITICAL WITHIN FITS IN DIGGING UP DIRT OR GETTING SOME INFORMATION ON VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU LEARNED SUBSEQUENTLY, RIGHT?

>> IT'S CORRECT THAT I LEARNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST IN INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FROM THE PHONE CALL TRAN SCRIPT WHICH CAME MUCH MUCH LATER.

FROM GIULIANI I DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS ACTIVELY PURSUING THIS.

I DID KNOW HE RAISED THIS WITH ME DIRECTLY AND I PUSHED BACK ON IT.

>> YOU KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS PURSUING THIS AT THE JULY 10TH MEETING WHEN HE RAISED THESE INVESTIGATIONS HIMSELF.

>> HE DIDN'T SPECIFY BIDEN, HE DIDN'T SPECIFY BURISMA AS I RECALL EITHER.

I UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD BE A GENERIC COMMENT AND SOMETHING AGAIN NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT MEETING.

>> RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT BIDEN WASN'T MENTIONED BUT YOU DO AGREE THAT WHEN WHEN INVESTIGATIONS ARE PREFERENCED IT IS THE BURISMA 2016 ELECTION, NO?

>> YES.

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

>> ON THE JULY 10TH CALL WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE INVESTIGATION, HE DID THAT IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT.

>> YOU SAID THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AT THE JULY 10TH MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE.

AND YOU SAID THAT 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?

>> THAT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT.

I REMEMBER THE MEETING ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING OVER AND THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGING THAT UP.

>> IN THE JULY SECOND OR THIRD MEETING IN TORONTO THAT YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU ALSO MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS TO HIM, RIGHT.

>> YES.

>> AGAIN YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE BURISMA.

>> I WAS THINKING OF BURISMA AND 2016.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT'S WHAT THE UKRAINIANS INTERPRETED REFERENCES TO INVESTIGATIONS TO BE RELATED TO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY AT THAT TIME IF WE HAD TALKED THAT SPECIFICALLY BURISMA 2016.

THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION, THOUGH, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT TOO.

>> NOW MR. MORRISON, WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH FIONA HILL ABOUT BURISMA AND THE PARALLEL TRACK INVOLVING, PARALLEL PROCESS RATHER INVOLVING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI DO YOU RECALL.

>> WE HAD A NUMBER OF HANDOFF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ONE JULY AND 15 JULY.

>> SO IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU WERE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THIS EFFORT TO PROMOTE THIS BURISMA INVESTIGATION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI WERE GOING ABOUT OR AT LEAST YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL.

>> I HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL.

>> I WANT TO PULL UP ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM A RECENT "WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE THAT QUOTES AN E-MAIL FROM JULY 13TH THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SENT TO YOU.

AND HE WROTE TO YOU, QUOTE, SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO GIVE POTUS ASSURANCES OF NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN, CORRUPTION ENDING UNBUNDLING MOVING FORWARD AND ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY.

AND YOU RESPONDED TRACKING.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEAN WHEN HE WROTE TO YOU ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TR TRANSPARENTL.

>> I DON'T KNOW I HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING.

THESE ARE E-MAILS.

I WASN'T EVEN IN THE SEAT YET BUT I KNEW THAT AMONG THE HEAD OF STATE MEETINGS WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO SCHEDULE THERE WAS ONE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> RIGHT.

BUT IT WAS BEFORE THIS THAT DR. HILL HAD TOLD YOU ABOUT BURISMA AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN PARTICULAR HIS DESIRE FOR THIS PARALLEL PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SO YOU HAD THAT ASSOCIATION WHEN YOU RECEIVED HIS E-MAIL ASKING YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

>> NO?

>> NO.

>> WHY NOT?

>> BECAUSE AMBASSADOR, AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL WERE ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

I THINK SHE MIGHT HAVE COINED IT THE GORDON PROBLEM.

I DECIDED TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS DOING.

I DIDN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS ACT ON THINGS GORDON SUGGESTED HE BELIEVED WERE IMPORTANT.

HE WANT TO GET A MEETING.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRESIDENT WANT TO DO AND HAD AGREED TO A MEETING SO I WAS WORKING, I WAS TRACKING THAT WE NEEDED TO SCHEDULE A MEETING.

>> YOU WERE NOT ENDORSING THE NOTION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

>> THAT IS MY TESTIMONY.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO JUMP AHEAD.

AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED, YOU WENT TO THE YES CONFERENCE IN UKRAINE.

AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO TESTIFIED BASED ON QUITE DETAILED NOTES INDICATED THAT EARLIER A FEW DAYS BEFORE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TOLD HIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN AND SO BEFORE HE WRITES A CHECK HE LIKES TO SEE PEOPLE PAY UP SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.

>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT TESTIMONY.

>> YOU'RE ALSO FAMILIAR THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YOU SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO HIM WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINE FOR THE YES CONFERENCE.

DO YOU RECALL AGENT THAT?

>> YES, I DO.

I WAS REPEATING WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 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 ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND EFTION SAYING THAT -- AND HE WAS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD RECEIVED, HE'S ALREADY GOT A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE, HE SEES A CHECK ON HIS DESK THAT'S GOING TO THE UKRAINIANS, NOT SURE ABOUT THEM SO HE WANTS TO HOLD ON TO IT UNTIL HE'S ASSURED.

>> THE PAY UP BEFORE HE WRITES THE CHECK IS TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANT ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME.

>> WHAT DID YOU THINK IT MEANT.

>> I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A PAY UP.

AS WE SAID THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR.

I HEARD FROM GORDON HE SEES THIS CHECK.

HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE'S GOT A DEAL WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN THE GENERIC FORMULATION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.

>> 15 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNES.

>> PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONNAIRE .

DO YOU EXPENSE THESE 15 MINUTES MOTIONS YOU COME UP IN THE BACK.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MAGICAL THEY ARE BY HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 THAT WE CAN HAVE SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS UP TO 45 MINUTES.

THIS IS PART OF THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION.

>> DO YOU EXPENSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THIS EVENING.

>> I DO NOT EXPECT MORE WILL BE NECESSARY.

>> THANK YOU.

SO EVERYBODY WATCHING, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAM PUBLIC OF HOW OUT OF CONTROL THIS PROCESS HAS BECOME.

WHICH THE DEMOCRATS MAGICALLY GIVE THEMSELVES THE MINUTES WHICH THEY WROTE YOU CAN DO AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY HAVE AT LEAST THE DECENCY YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES.

I WOULD SAY YOU CAN GO FOUR HOURS, WE CAN GO FIVE HOURS WE'LL GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT, YOU CAN KEEP DIGGING IF YOU WANT.

THE DEEPER HOLE YOU DIG I THINK THE MORE VIEWERS WILL TURN OFF BECAUSE 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 WHISTLEBLOWER WHO YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM NOT TO KNOW WHICH WAY STILL NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO HOW THIS WHOLE MESS BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SECONDLY WE ASKED FOR THE DNC OPERATIVES THAT WERE WORKING WITH THE UKRAINIANS TO DIG UP DIRT FOR WHAT YOU CALL OR WHAT THE LEFT CALLS CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHICH THEY ARE RIGHT, THEY ARE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF DIRT THAT THEY'VE DUG UP TO SPIN THEIR OWN CONSPIRACY THEORIES TO ATTACK THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

SO I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES.

I KNOW OUR MEMBERS DO.

MR. CASTOR YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CLEAN UP HERE.

>> THANK YOU MR. NUNES.

I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK AND YIELD SOME TIME BACK SO WE DON'T HAVE TO USE EVERY LAST MINUTE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER ARE YOU AWARE OF THE STATEMENT LAST WEEK FROM THE FOREIGN MINISTER HE SAID NO ONE EVER TOLD THE UKRAINIANS CERTAINLY NOT HIM THAT THERE'S ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I SAW THAT STATEMENT, YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE FOREIGN MINISTER.

>> I DO.

>> DURING TIMES RELEVANT DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS AND LINKS.

>> NOT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH HIM.

I BELIEVE I KEPT THAT DISCUSSION TO BEING WITH MR. YERMAK AND WE DID DISCUSS WITH PRIME MINISTER PPOROCHENKO.

>> THE PRIMARY PERSON YOU WORKED WITH IS MR. YERMAK.

>> YES.

>> MR. YERMAK ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

DID MR. YERMAK EVER GIVE YOU ANY FEEDBACK WITH HIS INTERACTIONS WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> I CAN'T SAY WHETHER HE DID OR DIDN'T.

WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT AND WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES AS WE WENT ALONG.

>> THE EPISODE AT WARSAW WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED MR. YERMAK ASIDE, DID MR. YOU'RE MAC GIVE YOU FEEDBACK ON THAT MEETING.

>> I D DID NOT GET ANYTHING SPECIFIC AFTER THAT.

THIS WAS AROUND I BELIEVE SEPTEMBER 1ST OR SECOND AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT I HAD BEEN I THINK TEXTED BY MR. YERMAK AND THE SUBSEQUENT IN TOUCH WITH HIM AND -- WHERE I TOLD THEM BOTH AND I TOLD THE DEFENSE MINISTER I TOLD THEM ALL DON'T WORRY WE KNOW ABOUT THIS WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IT.

I THINK I LEFT THE CONVERSATION AT THAT.

>> THE YEW CREPIAN OFFICIALS -- UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DO THEY TRUST YOU.

>> I BELIEVE SO.

WE HAD A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP.

>> WHEN YOU MADE STATEMENTS DO YOU THINK THEY BELIEVED YOU.

>> I THINK THEY PLEAD ME.

I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE OTHER CONVERSATIONS AND THEY WOULD HEAR THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE BUT I ALSO THINK THEY KNEW I WAS KIN SEAR WITH THEM.

>> -- SINCERE WITH THEM.

>> THEY SALLOW TRUSTED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> YES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO DEDEMYSTI.

YOU HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM.

>> BETWEEN THE 10TH OF JULY AND AROUND THE 13TH OF AUGUST.

>> DURING YOUR DEPOSITION WE SORT OF DID AN ACCOUNTING OF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. GIULIANI AND IT WASN'T, THERE WEREN'T THAT MANY.

WE SORT OF COUNTED FOR THEM ALL AND THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHEN HE CAME IN, HE DIDN'T HAVE, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS WITH MAYOR GIULIANI TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> IN FACT I THINK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED THERE WERE A COUPLE CONFERENCES CALLS HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON WITH YOU.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

>> GETTING BACK TO THE REGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COINED IN HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF CLOSE THE LOOP WITH HIM ABOUT ANY CONCERNS WHATSOEVER OR WAS IT ALL JUST THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES RAISED IN THE TEXT.

>> ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC INSTANCES.

>> DO YOU THINK AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM BELIEVE THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS IN FAR GREATER COMMUNICATION WITH YOURSELF, SECRETARY PERRY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE THOUGHT.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. NUNES.

>> I HAVE NOTHING MORE.

WOULD THE GENTLEMAN ALLOW US TO USE OUR MAGIC MINUTES TO YIELD TO ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO.

>> THE HOUSE RULES DON'T PERMIT THAT, MR. NUNES.

>> YIELD BACK.

>> WE'LL NOW GO TO FIVE MINUTE MEMBER QUESTIONS.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE JULY 10TH MEETING, YOU TESTIFY I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10 MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON AND UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL SECURITY DEFENSE COUNCIL.

IT WAS OVER WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE GENERIC COMMENTS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

THE CONVERSATION DID NOT CONTINUE AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT MEETING DURING YOUR DEPOSITION AND YOU TOLD US NOTHING ABOUT THIS.

I BELIEVE WE ASKED YOU ABOUT WHY THE MEETING CAME TO AN END AND WHY YOU'VE HAD EARLIER INDICATED TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT IT DID NOT GO WELL AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT -- WAS IN THE WEEDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS?

>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBERED FROM THE MEETING WHAT I PROVIDED IN MY OCTOBER 3RD STATEMENT.

AS I SAID, I'VE LEARNED OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING STATEMENTS FROM ALEX VINDMAN AND JONAH HILL AND -- FIONA HILL, THAT REMINDED ME AT THENT OF THE MEETING AS IT WAS RECOUNTED IN COLONEL VINDMAN'S STATEMENT I DID REMEMBER THAT, YES THAT'S RIGHT GORDON DID BRING THAT UP AND THAT WAS IT.

>> SO AT THE TIME WE DEPOSED YOU AND I THINK WE WERE THERE FOR SIX, SEVEN EIGHT HOURS AND WE WERE ASKING YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT GORDON SONDLAND HAD BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE JULY 10TH MEETING WITH UKRAINIANS AND AMBASSADOR BOTHTON CALLED AN END TO THE -- BOLTON CALLED AN END TO THE MEETING AND BOLTON DESCRIBED THAT MEETING AS A DRUG DEAL THAT WAS COOKED UP.

YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT.

>> IN ORALS OF GORDON BRINGING IT UP NO I DID NOT REMEMBER THAT AT THE TIME OF MY OCTOBER 3RD TESTIMONY.

I READ THE ACCOUNTANT BY ALEX AND THAT JOGGED MY MEMORY YES THAT'S RIGHT THAT DID HAPPEN.

I DO NOT STILL TO THIS POINT RECALL IT BEING AN ABRUPT END TO THE MEETING.

THE MEETING WAS ASEVENLY OVER AND -- ESSENTIALLY OVER.

WE GOT UP AND WENT OUT INTO A LITTLE CIRCLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE WE TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH.

IT DID NOT STRIKE ME AS ABRUPT.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

NOW, IF AS YOU KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ONLY MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS IN THE BOLTON MEETING AND YOU DON'T RECALL HEARING HIM BEING MORE SPECIFIC ALTHOUGH OTHERS HAVE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS IN THE WARD ROOM, WHY DID YOU THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING OF AN EYE R ROLL MOMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A MEETING AND TRY TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.

WE HAVE THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.

IT WAS A DISAPPOINTING MEETING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE UKRAINIANS GOT AS MUCH OUT OF THAT IN TERMS OF THEIR PRESENTATION AS THEY COULD HAVE AND THEN THIS COMES UP AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING.

IT'S LIKE THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT.

>> AMBASSADOR YOU SAID YOU THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE UKRAINIANS TO DO INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016 AND BURISMA AS LONG AS BURISMA DIDN'T MEAN THE AMBASSADORRENS, SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOW -- MEAN THE BIDENS WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU NOW UNDERSTAND YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE.

NONETHELESS IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE, WHY ARE YOU SAYING TODAY THAT ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

>> YES.

BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE PLACE OR THE TIME TO BRING UP THAT.

THIS WAS A MEETING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL.

THE NURSE MEETING WE'RE HAVING BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION.

>> IS PART OF THE REASON IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE ALSO IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE CONTEXT OF TRYING TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

>> POSSIBLY ALTHOUGH I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING.

I KNOW THIS WAS THE COUNCIL'S QUESTION.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT CONTEXT OF WHEN THAT CAME UP.

I VIEWED THE MEETING AS ESSENTIALLY HAVING ENDED.

>> I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR UPDATED TESTIMONY THAT YOU DO THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND OBJECTIONABLE TO SEEK TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, AM I RIGHT.

>> TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SOMEONE WHO IS A U.S. OFFICIAL, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ASKING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S TRUE OF THE POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> YOU RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU GOT THE CALL RECORD WHEN YOU FINALLY DID SEE THE CALL RECORD THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THAT CALL, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR VOLKER THINKS IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE THE U.S.

PERSON LET ALONE A POLITICAL RIVAL BUT YOU SAID YOU HAD NO CONCERN WITH THAT.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> AS A HYPOTHETICAL MATTER I DO NOT.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL MATTER.

READ THE TRAN SCRIPT.

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.

>> BUT NONETHELESS, THIS WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME WHERE YOU WENT FROM LISTENING TO A PRESIDENTIAL CALL DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, IS IT NOT.

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT YOUR CONCERN WAS NOT THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL BUT THAT IT MIGHT LEAK, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOW THE PROBLEM WITH THE 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 CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE CALL LEAKING MIGHT BE.

>> THERE WAS A PERFECT CALL, WOULD YOU HAVE HAD A CONCERN OF IT LEAKING?

>> NO.

WELL I WOULD STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT IT LEAKING.

>> WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE JOHN CASIC OR TO INVESTIGATE NANCY PELOSI OR TO INVESTIGATE AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WOULD THAT APPROPRIATE.

>> IN THOSE HYPOTHETICAL CASES, NO, NOT APPROPRIATE.

>> YOU'RE NOT SURE ABOUT JOE BIDEN.

>> SIR, AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME AND WHY I ACTED THE WAY I DID AT THE TIME.

>> FINALLY, MY COLLEAGUES ASKED ABOUT WELL, DOESN'T AID GET HELD UP FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN MILITARY AID HELD UP BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANT HIS RIVAL INVESTIGATED?

>> NO, I'VE NOT SEEN THAT.

>> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT, MR. WILLIAMS -- MR. MORRISON, I'M SORRY.

>> NO, CHAIRMAN.

>> I YIELD TO THE RANK ISING MEMBER.

>> SO YOU TOOK TWO ADDITIONAL MINUTES.

ARE YOU GIVING OUR SIDE SEVEN MINUTES.

>> OF COURSE.

>> I RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER.

>> THANK YOU.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, MR. MORRISON, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY AND SERVICE TO 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 WE'VE HAD NO ONE HAS EVER ALLEGED THAT EITHER OF YOU HAVE DONE ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR IMPROPER.

AND EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN OF BOTH OF YOU AS HAVING A HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM AND HIGH DEGREE OF ETHICAL STANDARDS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER I APPRECIATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOUR COMMENTS OF YOUR WORK TO FOCUS ON RUSSIA AS AN INVASION OF UKRAINE OCCUPATION AND YOUR WORK ON LEGAL DEFENSIVE ARMS, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE JAVELINS, WOULD IT NOT AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> YES ARE THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE WITH UKRAINE DID IT NOT.

>> BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> TELL US ABOUT YOUR MILITARY SERVICE.

>> I'M A U.S.

NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER.

I'M AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.

>> WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL.

>> GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.

>> NOW GENTLEMEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE PACE HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WE HAVE FOR THIS PORTION OF QUESTIONS.

A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR PERCEPTIONS, THEIR BELIEFS, THEIR FEELINGS EVEN, WHAT THEY HEARD AND THEIR UNDERSTANDINGS AND THEIR THOUGHTS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND COLONEL VINDMAN HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER AND OTHER PEOPLE AND HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF HEARSAY BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS BOILS DOWN JUST TO ONE THING THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT Q INQUIRY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE INFORMATION AND THEIR THOUGHTS AND UNDERSTANDING.

IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT DID THE PRIDE OF THE UNITED STATES INTEND AND WHAT DID HE SAY AND WHAT DID THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND OR HEAR.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU'RE ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE WE'VE HAD IN THESE OPEN TESTIMONY HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH.

SO I GET TO ASK YOU.

YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THE POLICY ISSUES HE RAISED CONCERNING UKRAINE WERE VALID, CORRECT.

>> YES.

>> DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ARE EVER SAY TO YOU THAT HE WAS NOT TOGETHER TO ALLOW AID OF THE UNITED STATES TO GO TO UKRAINE UNLESS THERE WAS INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR 2016 ELECTIONS.

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

>> DID THE UKRAINIANS ARE EVER TELL YOU THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THEY UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

>> NO, THEY DID NOT.

>> PRETTY MUCH AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU JUST TOOK APART THEIR ENTIRE CASE.

I MEAN IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT BELIEVE OR INTENDED AND THE UKRAINIANS DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY STANDS IN BETWEEN THEM.

NOW I ASK YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE THREE AMIGO THING OR WHATEVER THEY ARE TRYING TO DISPARAGE YOU, YOU'RE NOT PART OF AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AREN'T YOU THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> EXPLAIN HOW YOU'RE AROUND OFFICIAL CHANNEL AND NOT IRREGULAR 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 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE OR DIFFERENT FROM AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE.

THAT ROLE IS PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON THE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE EFFORTS TO REVERSION RUSSIA'S INVASION OF OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE.

IT IS MINCED AGREEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, IT IS THE NORMANDY PROCESS WITH TRANSAND GERMANY.

IT IS SUPPORT FROM -- FRANCE AND GERMANY, SUPPORT FROM THE UNION, OFC AND MONITORING MISSIONS, IT'S THE EFFORTS OF INDIVIDUAL ALLIES LIKE POLAND AND THE UK LIKE CANADA THAT ARE SUPPORTING UKRAINE.

IT IS WORK AT A SENIOR LEVEL AND INNER AGENCY -- >> I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF THERE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU ARE ALSO ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO GIULIANI THE SO-CALLED IRREGULAR CHANNEL, OTHER PEOPLE HAD FEELINGS AND UNDERSTANDINGS WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING.

DID GIULIANI EVER TELL YOU THAT UNITED STATES AID OR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT OCCUR FOR THE UKRAINEIANS UNTIL THEY AGREED TO AN INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE BY ENDS OR 20916 ELECTION.

>> NO.

EVERYTHING I HEARD FROM GIULIANI I TOOK TO BE HIS OPINION.

>> EXCELLENT.

I ASSUME THEN THE UKRAINIANS NEVER TOLD YOU THAT GIULIANI HAD TOLD THEM THAT IN ORDER TO GET A MEETING WITH A PRESIDENT PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED STATES THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HE TOLD YOU OF THE CONVERSATION 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 AND A HE WAS ASKD ABOUT IT AND THE ONLY ONE HE RELATES.

HE SAID, HE WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

HE SAID I DIDN'T FRAME THE QUESTION BASICALLY TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WAY AT THE LINK I DID NOT FRAME THE QUESTION THAT WAY I ASKED THE OPEN ENDED QUESTION WHAT DO YOU WANT.

MR. SAWNLD IN HIS TESTIMONY ASKING THIS QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THIS IS WHAT HE REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

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, AND HE KEPT REPEATING, NO QUID PRO QUO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

MR. MORRISON DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MR. SONDLAND IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH AS THE CONTENT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE INFORMATION.

>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.

>> DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE EITHER IN THE SECRET DUNGEON TESTIMONIALS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED OR IN THESE OPEN TESTIMONIES HAS PERJURED THEMSELVES OR HAS LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE.

>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT.

>> MR. MORRISON.

>> THOSE.

>> MR. MORRISON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN REPORTED TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> HE DID, SIR.

>> NOW YOU HAVE A LEGAL BACKGROUND.

HE SAID THAT HE LISTENED TO THE PHONE CALL, THE PHONE CALL WHICH YOU SAID YOU SAW NOTHING THAT HAD OCCURRED ILLEGALLY AND HE SAID HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS MOVE FORWARD.

DO YOU BELIEVE, BECAUSE HE WAS ONLY TELLING HIS OPINION.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR OPINION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THOSE.

>> TO BOTH OF YOU.

UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRANT TO THE E YUVMENT.

AMBASSADOR SAWNLD IS THE BINDS TO THE EU.

IS THE UKRAINE IN THE BIND'S PORTFOLIO?

BY VOLKER?

>> YES.

ALSO BECAUSE THE EU SANCTIONS UNDER UKRAINE ARE INCREDIBLE IMPORTANT.

>> MR. MORRISON.

>> I AGREE, SIR.