>>> HELLO, EVERYONE. 
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. 
I'M ANNE-MARIE GREEN. 
>> IT IS ANOTHER HISTORIC DAY 
ON CAPITOL HILL. 
>> DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF 
SAYING THAT? 
>> YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY NEED 
TO FRESHEN IT UP A BIT. 
WE'LL BE DOING THIS UNTIL 2020. 
ANOTHER HISTORIC DAY IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE WE WILL 
HEAR THREE OF THE PUBLIC 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. 
>> IT'S GOING TO START IN ABOUT 
30 MINUTES. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
WILL FACE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
HE'S THE DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL. 
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE -- 
BOTH LISTENED TO THAT 
CONTROVERSIAL PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
UKRAINE'S LEADER IN JULY. 
REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO 
DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY. 
AND THEN LATER ON THIS 
AFTERNOON, CURT VOLKER AND TIM 
MORRISON WILL TESTIFY IN 
ANOTHER HEARING. 
MORRISON IS THE OUTGOING CHIEF 
OF EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS 
FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
TODAY'S HEARINGS COME AFTER 
HOUSE COMMITTEES RELEASED THE 
BOMB SHELL TRANSCRIPT FROM 
DAVID HOLMES. 
HE IS A STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL AND CONSIDERING A 
CRUCIAL FIGURE IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
HE CLAIMS HE HEARD A 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT 
WANTING UKRAINE'S LEADER TO 
LAUNCH INVESTIGATIONS. 
>>> THIS IS A LIVE LOOK AT THE 
HEARING ROOM WHERE TODAY'S 
SHOWDOWN WILL UNFOLD. 
THOSE HEARINGS WILL KICKOFF AT 
9:00 A.M. 
EASTERN. 
>>> BUT FIRST, LET US BRING IN 
NANCY CORDES WHO IS STANDING 
BY. 
NANCY'S GOING TO LAY IT ALL OUT 
FOR US. 
BASED ON WILLIAMS' AND 
VINDMAN'S PRIOR TESTIMONY, WHAT 
ARE WE GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR 
TODAY? 
>> REPORTER: MORRISON AND 
VINDMAN ARE THE FIRST TWO 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY 
WHO WERE ACTUALLY ON THAT CALL. 
AND SO THEY CAN CONVEY MORE 
THAN THE WORDS ON THE PAGE THAT 
WE'VE ALL ALREADY SEEN, BUT 
WHAT THE DEMEANOR WAS OF THE 
PRESIDENT, WHAT WAS THE TONE 
AND THE TENOR OF THIS CALL. 
VINDMAN DESCRIBE TODAY IN HIS 
CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION AS A 
DEMAND BY THE PRESIDENT THAT 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. 
HE WAS ASKED WHY DO YOU CALL IT 
A DEMAND? 
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY YOU 
MUST DO THIS. 
HE SAID YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND 
THE HUGE POWER DISPARITY 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE. 
UKRAINE NEEDS THE U.S. THEY ARE 
ENGAGED IN A HOT WAR WITH 
RUSSIA. 
THEY NEED ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL
BACKING THEY CAN GET FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
ANYTHING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES MENTIONS, 
EVEN OFF HAND AS A FAVOR, THE 
UKRAINIANS ARE GOING TO KNOW 
THEY NEED TO DO IT IN ORDER TO 
STAY IN THE PRESIDENT'S GOOD 
GRACES. 
VINDMAN AND MORRISON ARE GOING 
TO TALK ABOUT WHAT TROUBLED 
THEM ABOUT THIS CALL. 
TROUBLED VINDMAN SO MUCH THAT 
AFTER THE CALL WAS COMPLETE, HE 
WENT STRAIGHT TO THE TOP LAWYER 
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL TO TELL HIM WHAT HE HAD 
HEARD. 
HE WAS TOLD DON'T TALK ABOUT 
IT. 
THEN WE KNOW THE CALL WAS MOVED 
INAPPROPRIATELY TO A TOP SECRET 
SERVER FOR SAFE KEEPING SO 
PRYING EYES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO 
GET A LOOK AT WHAT MANY 
WITNESSES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED 
COULD HAVE BEEN DAMAGING FOR 
THE PRESIDENT AND CLEARLY NOW 
HAS BEEN DAMAGING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THOSE ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS 
THAT WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN ARE 
GOING TO GET TODAY. 
SIMILAR TO THE QUESTIONS THEY 
GOT IN THEIR CLOSED-DOOR 
DEPOSITIONS THAT LED THEM TO BE 
LABELED "NEVER-TRUMPERS IN THE 
BY -- NEITHER OF THEM HAS TAKEN 
A STANCE AGAINST THIS 
PRESIDENT. 
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, 
NANCY. 
OR A GOOD JUMPING OFF POINT FOR 
MY QUESTION, WHICH IS 
STRATEGIES FOR LAWMAKERS TODAY. 
I MEAN, WHEN YOU SEE COLONEL 
VINDMAN THERE IN HIS DRESS 
BLUES WITH THAT PURPLE HEART, 
WOUNDED IN BATTLE, DEDICATING 
HIS LIFE TO SERVING HIS 
COUNTRY, JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND 
-- SEEMINGLY IT FEELS THESE 
INDIVIDUALS ARE COMING OUT 
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT'S THE 
RIGHT THING TO DO AND THEY ARE 
A POLITICAL AND DO NOT 
REPRESENT THE IDEA OF A NEVER-
TRUMPER, ARE YOU HEARING FROM 
REPUBLICANS THAT'S HOW THEY 
INTEND TO PAINT SOME OF THESE 
INDIVIDUALS, AS IF THEY'RE NOT 
DOING THEIR DUTY, BUT COMING 
OUT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES? 
>> WHO ONE HAND, VINDMAN IN 
TACK IS A 20-YEAR VETERAN OF 
THE U.S. ARMY. 
HE'S SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN 
WOUNDED IN BATTLE. 
HE HAS A PURPLE HEART. 
SO ATTACKING HIS LOYALTY TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A GREAT IDEA 
THAT WOULD BE VERY FRUITFUL. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, REPUBLICANS 
HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING BOTH IN 
HIS DEPOSITION AND IN SORT OF 
OFF-HAND COMMENTS THAT THEY 
THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING OFF 
ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT. 
TIM MORRISON WHO IS GOING TO BE 
TESTIFYING THIS AFTERNOON EVEN 
HINTED IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT 
THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT 
CONCERNED HIM ABOUT VINDMAN'S 
JUDGMENT. 
SO I THINK YOU WILL HEAR 
REPUBLICANS TRY TO SORT OF PICK 
AWAY AT HIS CREDIBILITY IN THAT 
WAY. 
NOW, I SHOULD MENTION THAT ONE 
OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 
MORRISON, WHO'S GOING TO 
TESTIFY THIS AFTERNOON, AND 
VINDMAN IS THAT VINDMAN WAS A 
CAREER NATIONAL SECURITY 
OFFICIAL. 
TIM MORRISON HAD A BACKGROUND 
WORKING FOR REPUBLICANS, WAS 
BROUGHT IN BY THIS PRESIDENT 
AND THAT'S WHY EVEN THOUGH 
MORRISON, LIKE VINDMAN, SAID 
THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS 
CONVERSATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE COULD BE SEEN AS 
DAMAGING, HE HASN'T BEEN ABLED 
A NEVER-TRUMPER THE SAME WAY 
VINDMAN HAS. 
>> CAN WE TALK MORE ABOUT THE 
TWO OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING 
TO BE TESTIFYING IN THE 
AFTERNOON. 
CURT VOLKER, STATE DEPARTMENT. 
TIM MORRISON, SPECIAL EXPERT 
FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
BOTH OF THEM ARE PEOPLE THE 
REPUBLICANS WANTED TO SEE 
TESTIFY. 
>> TIM MORRISON IS GOING TO 
TESTIFY, JUST LIKE VINDMAN WILL 
THIS MORNING, THAT GORDON 
SONDLAND, THE U.S. AMBASSADOR 
TO THE EU WAS TELLING THE 
UKRAINIANS, POINT BLANK, THAT 
THEY NEEDED TO OPEN 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
TO GET THE MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT THEY WERE LOOKING 
FOR. 
BOTH MORRISON AND VINDMAN WERE 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN 
SONDLAND DELIVERD THAT 
ULTIMATUM TO UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS. 
IT DISTURBED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER AT THE TIME 
JOHN BOLTON SO MUCH, HE 
ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING AND 
THE CLEAR SIGNAL THAT WAS GIVEN 
WAS THAT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE 
THING TO DO. 
BUT-- SONDLAND CLEARLY FELT 
EMPOWERED TO DO THAT BY THE 
ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF 
STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND BY THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF, WHO HE 
APPARENTLY WAS IN REGULAR CELL 
PHONE CONTACT WITH. 
SO MORRISON IS GOING TO BE ABLE 
TO TESTIFY TO ALL OF THAT. 
CURT VOLKER IS AN INTERESTING 
CASE. 
HE IS ONE OF THE SO-CALLED 
THREE AMIGOS WHO FILLED THE 
POWER VACUUM THAT WAS CREATED 
WHEN THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO 
UKRAINE WAS RECALLED EARLIER 
THIS YEAR, EVEN THOUGH BY ALL 
ACCOUNTS SHE HAD DONE NOTHING 
WRONG. 
SHE'S THE ONE WHO WAS SMEARED 
BY THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL 
LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI. 
VOLKER HAS A REPUBLICAN 
BACKGROUND, RUSHED IN TO FILL 
THE VOID WITH SONDLAND AND WITH 
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK 
PERRY. 
IN THE DEPOSITION, VOLKER 
DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM THE 
SCHEME. 
SAID HE NEVER REALIZED UNTIL 
THE END THAT INVESTIGATING 
BARISMA WAS CODE FOR 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. 
AND SO HE HAS SORT OF SOUGHT 
SOME DISTANCE FROM THE SCHEME 
THAT WAS BEING PUSHED BY GORDON 
SONDLAND AND BY RUDY GIULIANI. 
OTHER THAN WITNESSES HAVE 
CONTRADICTED SOME OF THAT AND 
DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR ARE 
HIGHLY SKEPTICAL THAT HE 
WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN FROM THE 
VERY BEGINNING EXACTLY WHAT IT 
WAS, THAT SONDLAND AND GIULIANI 
AND THE PRESIDENT WERE AFTER 
SINCE THEY WERE IN SUCH REGULAR 
COMMUNICATION WITH ONE ANOTHER. 
SO THAT IS GOING TO BE A BIG 
FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONING THAT 
HE FACES THIS AFTERNOON. 
HE'S PROBABLY THE FIRST WITNESS 
TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY WHO IS 
GOING TO GET GRILLED TO SOME 
DEGREE BY DEMOCRATS BECAUSE 
THEY DON'T NECESSARILY SEE HIM 
AS AN ENTIRELY FRIENDLY WITNESS 
WHO HAS BEEN AS FORTH COMING 
WITH THEM IN THESE DEPOSITION 
AS SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES 
HAVE BEEN. 
>> I GOTTA ASK YOU WHAT ARE YOU 
HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS? 
IT SEEMS INTERESTING THAT THEY 
SCHEDULED THESE TWO FOLKS TO 
TESTIFY TODAY BECAUSE IT'S ALL 
GOING TO HINGE ON GORDON 
SONDLAND. 
IT MUST -- IT MUST HAVE DAWNED 
ON MR. SONDLAND WHAT HAPPENED 
TO ROGER STONE LAST WEEK. 
AND WHATEVER HE HEAR INNED IT'S 
TESTIMONY WILL CERTAINLY IMPACT 
HOW HE APPROACHES THE CONGRESS 
COME WEDNESDAY. 
>> REPORTER: RIGHT. 
AND YOU'VE GOTTA WONDER HOW 
SONDLAND AND HIS LAWYERS ARE 
PREPARING FOR TOMORROW'S 
HEARING, WHICH WILL BE SO HIGH 
STAKES. 
HE ISSUED THAT THREE-PAGE 
ADDENDUM TO HIS ORIGINAL 
TESTIMONY. 
BUT THERE'S STILL SO MUCH IN 
HIS ORIGINAL DEPOSITION. 
I JUST WENT THROUGH IT 
YESTERDAY SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING 
EVERY LINE THAT WAS 
CONTRADICTED BY OTHER 
WITNESSES. 
AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MUCH 
YELLOW THERE WAS ON THE PAGES 
WHEN I WAS DONE. 
>> WOW. 
>> REPORTER: THERE'S JUST SO 
MUCH THAT HE SAID THAT DOESN'T 
SQUARE WITH -- NOT JUST WHAT 
ONE OR TWO OTHER PEOPLE HAVE 
SAID, BUT WITH WHAT MULTIPLE 
PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT HIS 
CENTRAL ROLE PUSHING THE 
UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS. 
SO HE IS GOING TO BE ON THE HOT 
SEAT TOMORROW AND HE IS GOING 
TO HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT 
HOW CLOSELY HE HEWS TO HIS 
ORIGINAL DEPOSITION VERSUS KIND 
OF SAYING YOU KNOW, I'VE 
REMEMBERED SO MUCH IN THE LAST 
COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER HEARING 
WHAT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE HAD 
TO SAY AND UPON REFLECTION, 
THIS IS WHAT I NOW BELIEVE 
ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
I THINK DEMOCRATS FRANKLY HAVE 
BEEN KIND OF GOING EASY ON HIM 
BECAUSE THEY DO WANT HIM TO 
MAKE THAT ABOUT FACE. 
THEY DO WANT HIM TO COME OUT 
AND SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE WAS 
PRESSURING THE UKRAINIANS ALL 
THROUGH THE SUMMER BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT HAD TOLD HIM TO DO 
SO. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
NANCY CORDES FOR US ON CAPITOL 
HILL. 
WE'RE JUST ABOUT 20 MINUTES 
AWAY, NANCY. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH AS ALWAYS. 
WE APPRECIATE IT. 
>> YOU'RE SO WOMAN. 
>>> AS LAWMAKERS PREPARE TO 
GATHER, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 
LIVE PICTURE RIGHT NOW. 
WE HAVE A TEAM OF EXPERTS. 
MOLLY HOOPER. 
JOSEPH PINION IS A STRATEGIST 
AND ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT IS -- 
JOINING US FROM DC. 
NOT WITH US THIS TIME AROUND, 
YOU'RE IN DC. 
>> I'M SO SORRY TO BE IN THE 
SWAMP. 
>> LET'S DIG INTO THIS. 
JOSEPH, YOU HEARD FROM NANCY 
THERE ABOUT WHAT SHE'S HEARING 
FROM LAWMAKERS AS TO THE 
STRATEGY REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING 
TO EMPLOY TODAY. 
AFTER THIS IS ALL SAID AND 
DONE, WILL IT STILL BE SOUND 
POLITICAL STRATEGY TO GO AFTER 
THESE INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR 
CREDIBILITY, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT 
IT IS OF THE SUBSTANCE -- 
THEY'RE ALSO APPEARING UNDER 
SUBPOENA. 
THEY'RE NOT JUST VOLUNTEERING 
TO GO BEFORE THE HOUSE. 
THEY HAVE TO. 
>> I THINK IT'S A LOSING 
STRATEGY FOR REPUBLICANS TO 
CONTINUE TO TRY TO DISCREDIT 
THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE 
SERVED THIS COUNTRY BY ALL KIND 
OF ACCOUNTS BY WITH HONOR, WITH 
DIGNITY. 
I THINK WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING 
ON WHAT'S OCCURRING. 
I THINK WE'RE HEADING TO A 
SITUATION WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THIS IS 
WHAT HAPPENED. 
WHAT IS ALLEGED DID OCCUR, BUT 
IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
I THINK WE RUN THE RISK OF KIND 
OF LEADING TO THIS KIND OF 
DISPARATE PLACE WHERE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE END UP FEELING 
AS IF SOMEHOW EVERYONE IS 
RUNNING ROGUE WITH FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
I THINK THAT'S DISJOINTED IT 
AND MAKES THE REPUBLICANS LOOK 
IN NOT THE WAY YOU AT SOME 
POINT LOOK. 
>> THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO 
HEAR FROM VOLKER AND TIM 
MORRISON. 
MORRISON IS GOING TO TESTIFY HE 
WAS AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF 
THE CALL. 
HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE SORT OF 
HIDDEN AWAY. 
HE THOUGHT CONSIDERING THE 
POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT IT COULD 
BE USED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. 
>> I THINK WE'VE HAD TOO MUCH 
THROWN AT THE WALL RIGHT NOW. 
YOU HAVE EVERYONE FROM 
DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW SAYING 
THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND 
GET IN THE DELORIAN -- THERE'S 
INFORMATION OVERLOAD HAPPENING 
RIGHT NOW. 
WHY-- THE RECENT POLLING 
SUGGESTING TWO THIRDS OF 
AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE 
GOING TO HEAR INFORMATION 
THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THEIR 
OPINION ON THIS MATTER. 
>> CAN THE REPUBLICANS CONTINUE 
TO ARGUE THE PROCESS IS BIASED 
AND NO GOOD AND LINDSEY 
GRAHAM'S NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO 
IT'S POISONED FROM THE START 
WHEN THEY'RE GETTING SOME OF 
THE PEOPLE THEY WANT, THEY'RE 
GETTING OPEN HEARINGS, THEY'RE 
GETTING TESTIMONY BEING 
RELEASED. 
>> THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS. 
AGAIN, IMPEACHMENT IS 
INHERENTLY POLITICAL, BUT WE'RE 
SEEING SOME OF THE SAME 
STRATEGIES YOU WOULD SEE AT ANY 
TRIAL. 
PEOPLE SAY LOOK, THESE ARE THE 
REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD ARRIVE 
AT THE CONCLUSION WE'RE TELLING 
YOU TO ARRIVE AT. 
ULTIMATELY PEOPLE ARE LAYING 
THIS AT THE FEET OF THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC IN MANY WAYS 
DOESN'T KNOW WHERE DEMOCRATS 
ARE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO 
TAKE THEM, WHICH ULTIMATE LOW 
IS PROBABLY BAD FOR AMERICA, 
BUT FROM AN IMPEACHMENT 
STANDPOINT PROBABLY HELPS THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> ANTJUAN, LET'S GET THE 
DEMOCRATIC VIEWPOINT HERE. 
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE 
PAST. 
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY 
FROM THE MINUTE THAT DONALD 
TRUMP WAS INAUGURATED, THEY 
HAVE BEEN GRASPING AT ANYTHING 
THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON 
TO PROVE -- TO SORT OF DO AWAY 
WITH THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND REMOVE THIS 
PRESIDENT. 
AND THIS JUST HAPPENED TO 
COINCIDE OR SORT OF FALL INTO 
THEIR LAPS, THEY REALIZE THERE 
WAS THIS PHONE CALL, THIS 
TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS BEING HELD. 
AND BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE GOOD 
REPORTERS THAT CAME OUT THERE, 
THEY SAID THIS IS IT. 
THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT'S 
GOING TO GET DONALD TRUMP OUT 
OF OFFICE. 
HOW DO DEMOCRATS CONVINCE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHAT WE 
SEE ON THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AT 
THE VERY LEAST UNETHICAL? 
>> I WOULD REMIND THE 
REPUBLICANS IT WAS THEM WHO MET 
THE DAY BARACK OBAMA WAS 
NOMINATED AND SAID THEY WERE 
GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY 
COULD TO MAKE HIM A ONE-TERM 
PRESIDENT. 
I WILL REMIND PEOPLE HOW WE 
ARRIVED HERE. 
NANCY PELOSI IS ONE OF THE MOST 
STRATEGIC MINDS IN WASHINGTON, 
D.C. SHE DID NOTE JUST WAKE UP 
ONE MORNING AND SAY LET'S START 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRING HEARINGS. 
THIS WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT 
ANY PERSON WOULD BE ABLE TO 
DRAW CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS IS 
ALARMING FROM A NATIONAL 
SECURITY STANDPOINT. 
NUMBER THREE, I WOULD REMIND 
JOSEPH WHO SAID TO ME LAST WEEK 
THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT PAYING 
ATTENTION. 
THE ABC POLL THAT CAME OUT LAST 
WEEKEND INDICATED THAT OVER THE 
MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ARE PAYING ATTENTION. 
NUMBER 4, WE'VE SEEN THE 
STRATEGY FROM THE REPUBLICANS 
FROM DAY ONE TO SMACK, ATTACK, 
AND DON'T LOOK BACK. 
SMACK DOWN ANY CONCLUSIONS THAT 
MAY COME FROM THIS, ATTACK THE 
PROCESS AND THE FACTS AND DON'T 
LOOK BACK AT WHAT MAY HAPPEN 
BECAUSE THEIR MINDS ARE MADE 
UP. 
THAT STRATEGY WON'T WORK. 
THIS IS ALL SECOND HAND 
INFORMATION THAT DID INTIMATER. 
NOW THIS WEEK, WE'RE GOING TO 
HEAR PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRST HAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED AND 
THEY DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA OF 
DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. 
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE 
TESTIMONY, I LOOK FORWARD TO 
THE NARRATIVES REPUBLICANS TRY 
TO PAINT. 
>> WE ALSO HEARD FROM JOSEPH 
THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING 
INFORMATION OVERLOAD. 
SO THE REPORTS NOW THAT -- THE 
CONGRESS MAY BE LOOKING INTO 
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT 
LIED WHEN HE WROTE OUT HIS 
ANSWERS TO THE MUELLER REPORT; 
RIGHT? 
AND THIS IS SORT OF A DEBATE 
WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
WHEN IT COMES TO FIGURING OUT 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, DO 
THEY FOCUS ON WHAT'S HAPPENING 
WITH UKRAINE OR DO THEY LOOK AT 
ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, WHETHER 
IT'S LYING TO INVESTIGATORS OR 
WHATEVER. 
DO YOU THINK GOING DOWN THIS 
ROAD, LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT 
THE PRESIDENT LIED WHEN HE 
WROTE OUT HIS WRITTEN RESPONSES 
IS KIND OF LIKE TAKING YOUR EYE 
OFF THE BALL? 
>> I SAID DEMOCRATS HAVE TO 
FOCUS ON FACTS, NOT FEELINGS. 
WITH THAT SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF 
WE CAN IGNORE -- I THINK JOSEPH 
AND OTHERS DO NOT GIVE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ENOUGH CREDIT 
ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO PROCESS 
INFORMATION. 
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT 
COMPLICATED. 
I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO 
PACKAGE IT UP NICE TO PRESENT 
OUR ARGUMENTS, BUT I THINK 
PEOPLE CAN SEE CORRUPTION FOR 
WHAT IT IS. 
AND I THINK THEY SEE -- THE 
ALLEGATIONS HAVE GOTTEN FATTER 
IN THE SWAMP BECAUSE OF DONALD 
TRUMP. 
AND WE'VE SEEN THIS PLAY OUT 
THROUGH ALL THESE HEARINGS. 
AS IT RELATES TO THE MUELLER 
REPORT, I THINK ONE THING 
DEMOCRATS HAVE DEMONSTRATED AND 
WE KNOW HOW TO WALK, CLUE GUM 
AND THINK AT THE SAME TIME. 
WHEN YOU SEE THEM CONTINUING TO 
INVESTIGATE SOME OF THE THINGS 
THAT MAY HAVE STEM FRIDAY THIS, 
I THINK IT'S JUST OUR ABILITY 
TO DEMONSTRATE WE CAN DO WHAT 
THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT DO AND 
THAT'S GOVERN AND INVESTIGATE. 
>> LET'S BRING IN RICKEY AND 
MOLLY TO THE DISCUSSION. 
I'M INTRIGUED BY THE LAST THING 
NANCY CORDES SAID TO US ABOUT 
SONDLAND. 
AND THE AMENDED TESTIMONY AND 
WHAT WE CAN ASSUME WILL BE EVEN 
MORE AMENDMENTS WHEN HE 
TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS. 
YOU KNOW, ROGER STONE WAS -- 
LIED TO CONGRESS. 
AND WE SAW THE REPERCUSSIONS OF 
THAT. 
OTHER THANS IN THE PAST HAVE 
LIED TO CONGRESS AND THEY ARE 
NOT HIGHLY -- IN OTHER WORDS, 
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE KIND 
OF SWAMPY THAT KNOW HOW TO 
NEGOTIATE THE -- GORDON 
SONDLAND IS A BUSINESSMAN, 
SOMEONE WHO DECIDED TO DONATE A 
LOT OF MONEY TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
HE GOT HIS WISH, HE WAS MADE A 
FULL-FLEDGED MEMBER OF THE 
SWAMP AND NOW HE'S REALIZING DO 
I WANT TO GO TO JAIL JUST 
BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE AN 
AMBASSADOR? 
HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO TREAD 
LIGHTLY. 
I CAN SEE WHERE REPUBLICANS AND 
DEMOCRATS ATTACK HIM. 
>> HE WAS ALWAYS THE KEY 
WITNESS HERE. 
>> HE KNOWS SO MUCH. 
>> HE'S THE DIRECT LINK: 
>> RIGHT, EXACTLY. 
>> THE DIFFICULTY HE HAS IS 
THIS. 
HE COULD TAKE THE 5TH, BY THE 
WAY. 
>> WE -- WOULD THAT BE SMART? 
>> I WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT TO 
HAPPEN. 
AS A LAWYER -- 
>> WHY IS THAT AN OPTION FOR 
HIM? 
THAT'S TO PROTECT YOU FROM 
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS; RIGHT? 
WHAT DID HE DO THAT COULD BE 
ILLEGAL? 
>> IN ADDITION TO HIS POSSIBLE 
PERJURY AND IN ADDITION TO HIS 
BEING INVOLVED IN A CORRUPT ACT 
THAT IS CALLED BRIBERY THERE 
ARE ROLE REASONS HERE. 
YOU CAN'T AS A LAWYER -- I 
WOULD HAVE TO SAY TO HIM, WERE 
HE MY CLIENT, WE HAVE TO LOOK 
AT THIS OPTION. 
WHAT I DO EXPECT IS THIS. 
BECAUSE PRECISELY BECAUSE OF 
WHAT YOU JUST SAID -- BECAUSE 
OF THE CONVICTION AND THE RAPID 
CONVICTION OF ROGER STONE, HIS 
LAWYERS HAVE HAD A HEART TO 
HEART TALK WITH HIM -- AS WE 
USED TO CALL IT, A D AND M, 
DEEP AND MEANINGFUL 
CONVERSATION, WHICH IS TO SAY 
YOU HAVE TO THREAD THE EYE OF 
THE NEEDLE HERE AND IT IS 
REALLY A VERY NARROW OPENING 
AND YOU MUST IT WILL THE TRUTH, 
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND WE 
NEED TO STRAIGHTEN OUT AND 
CLEAR UP ANY MISSTATEMENTS YOU 
MAY HAVE MADE. 
BECAUSE ANY OTHER STEP, IF HE 
DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE EYE OF 
THAT NEEDLE, IF IT SOMEHOW -- 
THE THREAD MOVES TO THE RIGHT 
OR MOVES TO THE LEFT, THEY'RE 
NOT KIDDING. 
HE IS THE KEY HERE. 
YOU'RE NOT KIDDING. 
HE COULD REALLY BE INDICTED. 
>> HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO 
LOSE. 
ONE MIGHT ARGUE, JOSEPH AND 
MOLLY, SOME OF THESE 
REPUBLICANS THAT ARE DEFENDING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE FACING 
REELECTION AND THEY DO NOT WANT 
TO BE AT THE RECEIVING END OF A 
TRUMP TWEET AND TRUMP 
SUPPORTERS DECIDING THAT THEY 
ARE NO LONGER FIT TO RECEIVE 
THEIR $179,000 SALARY AND FREE 
PARKING SPOT AT REAGAN NATIONAL 
AIRPORT. 
AND SO THE MEANING -- THEY'RE 
GOING TO HAVE TO GET A REAL 
JOB. 
GORDON SONDLAND IS A 
MILLIONAIRE. 
IF TRUMP TWEETS AT HIM, WHAT'S 
THE BIG DEAL? 
HE'S NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. 
>> BUT WE'VE SEEN C.E.O.'S JUMP 
WHEN DONALD TRUMP HAS TWEETED 
AT THEM OR TWEETED ABOUT THEIR 
COMPANIES. 
>> AND HE'S CONFUSED. 
HE'S CONFUSED BECAUSE HE WAS A 
LOYAL TRUMPER. 
HE WAS SOMEONE WHO REALLY 
BOUGHT HIS WAY IN AS MANY AN 
AMBASSADOR DOES.
THERE'S NOTHING UNETHICAL OR 
IMPROPER ABOUT THAT. 
BUT HE HAS TO BE TORN BECAUSE 
HE KNOWS HE'S THE ONE PERSON 
WHO CAN BRING THE PRESIDENT 
DOWN. 
ANYONE WHO WOULD USE A CELL 
PHONE IN A RESTAURANT IN A 
COUNTRY WHERE YOUR CALLS ARE 
GOING TO BE MONITORED AND JUST 
PICKED UP AND CALL THE 
PRESIDENT TO THE UNITED STATES 
OR ACCEPT A CALL FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT 
HAVE A LOT OF GOOD JUDGMENT. 
>> WE KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE 
CONCERNED ABOUT USING UNSECURED 
DEVICES FOR COMMUNICATION. 
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IN 2016. 
>> HOLMES TESTIFY -- RUSSIANS 
OWN OR HAVE A STAKE IN SEVERAL 
COMPANIES IN UKRAINE. 
>> THIS IS AN EXPLICIT 
CONVERSATION WHERE SONDLAND 
TOLD TRUMP ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR 
[ BLEEP ] QUOTE, UNQUOTE. 
SONDLAND REPLIED APPARENTLY 
HE'S GOING TO DO IT. 
HE'S GOING TO DO ANYTHING YOU 
ASK HIM TO. 
THEN IT GOES ON FROM THERE. 
I CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR FROM DAVID 
HOLMES. 
BASICALLY HOLMES TESTIFIED -- 
HE ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHY DOESN'T 
-- YOU KNOW, WHY DOESN'T 
PRESIDENT -- DOES PRESIDENT 
TRUMP GIVE A -- ABOUT UKRAINE. 
AND SONDLAND APPARENTLY SAID 
NO, HE DOESN'T. 
HE DOESN'T GIVE AN S AND 
BASICALLY HE ONLY CARES ABOUT 
THE BIG STUFF, MEANING AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. 
LIKE YOU SAID, HE'S GOTTA -- 
GORDON SONDLAND IS IN A TOUGH 
POSITION HERE. 
IT'S NOT JUST ROGER STONE. 
MICHAEL COHEN ALSO IS CONVICTED 
FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. 
IT'S NOT A SMALL THING TO DO. 
I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT'S 
DIFFICULT TO PROVE AND 
SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT FOR 
CONGRESS TO GO DOWN THE ROAD IN 
CARRYING OUT AND PROSECUTING 
SOMEBODY FOR LYING TO CONGRESS, 
BUT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS 
WHERE WE HAVE RECENTLY SEEN 
ROGER STONE AND MICHAEL COHEN 
GO DOWN FOR THAT, YOU DON'T 
WANT TO TAKE THAT RISK, IT 
SEEMS. 
>> HE'S GOING TO BE A PINATA 
TOMORROW. 
IS HIS POSITION WEAKENED 
THOUGH, AT LEAST FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE HE HAS 
ALREADY CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY 
AND WE GET A LOT OF THIS I 
CAN'T REALLY RECALL AND HOW CAN 
YOU NAIL SOMEBODY IF THEY SAY 
THEY CAN'T REMEMBER? 
>> WHICH IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS 
BY THE WAY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
ANSWERS TO THE MUELLER REPORT. 
THEY WERE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF 
HIS RECOLLECTION, WHICH IS HOW 
A GOOD LAWYER WOULD DRAFT IT SO 
YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING 
REFRESHED MY RECOLLECTION, I 
MADE A MISTAKE. 
>> WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM 
HERE -- I THINK TO YOUR POINT, 
HE'S GOING TO GET USED AS A 
PINATA TO BOTH SIDES. 
BOTH OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE 
ASKING WERE YOU LYING THEN OR 
ARE YOU LYING NOW? 
HE'S SAYING I WAS THE AGENT OF 
THE QUID PRO QUO. 
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING SOMEBODY 
WOULD FORGET. 
SO I THINK AGAIN FROM A -- EVEN 
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A 
COURT OF LAW, IT WOULD BE 
PROBLEMATIC TO PRESENT THAT TO 
A JURY. 
IN THIS CASE, THE JURY IS 
AMERICA. 
IF WE REALIZE FOR A FACT THAT 
FOR BETTER AND WORSE AMERICANS 
ARE DEADLOCKED ON WHERE THEY 
ARE GOING TO STAND ON 
IMPEACHMENT SAYING HE IS GOING 
TO HAVE THE CREDIBILITY TO SWAY 
THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL 
OPEN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE 
DIFFICULT. 
>> MOLLY, I WANT TO ASK YOU 
SOMETHING ABOUT THE TIME LINE 
HERE. 
INITIALLY WHEN IT STARTED, 
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 
DEMOCRATS WANTED THIS WRAPPED 
UP BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND NOW 
WE KEEP ADDING NEW PEOPLE TO 
KEEP TESTIFYING PUBLICLY. 
WHETHER IT'S DRAWN OUT OR NOT, 
WHAT IS THE IDEAL TIME LINE FOR 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? 
MAYBE IT'S GOOD TO HAVE IT GO 
OVER THE WEEKEND AND EVERYBODY 
GETS TOGETHER WITH THEIR 
RELATIVES AND FIGHT AND MAKE UP 
OF THE RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE ARE 
PRETTY BUSY. 
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A TRICKY 
THANKSGIVING. 
I'VE BEEN AROUND MY RELATIVES 
AND UNLIKE IN THE PAST -- 
>> ONLY PLASTIC KNIVES. 
>> I GUESS YOU COULD SAY BEFORE 
TRUMP, YOU COULD HAVE CIVIL 
HEATED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 
POLITICS. 
NOW IT SEEMS LIKE ADDING TRUMP 
TO THE MIX, PEOPLE JUST WON'T 
TALK. 
I WAS BACK HOME IN CALIFORNIA 
AT A DINNER PARTY WITH MY 
PARENTS AND THEIR FRIENDS 
COULDN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. 
I THINK AS WE'VE LEARNED LAST 
WEEK, WE HAD THE REVELATION 
WITH BILL TAYLOR THAT LANDED 
US. 
DAVID HOLMES AND HIS EXPLOSIVE 
TESTIMONY. 
MY GUESS WOULD BE THEY TRY TO 
WRAP IT UP THIS WEEK. 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFFERS 
WORK OVER THE THANKSGIVING WEEK 
WHEN CONGRESS IS OUT OF SESSION 
-- WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED 
THOSE HEARINGS YET. 
>> WE HAVE TWO MINUTES BEFORE 
THE CBS NEWS INVESTIGATIVE 
REPORT WHICH WILL BE ANCHORED 
BY -- 
>> I'LL BE LOOKING FOR POSTURE 
AND TONE FROM SOME OF THE GOP'S 
MEMBERS WHO WILL TRY TO 
DISCREDIT AND JAM UP SOME OF 
THE WITNESSES THAT WE'LL HEAR 
TODAY AND ALSO WATCHING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S TWITTER. 
JUST-- BEGGED HIM NOT TO TWEET 
DURING TODAY'S HEARING BECAUSE 
THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT COULD 
MEAN. 
I'LL BE WATCHING FOR -- AND 
I'LL BE LOOKING FOR THE POSTURE 
FROM THE WITNESS OF HOW SERIOUS 
THEY LOOK LAWMAKERS IN THE FACE 
AND SAY I DID NOT COME WITH AN 
AGENDA OF TO TELL THE TRUTH. 
>> I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE 
REPUBLICANS TO FOCUS ON -- IF 
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO MAKE 
THIS ABOUT FARM POLICY, THE 
JUSTIFICATION ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION WITH U CANE -- 
IF FOOTS -- LESS TO TRYING TO 
DISCREDIT INDIVIDUALS. 
>> THE PRESIDENT SHOULD STAY 
OFF TWITTER, THEN? 
>> RICKEY? 
>> I'M LOOKING FOR HOW EACH 
WITNESS THAT IS THE MORNING 
WITNESS IS MISS WILLIAMS AND 
VINDMAN DESCRIBE THE TONE AS 
WELL AS THE EXACT WORDS OF THE 
JULY 25TH FIRM. 
>> I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR 
THE SKEPTICAL REPUBLICANS, THE 
ONES WHO ARE SEEMINGLY NOT OKAY 
WITH -- AND HOW THEY HANDLE 
THESE WITNESSES TODAY. 
>> ALL 
IS THAT THE BECAUSE IT>>> THE 
THE THAT THAT ONE THAT IS THE 
THE DEMOCRATS THE BIGGEST? 
"BECAUSE 
I TAKE 
>> AND, NANCY, INTERESTINGLY 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS 
STILL DETAILED TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AS IS HIS 
BROTHER. 
ALSO A VETERAN AND A LAWYER 
THERE. 
WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT ATTACKS 
THESE WITNESSES WHILE THIS 
HEARING IS GOING ON?
?
>> Reporter: WELL, HE'S ALREADY 
ATTACKED THEM SO IT WOULDN'T BE 
SURPRISING. 
HE'S ATTACKED VINDMAN AND 
WILLIAMS AS NEVER TRUMPERS, EVEN
THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
THEY HELD ANY KIND OF GRUDGE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHATSOEVER
OR HAVE EVER EXPRESSED THAT. 
OVER THE WEEKEND, THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WERE BOTH 
ASKED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE 
WILLIAMS, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS A
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO'S 
BEEN DETAILED TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT. 
NEITHER OF THEM WOULD STICK UP 
FOR HER. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE 
WOULD ONLY SAY, WELL, SHE'S A 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL. 
SO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REPEATEDLY 
IS ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 
REFUSING TO DEFEND THESE WITNESS
WHEN'S THEY'VE BEEN ATTACKED BY 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
BUT YOU KNOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR THAT 
POSSIBILITY TODAY. 
IT DID NOT GO OVER WELL WHEN THE
PRESIDENT DID IT THE LAST TIME 
ON FRIDAY, EVEN REPUBLICANS TOLD
HIM IT WAS NOT A GREAT IDEA. 
>> NANCY, THANK YOU. 
WANT TO BRING IN WEIJA JIANG WHO
IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
WE HEARD NANCY DESCRIBE -- TODAY
TAKES US INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE,
PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THAT CALL. 
SOME WHO STILL WORK FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. 
WHAT ARE YOU HEARING THIS 
MORNING ABOUT HOW THE WHITE 
HOUSE WILL RESPOND. 
AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE 
PRESIDENT, RIGHT?
>> WE ARE. 
HE'S GOING TO VHAVE A MEETING 
WITH HIS ENTIRE CABINET. 
AND HE LIKES FOR REPORTERS TO BE
INSIDE BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT 
OFFERS TRANSPATIENCESY. 
WE FULLY EXPECT HIM TO REACT TO 
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CAPITOL 
HILL. 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAVE MADE THEIR STRATEGY 
INCREDIBLY CLEAR, AND THAT IS TO
REUSE AND REPURPOSE THE SAME 
PUNCHY, MEMORABLE LINES OF 
DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT NEW 
EVIDENCE MAY SURFACE THAT 
CONTRADICTS THEM. 
SO I FULLY EXPECT THE PRESIDENT 
WILL CONTINUE INSISTING THAT THE
CALL WAS PERFECT AND ASK THE 
PUBLIC TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT 
FOR THEMSELVES, SOMETHING THAT 
HE BLASTS ON TWITTER IN ALL CAPS
EVERY COUPLE DAYS SOMETIMES 
WITHOUT CONTEXT. 
SO WE ARE WAITING FOR HIM TO 
CHIME IN. 
WE KNOW THAT HE HAS WATCHED THE 
HEARINGS IN THE PAST, EVEN 
THOUGH HE TRIED TO DISTANCE 
HIMSELF BY SAYING HE'S TOO BUSY 
FOR THAT. 
BUT, NORAH, YOU KNOW, SOURCES 
TELL US HERE THAT HE'S DEEPLY 
CONCERNED WITH WHAT HAPPENS AND 
WILL LIKELY BE PAYING ATTENTION.
>> WEIJA, THANK YOU. 
WANT TO GO QUICKLY NOW TO OUR 
CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT 
MAJOR GARRETT AS WE GET READY 
FOR THE CHAIRMAN TOO. 
YOU'RE HEARING THAT THERE'S SOME
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE 
BEEN WEIGHING IN WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED?
>> ON FRIDAY, NOR RAH, THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED SEVERAL OF HIS 
CHIEF DEFENDERS.
THEY TOLD HIM CANDIDLY LEAVE THE
TACTICS IN THE HEARING ROOMS TO 
US. 
YOUR TWEET ABOUT MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH WAS NOT HELPFUL. 
IT TURNED A DAY WE WERE TRYING 
TO FIGHT TIE STAND STILL, TO A 
NET LESS FOR YOU AND FOR US. 
DON'T GET ON YOUR TWITTER 
ACONSIDER
ACCOUNT. 
DON'T ENGAGE THESE WITNESSES. 
LEAVE THE TACTICS AND POLITICS 
TO US. 
>> GREAT REPORTING THERE. 
MARG GET BREN
MARGARET BEN NAN IS WITH US. 
YOU'VE SPOKEN TO THE PEOPLE 
INVOLVED. 
WE'RE LEARNING NOW THAT SPEAKER 
PELOSI SENT A LETTER TO HER 
COLLEAGUES ABOUT CHANGING THE 
LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE TO 
DESCRIBE THIS, TALK ABOUT ABUSE 
OF POWER. 
>> THEY KNOW THIS IS ABOUT 
WINNING THE COURT OF PUBLIC 
OPINION, TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC 
THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
WAS WORTH UNDERTAKING. 
BRIBERY, TREASON AND HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS ARE HOW THE 
CONSTITUTION DEFINES IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES. 
YOU WILL HEAR LANGUAGE THAT 
THESE THINGS THAT YOU HEAR BEING
LAID OUT AS TROUBLING PATTERNS 
OF BEHAVIOR THAT BRING YOU TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE BUT NOT YET 
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S DOOR
ARE AMOUNTING TO SOMETHING THAT 
THEY CAN PROSECUTE WHEN THEY 
BRING THOSE TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE TO ULTIMATELY WRITE 
THOSE ARMS OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THAT'S JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
THERE WHO OF COURSE GOT HER 
CAREER WORKING FOR GEORGE W. 
BUSH ON HIS PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN, SWERVED CONDOLEEZZA 
RICE. 
SHE SERVED TWO REPUBLICAN 
DEMOCRATS, ONE DEMOCRATIC IN 
OBAMA.
 THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
ACCUSE HER AS A NEVER TRUMPER, I
IMAGINE WE'LL HEAR HER RESPOND 
TO THAT TODAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT 
IT. 
>> YES. 
AND NAME-CHECKING THOSE 
REPUBLICAN PEOPLE AND REALLY 
ICONS IS PART OF HER DEFENSE 
HERE. 
IS I'M NOT DOING THIS FOR 
POLITICAL REASONS. 
SHE WILL LAY OUT THAT MORE THAN 
DECADES SHE HAS SERVED IN THE 
FOREIGN SERVICE. 
AND WHAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM 
VINDMAN AS WELL IS THAT THEY'RE 
ARCING THEY T
ARGUING THEY TOOK ON OATH TO THE
CONSTITUTION, THIS IS NOT ABOUT 
LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT. 
>> JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
INTERESTINGLY SHE SAYS SHE'S 
BEEN ON I THINK IT WAS ABOUT A 
DOZEN OF THESE PRESIDENTIAL 
CALLS. 
SHE SAY
>>> LET'S LISTEN IN NOW TO 
CHAIRMANSHIP.>> THE CHAIR IS 
AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS 
OF THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT 
OBJECTION AT ANY TIME. 
THERE IS A CORM PRESIDENT. 
WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE 
SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST 
HEARING. 
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING 
STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES WILL MAKE A STATEMENT. 
THEN, WE WILL TURN TO OUR 
WITNESSES FOR THEIR OPENING 
STATEMENTS IS AND THEN TO 
QUESTIONS. 
FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE 
WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR 
INTEREST IN BEING HER. 
INTERN, WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT 
AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S 
HEARING. 
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE 
COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT 
DISRUPTIONS. 
AS CHAIRMAN I WILL TAKE ALL 
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS 
TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ASSURE
THE COMMITTEE IS RUN WITH HOUSE 
RULES AND RESOLUTION 660. 
WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE 
MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING 
STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY INTO DONALD J TRUMP, 
THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
LAST WEEK, WE HEARD FROM THREE 
EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS. 
TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL 
ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS DOLLARS OF 
U.S. MILITARY AID TO FIGHT THE 
RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE BY 
THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO POLITICALLY 
MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS 
INVESTIGATION AND RE-CAMPAIGN. 
ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS 
INVOLVE THE BIDENS AND A 
DISCREDIT BUT A CONSPIRACY 
THEORY AND UKRAINE AND NOT 
RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
INTERFERING IN OUR 2015 
ELECTION. 
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD 
LATER TELL A CAREER FOREIGN 
SERVICE MEN, TRUMP DID NOT GIVE 
A, THEN HE USED AN EXPLETIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE. 
HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT 
BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT. 
LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION 
THAT GIULIANI WAS PUSHING. 
TO PRESS A FOREIGN LEADER TO 
ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP PUT HIS OWN PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THOSE 
OF THE NATION. 
HE UNDERMINED OUR MILITARY AND 
DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY 
ALLY, AND UNDERCUT U.S. 
ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE. 
HOW COULD OUR DIPLOMATS URGE 
UKRAINE TO REFRAIN FROM 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ITS 
OWN CITIZENS, IF THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES WAS URGING 
UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN PRECISELY 
THE SAME KIND OF CORRUPT AND 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE 
OF OUR OWN CITIZENS. 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE 
PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH 
ANY REGULAR CHANNEL THAT 
THROUGH HIS ACTIVE CHIEF OF 
STAFF, GORDON SONDLAND AND RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS PUSHING A POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE AT ODDS WITH 
THE NATIONAL INTERESTS. 
THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO 
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE 
OF THOSE EFFORTS. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX 
LINDEMANN IS A CAREER ARMY 
OFFICER, AND IRAQ WAR VETERAN 
WHO WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART 
AND AN EXPERT IN RUSSIA AND 
UKRAINE WHO HAS WORKED AT THE 
HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE PENTAGON. 
IN JULY 2018 HE WAS DETAILED TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE, IN PART TO 
COORDINATE POLICY ON UKRAINE. 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS A CAREER 
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO IS 
CURRENTLY DETAILED TO THE 
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
AND RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE AND 
EURASIA RELATIONS. 
FOLLOWING HIS INITIAL 
CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE TO REPRESENT 
HIM AT ZELENSKY'S UPCOMING 
INAUGURATION. 
MS. WILLIAMS WAS WORKING ON 
LOGISTICS FOR THE TRIM TRIP. 
PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED 
ATTENDEE, SECOND IN 
SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND WOULD'VE SENT AN 
IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF SUPPORT TO 
THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. 
IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER RUDY 
GIULIANI HAD BEEN GOING TO PLAN 
TO GO TO UKRAINE AND 
FACILITATING THE INVESTIGATION 
TO THE BIDENS. 
HE HAD TO CALL OFF THE TRIP 
AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC. 
AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI WANED 
PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR 
HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED 
THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO 
TRUMP. 
THREE DAYS LATER THE PRESIDENT 
CALLED OFF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
ATTENDANCE AT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION. 
INSTEAD, A LOWER-LEVEL 
DELEGATION WAS NAMED, ENERGY 
SECRETARY RICK PERRY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR RICK VOGLER. 
THE THREE AMIGOS. 
AFTER RETURNING FROM THE 
INAUGURATION SEVERAL MEMBERS OF 
THE DELEGATION BRIEF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ON THEIR FIRST 
INTERACTIONS WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
THEY URGED RESIDENT TRUMP TO 
MEET WITH HIM. 
BUT INSTEAD HE CRITICIZED 
UKRAINE AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO 
WORK WITH RUDY A FEW WEEKS 
LATER, ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WORKED WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND A GROUP OF UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS. 
HE INFORMED THEM THAT ACCORDING 
TO CHIEFS OF STAFF MULVANEY, 
THE STAFF WOULD HAPPEN IF 
UKRAINE UNDERTOOK CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE 
MEETING AND SAID AFTERWARDS HE 
WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER 
DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY 
ARE PICKING UP ON THIS. 
UNDETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT 
THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION 
DOWNSTAIRS TO ANOTHER PART OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE AND WAS MORE 
EXPLICIT, ACCORDING TO 
WITNESSES. 
UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE 
THE BIDENS IF THEY WERE TO GET 
A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH 
TRUMP. 
AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH 
ALEX VINDMAN WITNESSED, HE WENT 
TO THE  WHITE HOUSE'S TOP 
LAWYER TO REPORT TO THE MATTER. 
HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN IN THE 
FUTURE WITH ANY CONCERNS. 
HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO 
DO SO. 
A WEAK LATER ON JULY 18, A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AD BUDGET ANNOUNCED 
ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT 
MULVANEY, AT TRANCE DIRECTION 
WAS FREEZING NEARLY 400 MILLION 
IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED 
BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE 
SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 
ESTABLISHMENT. 
ONE WEEK AFTER THAT, TRUMP 
WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS 
JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH 
ZELENSKY. 
DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP 
COMPLAINED THE U.S. 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAVE 
NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL. 
LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR 
HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF 
DEFENSE AND SAID UKRAINE WAS 
READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS 
AND ANTI-TAKE WEAPON, WHICH WAS 
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT 
DETERRENCE. 
TRUMPS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR, THOUGH. 
HE THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY 
INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDIT OF 
THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND 
EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY, LOOK INTO 
THE BIDENS. 
NEITHER WAS PART OF THE 
OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL 
FOR THE CALL, BUT THEY WERE IN 
DONALD TRUMP PERSONAL INTEREST 
AND IN THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN. 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW 
ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE 
SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAD BEEN 
PRESSING THE UKRAINE FOR WEEKS 
ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 
2016 ELECTION, CHARISMA AND THE 
BIDENS. 
BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS  
WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25 
CALL. 
VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT DUE TO 
THE UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION 
OF THE TWO LEADERS, AND 
UKRAINE'S DEPENDENCY ON THE 
U.S. , THE FAVOR TRUMPED ASKED 
OF ZELENSKY WAS REALLY A 
DEMAND. 
AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE 
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING VINDMAN  
WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT 
IT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER. 
IT WAS THE SECOND TIME IN TWO 
WEEKS THT LINDEMANN HAD RAISED 
CONCERNS WITH HENNESSY LAWYERS. 
FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO 
BELIEVED THAT ASKING ZELENSKY 
TO UNDERTAKE THIS POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN 
SOMETHING ELSE SHE HAD BECOME 
AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE 
INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
BOTH COLONEL 11 AND MS. 
WILLIAMS TOOK NOTE OF THE 
CONSPICUOUS USE OF THE WORD -- 
AND LEFT OUT OF THE TRANSCRIPT. 
OTHER WITNESSES HAVE NOW 
CONFIRMED IT. 
IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE 
JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN 
CONTINUED  TO RE-ASK FOR THE 
úTRANSCRIPT. 
BY MID AUGUST, THE UKRAINIAN 
DEPUTY AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN 
WHY THE UNITED STATES WAS 
WITHHOLDING THE AID.  
ALTHOUGH VINDMAN DIDN'T HAVE AN 
ANSWER, SONDLAND  MADE EXPLICIT 
TO THE UKRAINIANS AT A MEETING 
IN WARSAW. 
THEY NEEDED TO PUBLIC COMMIT TO 
THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF 
THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID. 
MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE 
PRESIDENTS TWEET ABOUT YOU ON 
SUNDAY AFTERNOON. 
AND THE INSULTS HE HEARD AT 
AMBASSADOR YVONNE OF ITS LAST 
FRIDAY. 
YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN  
FAR MORE SCURRILOUS ATTACKS ON 
YOUR CHARACTER AND WATCH AS 
CERTAIN PERSONALITIES ON FOX 
HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR LOYALTY. 
I NOTE THAT YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD 
FOR AMERICA, AND WE OWE YOU AN 
IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE. 
I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE 
WILL BECOME PART OF THOSE 
VICIOUS ATTACKS. 
TODAY'S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE 
WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK ARE 
HERE BECAUSE THEY WERE 
SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR. 
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE FOR OR 
AGAINST IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT QUESTION IS FOR CONGRESS, 
NOT THE FACT WITNESSES. 
IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, 
COURSE, EXTORT, OR BRIBE AN 
ALLY INTO IN THE CONDUCTING 
INVESTIGATIONS TO AID HIS 
ELECTIONCAMPAIGN AND DID SO BY 
WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, 
WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS OR 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
OF NEEDED MILITARY AID, IT WILL 
BE UP TO US TO DECIDE WHETHER 
THOSE ACTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. 
AND NOW I RECOGNIZE RANKING 
MEMBER NUNES FOR REMARKS HE 
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. 
>> THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. 
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW 
BRIEF WORDS TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME. 
IF YOU WATCHED THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS LAST WEEK, YOU MAY 
HAVE NOTICED A DISCONNECT 
BETWEEN WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW 
AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA 
ACCOUNTS DESCRIBING IT. 
WHEN YOU SAW THREE DIPLOMATS 
WHO DISLIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
UKRAINE POLICY DISCUSSING 
SECONDHAND AND THIRDHAND 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEIR 
OBJECTIONS WITH THE TRUMP 
POLICY. 
MEANWHILE, THEY ADMITTED THEY 
HAD NOT TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT THESE MATTERS. 
AND, THEY WERE UNABLE TO 
IDENTIFY ANY CRIME OR 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED. 
WHAT YOU READ IN THE PRESS WERE 
ACCOUNTS OF SHOCKING, DAMNING, 
AND EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY THAT 
FULLY SUPPORTS THE DEMOCRATS 
ACCUSATIONS. 
IF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE A 
FAMILIAR RING, IT IS BECAUSE 
THIS IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS 
REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR 
THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX.
ON A NEARLY DAILY BASIS, THE 
TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA 
REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE 
NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, 
SHOWING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM 
WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. 
IT REALLY WASN'T LONG AGO THAT 
WE WERE READING THESE 
HEADLINES. 
FROM CNN-CONGRESS INVESTIGATING 
RUSSIAN INVESTMENT FUNDS WITH 
TIES TO TRUMP OFFICIALS. 
THIS WAS FALSE. 
THE NEW YORK TIMES-TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AIDES HAVE REPEATED 
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE. 
ALSO FALLS. 
SLADE WAS A TRUMP SERVER 
COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA. 
THIS WAS FALSE. 
NEW YORK MAGAZINE-WILL TRUMP BE 
MEETING WITH HIS COUNTERPART, 
OR HIS HANDLER? 
THIS WAS FALSE. 
THE GUARDIAN-MANAFORT HELD 
SECRET TALKS WITH ECUADORIAN 
MBASSY. 
ALSO FALLS. 
BUZZ FEED, PRESIDENT TRUCK 
DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO 
CONGRESS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TOWER 
PROJECT. 
ALL OF THESE WERE FALSE. 
THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVITY OR 
FAIRNESS IN THE MEDIAS RUSSIA 
STORIES, JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH 
TO TARNISH AND REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO 
PRETEND THAT THE MEDIA ARE 
SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT 
THEY REALLY ARE, PUPPETS OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 
WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON 
THE RUSSIAN HOAX THE MEDIA LOST 
CONFIDENCE OF 1 MILLION OF 
AMERICANS AND THEY REFUSED TO 
ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY THEY 
BOTCHED THE STORY. 
THEY HAVE LEARNED NO LESSONS 
AND SIMPLY EXPECT AMERICANS 
WILL BELIEVE THEM AS THEY TRY 
TO STOKE YET ANOTHER PARTISAN 
FRENZY. 
IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, I HAVE 
OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE 
DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA DON'T 
WANT ASK OR ANSWERED. 
INSTEAD OF SHEDDING LIGHT ON 
THESE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS, THE 
MEDIA ARE TRYING TO SMOTHER AND 
DISMISS THEM. 
THOSE QUESTIONS START WITH, 
WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
DEMOCRATS PRIOR COORDINATION 
WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND TO 
US TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? 
THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED 
THE DEMOCRATS STUDY AND 
REVERSAL ON THE NEED FOR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY TO 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
AND THE DEMOCRATS WERE 
INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY. 
BUT, THE MEDIA WANTED IT TOO. 
BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE 
IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD HAVE TO 
ANSWER PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS 
THAT INCLUDE THESE, WHAT WAS 
THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S PRIOR 
COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMANSHIP, 
HIS STAFF AND ANY OTHER PEOPLE 
HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE 
PREPARING THE COMPLAINT? 
WHAT ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS 
POLITICAL BIASES AND 
CONNECTIONS TO DEMOCRATIC 
POLITICIANS? 
HOW DOES THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE 
COMPLAINT? 
WHAT CONTACT DID THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAVE WITH THE 
MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE 
ONGOING? 
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWERS INFORMATION? 
WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO? 
AND, WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM 
RECEIVING OR CONVEYING ANY OF 
THAT INFORMATION? 
THE MEDIA HAVE JOINED THE 
DEMOCRATS IN DISMISSING THE 
IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINING 
THIS CRUCIAL WITNESS. 
NOW THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS 
SUCCESSFULLY STARTED 
IMPEACHMENT, HIS DISAPPEARANCE 
FROM THE STORY IS INTERESTING, 
AS IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IN THEIR OWN 
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM. 
MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WAS 
THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S 
ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN? 
IN THESE DEPOSITIONS AND 
HEARINGS, REPUBLICANS HAVE 
CITED NUMEROUS INDICATIONS OF 
UKRAINE MEDDLING IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, TO OPPOSE THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN. 
MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE 
REPORTED, INCLUDING THE POSTING 
OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE 
DOCUMENTS BY VETERAN 
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, JOHN 
SULLIVAN. 
SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED 
FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FROM 
THERE IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, 
SOLOMON HAS REPORTED ON 
BSRISMA, HUNTER BIDEN, AND 
UKRAINE  ELECTION MEDDLING HAS 
BECOME INCONVENIENT FOR THE 
DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE, SO THE 
MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY SMEARING AND 
LIBELING SOLOMON. 
IN FACT, THE PUBLICATION ON THE 
HILL TOLD ITS STAFF YESTERDAY, 
IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF 
SOLOMON'S UKRAINE REPORTING'S. 
COINCIDENTALLY, THE DECISION 
COMES JUST THREE DAYS AFTER A 
DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD 
THE HILL WRITER THAT SHE WOULD 
STOP SPEAKING TO THE HILL 
BECAUSE IT HAD RUN SOLOMON'S 
STORIES. 
AND, SHE URGED THE WRITER TO 
RELAY HER CONCERNS TO HILL'S 
MANAGEMENT. 
SO NOW THAT SOLOMON'S REPORTING 
IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS, 
IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THE MEDIA 
AS WELL. 
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE 
RECORD, JOHN SOLOMON'S OCTOBER 
31 STORY ENTITLED DEBUNKING 
SOME OF THE UKRAINE SCANDAL 
MISS ABOUT BIDEN AND ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO 
READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR 
OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE 
EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED.>>
AS UNANIMOUS CONSENT, WE PUT 
THIS INTO THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY 
THE MEDIA TO DISOWN THEIR OWN 
COLLEAGUES IS SHOCKING. 
WE SEE IT AGAIN IN THE SUDDEN 
DENUNCIATIONS OF NEW YORK TIMES 
REPORTER, KEN VOGEL AS A 
CONSPIRACY THEORIST AFTER HE 
COVERED SIMILAR ISSUES, 
INCLUDING A 2017 POLITICO PIECE 
ENTITLED, UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO 
SABOTAGE TRUMP BACKFIRE. 
MY THIRD QUESTION, WHY DID 
BSRISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? 
WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID 
HIS POSITION AFFECTING U.S. 
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?  
WE HAVE NOW HEARD TESTIMONY 
FROM THE DEMOCRATS OWN 
WITNESSES THAT DIPLOMATS WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST INVOLVING HUNTER 
BIDEN. 
THAT IS BECAUSE HE HAD SECURED 
A WELL-PAID POSITION, DESPITE 
HAVING NO QUALIFICATIONS ON THE 
BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER WAS 
VICE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH 
OVERSEEING UKRAINIAN ISSUES. 
AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL 
DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE RECENTLY SETTLED ON 
BRIBERY. 
ACCORDING TO WIDESPREAD 
REPORTS, THEY REPLACED THEIR 
QUID PRO QUO ALLEGATION, 
BECAUSE IT WASN'T POLLING WELL. 
BUT, IF THE DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA 
ARE SUDDENLY SO DEEPLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT BRIBERY, YOU 
WOULD THINK THEY WOULD TAKE 
SOME INTEREST IN BSRISMA PAYING 
HUNTER BIDEN  $83,000 A MONTH. 
AND, YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE 
INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN 
THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. 
LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE 
UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR 
WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BSRISMA.  
THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK 
EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. 
THE MEDIA, OF COURSE ARE FREE 
TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS, AND 
THEY ARE FREE TO ALERT FROM THE 
RUSSIAN HOAX TO THE UKRAINE 
HOAX AT THE DIRECTION OF THEIR 
PUPPET MASTERS. 
BUT, THEY CANNOT REASONABLY 
EXPECT TO DO SO WITHOUT 
ALIENATING HALF THE COUNTRY WHO 
VOTED FOR THE COUNTRY. 
AMERICANS HAVE LEARNED TO 
RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THEY 
SEE IT. 
AND, IF THE MAINSTREAM PRESS 
WON'T GIVE IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, 
THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE TO FIND 
IT. 
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DOING. 
THAT I YIELD BACK.>> I THINK 
THE GENTLEMAN. 
TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS.  
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN 
IS AN ACTIVE DUTY OFFICER WHO 
JOINED THE ARMY AFTER COLLEGE 
AND SERVED MULTIPLE TOURS 
OVERSEAS, SERVING IN SOUTH 
KOREA, JOURNEY, AND A RACK. 
HE WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AT A 
TIME OF HEAVY FIGHTING AND WAS 
AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AFTER 
BEING WOUNDED BY ROADSIDE 
BOMBS. 
SINCE 2008,  COLONEL VINDMAN  
HAS SERVED AS A FOREIGN OFFICER 
SPECIALIZING IN EURASIA, 
SERVING BOTH AT HOME AND IN 
U.S. EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE AND 
RUSSIA. 
HE HAS SERVED AS A POLITICAL 
MILITARY AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR 
RUSSIA FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. 
HE JOINED THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION IN JULY 2018, 
WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS BEGAN HER 
CAREER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 
2005. 
SHORTLY AFTER GRADUATING FROM 
COLLEGE, WHEN SHE JOINED THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
AS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE DURING 
THE GEORGE W. BUSH 
ADMINISTRATION. 
AND, AFTER WORKING AS A FIELD 
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE 2004 
BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN. 
SHE JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE 
THE FOLLOWING YEAR COMPLETING 
TOURS IN JAMAICA, BEIRUT, AND 
LEBANON. 
PRIOR TO JOINING THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT, SHE SERVED 
AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON 
AS A PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER. 
IN APRIL 2019, MS. WILLIAMS WAS 
DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT, MIKE PENCE 
WHERE SHE SERVES AS A SPECIAL 
ADVISOR ON HIS FOREIGN-POLICY 
TEAM COVERING EUROPE AND RUSSIA 
ISSUES. 
IN THAT CAPACITY SHE KEEPS THE 
VICE PRESIDENT AWARE OF FOREIGN-
POLICY ISSUES IN EUROPE AND 
RUSSIA. 
AND PREPARES THEM FOR FOREIGN 
POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND MEETINGS 
WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. 
TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE 
WITNESSES ARE SWORN. 
THE FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS 
AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY RUN 
CLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL 
OPEN HEARINGS WILL BE HELD AT 
THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. 
ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH 
ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL 
BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. 
SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT 
TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT 
OF REPRISAL, OR ATTEMPT TO 
RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR THE 
TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 
INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR 
COLLEAGUES. 
IF YOU WOULD BOTH BOTH PLEASE 
RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, 
I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU 
IN. 
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO 
HELP YOU GOD? 
LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE. 
THANK YOU, AND YOU MAY BE 
SEATED. 
THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, 
SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO 
THEM. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF 
THE RECORD. 
WITH THAT, MS. WILLIAMS YOU ARE 
RECOGNIZE FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
WHEN YOU ARE CONCLUDED, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU  
AFTERWARD FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
MS. WILLIAMS? 
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMANSHIP, 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND OTHER 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS 
STATEMENT. 
I APPEARED TODAY PURSUANT TO A 
SUBPOENA AND AM PREPARED TO 
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE 
BEST OF MY ABILITIES. 
I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF 
WORKING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER FOR NEARLY 14 YEARS. 
WORKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT 
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, 
TWO REPUBLICAN AND ONE 
DEMOCRATIC. 
I JOINED THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
IN 2006, AFTER SERVING IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
UNDERSECRETARY MICHAEL 
CHERTOFF. 
IT WAS WITH GREAT PRIDE AND 
CONVICTION THAT I SWORE AN OATH 
TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION, ADMINISTERED BY A 
PERSONAL HERO OF MINE, FORMER 
SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA 
RICE. 
AS A CAREER OFFICER, I AM 
COMMITTED TO SERVING THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ADVANCING 
AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD, IN 
SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT 
FOREIGN-POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED AND 
ENCOURAGED IN THAT JOURNEY BY 
THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER 
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS, WHO 
I AM PROUD TO CALL COLLEAGUES 
ACROSS THE FOREIGN SERVICE, 
CIVIL SERVICE, MILITARY, AND 
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES. 
I HAVE SERVED OVERSEE TOURS IN 
KINGSTON, JAMAICA, BEIRUT, AND 
LONDON, ENGLAND. 
I HAVE SERVED MILLIONS OF 
VICTIMS OF THIS AREA CONFLICT 
AND SERVED AS AN ADVISOR ON 
MIDDLE EAST ISSUES TO THE 
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE. 
IN THE SPRING, IT WAS THE 
GREATEST HONOR OF MY CAREER TO 
BE ASKED TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL 
ADVISOR TO THE VICE PRESIDENT 
FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA. 
OVER THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, I 
HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK 
WITH A DEDICATED AND CAPABLE 
MEN AND WOMEN OF THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT. 
TO ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
AGENDA. 
I HAVE ALSO WORKED CLOSELY WITH 
TALENTED AND COMMITTED 
COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, STATE 
DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE, AND OTHER AGENCIES TO 
ADVANCE AND PROMOTE U.S. 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
IN THIS CAPACITY, I HAVE 
ADVISED AND PREPARED THE VICE 
PRESIDENT FOR ENGAGEMENTS 
RELATED TO UKRAINE. 
AS YOU ARE AWARE, ON NOVEMBER 7 
I APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 
FOR A CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION 
PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA. 
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY 
SUMMARIZE MY RECOLLECTION OF 
SOME OF THE EVENTS I EXPECT THE 
COMMITTEE MAY ASK ME ABOUT. 
ON APRIL 21, VLADIMIR ZELENSKY 
WON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION. 
ON APRIL 23, THE VICE PRESIDENT 
CALLED TO CONGRATULATE 
PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY. 
DURING THE CALL, WHICH I 
PARTICIPATED IN, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ACCEPTED AN 
INVITATION TO ATTEND PRESIDENT 
ELECT ZELENSKY'S UPCOMING 
INAUGURATION, PROVIDING THE 
SCHEDULING WORKED OUT. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ONLY A 
NARROW WINDOW OF AVAILABILITY 
AT THE END OF MAY, AND THE 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT 
MEET TO SET A DATE FOR THE 
INAUGURATION UNTIL AFTER MAY 
14. 
AS A RESULT, WE DID NOT EXPECT 
TO KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT COULD ATTEND UNTIL 
MAY 14 AT THE EARLIEST. 
AND WE MADE ONLY PRELIMINARY 
TRIP PREPARATIONS IN EARLY MAY. 
ON MAY 13, AN ASSISTANT TO THE 
VICE PRESIDENT CHIEF OF STAFF 
CALLED AND INFORMED ME THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DECIDED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND 
THE INAUGURATION IN UKRAINE. 
HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER 
EXPLANATION. 
I RELAYED THAT INSTRUCTION TO 
OTHERS INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE 
POTENTIAL TRIP. 
I ALSO INFORMED THE NSC THAT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE 
ATTENDING, SO IT COULD IDENTIFY 
A DELEGATION TO REPRESENT THE 
UNITED STATES AT PRESENT 
ELENSKY'S I 
ON JULY 3, I LEARNED THE OFFICE 
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAD 
PLACED A HOLD ON A SECURITY 
ASSISTANT DESIGNATED FOR 
UKRAINE. 
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I 
RECEIVED, OMB WAS REVIEWING 
WHERE THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED 
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
PRIORITIES. 
I SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED 
MEETINGS OF THE POLICY 
COORDINATION COMMITTEE WHERE A 
HOLD ON UKRAINIAN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WITH DISGUST. 
DURING THOSE MEETINGS, 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE 
AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS 
ADVOCATED THAT THE HOLD SHOULD 
BE LIFTED. 
AND AND OMB REPRESENTATIVE 
REPORTED THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF 
OF STAFF HAD DIRECTED THE HOLD 
SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. 
ON SEPTEMBER 11, I LEARNED THAT 
THE HOLDEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
FOR UKRAINE HAD BEEN RELEASED. 
I HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT 
PROMPTED THAT DECISION. 
ON JULY 25, ALONG WITH SEVERAL 
OF MY COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO 
A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS SINCE 
BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED. 
PRIOR TO JULY 25, I 
PARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN 
OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS. 
DURING MY CLOSE DOOR 
DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY 
PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I 
HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 
25 CALL. 
AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND 
THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL UNUSUAL, 
BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD 
OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED 
DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO 
BE A DOMESTIC-POLITICAL MATTER. 
AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, I 
PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE VICE 
PRESIDENTS DAILY BRIEFING BOOK 
INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM 
TRANSCRIBED IN THE CALL WAS 
ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. 
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR 
THE TRANSCRIPT. 
I DID NOT DISCUSS THE JULY 25 
CALL WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR 
ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OR 
THE NSC. 
ON AUGUST 29, I LEARNED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE 
TRAVELING TO POLAND TO MEET 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
SEPTEMBER 1. AT THE SEPTEMBER 1 
MEETING, WHICH I ATTENDED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT NEWS 
ARTICLES REPORTING A HOLD ON 
U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR 
UKRAINE. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPONDED 
THAT UKRAINE HAD THE UNITED 
STATES ON WAIVING REPORT AND 
PROMISE TO RELAY THEIR 
CONVERSATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THAT NIGHT. 
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING, 
NEITHER THE VICE PRESIDENT NOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED 
THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION 
DISCUSSED DURING THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL. 
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS 
STATEMENT. 
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY 
QUESTIONS.>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE 
COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO 
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO UKRAINE 
AND MY ROLE IN THE OFFENSE 
UNDER INVESTIGATION. 
I HAVE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE 
PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA. 
FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES IT 
HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE AS 
AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES 
ARMY, AS AN INTERCITY OFFICER I 
SERVED MULTIPLE OVERSEE TOURS 
INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND 
GERMANY. 
SINCE 20,000 EIGHT I HAVE BEEN 
A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER 
SPECIALIZING IN EUROPEAN AND 
EURASIAN POLITICAL MILITARY 
AFFAIRS. 
I SERVED IN UNITED STATES 
EMBASSIES IN KIEV, UKRAINE AND 
MOSCOW, RUSSIA. 
IN WASHINGTON, DC I WAS THE 
POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS IN 
RUSSIA WHERE I DRAFTED THE 
ARMED FORCES GLOBAL CAMPAIGN 
PLAN TO COUNTER RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION AND RUSSIAN MALIGN 
INFLUENCE. 
IN JULY 2018, I WAS ASKED TO 
SERVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. 
AT THE NSC, I AM THE PRINCIPAL 
ADVISOR TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR ON UKRAINE AND 
OTHER COUNTRIES IN MY 
PORTFOLIO. 
MY ROLE AT THE NSC IS TO 
DEVELOP, COORDINATE, AND 
IMPLEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES TO 
MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF 
DIPLOMATIC INFORMATIONAL AND 
MILITARY, AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL 
SECURITY ISSUES FOR THE 
COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. 
MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO 
COORDINATE POLICY WITH 
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. 
THE COMMITTEE HAS HEARD FROM 
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE 
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE 
AS A BULWARK AGAINST RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION. 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT 
OUR COUNTRY'S POLICY OF 
SUPPORTING UKRAINIAN INTEGRITY 
AND PROMOTING UKRAINIAN 
PROSPERITY AND INSTRUCTING A 
FREE AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE AS 
A COUNTER TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION 
HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT, 
BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY 
OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY ACROSS 
ARIOUS ADMINISTRATI 
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN. 
AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
ELECTION IN APRIL 2019 CREATED 
AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO 
REALIZE OUR STRATEGY AND 
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. 
IN THE SPRING OF 2019, I BECAME 
AWARE OF TWO DESTRUCTIVE 
ACTORS, PRIMARILY UKRAINE'S 
THEN PROSECUTOR AND FORMER 
MAYOR RUDOLPH JULIANA, THE 
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY 
PROMOTING FALSE NARRATIVES THAT 
UNDERMINED UNITED STATES 
UKRAINE POLICY. 
THE NSC, AND IT'S INTERAGENCY 
PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT GREW INCREASINGLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IT WAS 
DOING TO OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE 
OUR OBJECTIVES. 
ON APRIL 21, 2019 LATIMER 
ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE IN A LANDSLIDE 
VICTORY ON THE UNITY REFORM AND 
ANTICORRUPTION PLATFORM. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED 
PRESIDENT LINSKY ON APRIL 25, 
2019 TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS 
VICTORY. 
I WAS A STAFF OFFICER WHO 
PRODUCED THE CALL MATERIALS AND 
WAS ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS 
WHO LISTEN TO THE CALL. 
THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND 
RESIDENTS TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS 
DESIRE TO WORK WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND IN INVITED HIM TO 
VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
IN MAY, I ATTENDED THE 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION LED BY 
SECRETARY PERRY. 
FOLLOWING THE VISIT, THE 
MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION 
PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A 
DEBRIEFING OFFERING A POSITIVE 
ASSESSMENT OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM. 
AFTER THE DEBRIEFING, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SIGNED A CONGRATULATORY 
LETTER TO PRESENT ZELENSKY AND 
EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO 
VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
ON JULY 10, 2019 THE UKRAINE'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
VISITED WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR A 
MEETING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR BOLTON. 
AMBASSADOR VULCAN AND SONDLAND 
AND SECRETARY RICK PERRY ALSO 
ATTENDED THE MEETING. 
I ATTENDED ALSO. 
WE FULLY ANTICIPATED THE 
UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE 
ISSUE OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE 
MEETING SHORT WHEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND STARTED TO SPEAK ABOUT 
THE REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE 
DELIVER SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS 
IN ORDER TO SECURE THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, THERE 
WAS A SHORT DEBRIEFING DURING 
WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF 
UKRAINE DELIVERING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS, AND 
BARISMA. 
I STATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND 
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED HIS 
COMMENTS ERE NOT PROPER. 
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, WE 
AGREED TO REPORT THE MEETING TO 
THE NSC'S LEAD COUNSEL, MR. 
JOHN EISENBERG. 
ON JULY 21, 2019 PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WON A PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTION AND ANOTHER LANDSLIDE 
VICTORY. 
THE NSC PROPOSED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO CONGRATULATE HIM. 
ON JULY 25, THE CALL OCCURRED. 
I LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN 
THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE 
HOUSE COLLEAGUES. 
I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL. 
WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
AND I REPORTED MY CONCERTS TO 
MR. EISENBERG. 
IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AT 
AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
I WAS ALSO CLEAR IF UKRAINE 
PURSUED THE INVESTIGATION, IT 
WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE 
WERE SEATED WITH AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND 
BARISMA IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED 
AS A BIPARTISAN  PLAY AND 
UKRAINE WOULD LOSE BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT. 
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE 
COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED 
MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10 RELATING 
TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND 
THEN JULY 25 RELATING TO THE 
PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A 
SENSE OF DUTY. 
I PROPERLY REPORTED MY CONCERNS 
IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE 
PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN 
OF COMMAND. 
MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE 
CONCERNS, BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. 
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE 
SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN 
FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY 
ACTIONS. 
WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY 
ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT 
PROPERLY AND TO CARRY OUT MY 
DUTY. 
FOLLOWING EACH OF MY REPORTS TO 
MR. EISENBERG, I IMMEDIATELY 
RETURNED TO WORK TO ADVANCE THE 
PRESIDENTS AND OUR COUNTRY'S 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
I FOCUSED ON WHAT I HAVE DONE 
THROUGHOUT MY MILITARY CAREER, 
PROMOTING AMERICA'S NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS. 
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
RECOGNIZE THE COURAGE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE APPEARED 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. 
I WANT TO SAY THAT THE 
CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE 
DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE 
PUBLIC SERVANT IS 
REPREHENSIBLE. 
IT IS NATURAL TO DISAGREE AND 
ENGAGE IN A SPIRITED DEBATE. 
THIS HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF OUR 
COUNTRY SINCE THE TIME OF OUR 
FOUNDING FATHERS. 
BUT, WE ARE BETTER THAN 
PERSONAL ATTACKS. 
UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT OF 
THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 
THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL 
VOLUNTEER FORCE ARE MADE UP OF 
A PATCHWORK OF PEOPLE FROM ALL 
ETHNICITIES, REGIONS, 
SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS, WHO 
COME TOGETHER UNDER A COMMON 
OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA. 
WE DO NOT SERVE ANY POLITICAL 
PARTY. 
WE SERVE THE NATION. 
I AM HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU 
TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SERVE 
IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND 
ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD. 
THE ARMY IS THE ONLY PROFESSION 
I HAVE EVER KNOWN. 
AS A YOUNG MAN I DECIDED I 
WANTED TO SPEND MY LIFE SERVING 
THIS NATION AND GAVE MY FAMILY 
REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN 
OPPRESSION. 
FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS HAS 
BEEN MY HONOR TO PROTECT AND 
SERVE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. 
NEXT MONTH WILL MARK 40 YEARS 
SINCE MY FAMILY ARRIVED IN THE 
UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES. 
WHEN MY FATHER WAS 47 YEARS 
OLD, HE LEFT BEHIND HIS ENTIRE 
LIFE, AND THE ONLY HOME HE HAD 
EVER KNOWN TO START OVER IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 
SO HIS THREE SONS COULD HAVE A 
BETTER AND SAFER LIFE. 
HIS COURAGEOUS DECISION 
INSPIRED A DEEP SENSE OF 
GRATITUDE IN MY BROTHERS AND 
MYSELF, AND INSTILLED IN US A 
SENSE OF DUTY AND SERVICE. 
ALL THREE OF US HAVE SERVED OR 
ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE 
MILITARY. 
MY LITTLE BROTHER, SITTING 
BEHIND ME TODAY. OUR COLLECTIVE 
MILITARY SERVICE IS A SPECIAL 
PART OF OUR FAMILY'S HISTORY AND
AS STORIED AMERICANS. 
I ALSO RECOGNIZE MY SIMPLE ACT 
OF APPEARING HERE TODAY, JUST 
LIKE THE COURAGE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE ALSO 
TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE 
TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND 
THE WORLD. 
IN RUSSIA, MY ACTIVIST 
EXPRESSING CONCERN TO THE CHAIN 
OF COMMAND IN AN OFFICIAL A 
PRIVATE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE 
SEVERE PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL 
REPERCUSSIONS. 
IN OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
SURELY COST ME MY LIFE. 
I AM GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER AND 
HIS BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40 YEARS 
AGO, AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF 
BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND 
PUBLIC SERVANT, WHERE I CAN 
LIVE FREE OF FEAR FOR MINE AND 
MY FAMILY'S SAFETY. 
DAD, I AM SITTING HERE TODAY IN 
THE U.S. CAPITAL TALKING TO OUR 
ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING 
TO THEM IS PROOF YOU MADE THE 
RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO 
LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION, COME 
HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER 
LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY. 
DO NOT WORRY. 
I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE 
TRUTH THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION. 
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS.>> THANK YOU COLONEL 
AND MS. WILLIAMS. 
COLONEL, YOUR FAMILY AND 
BROTHER ARE MORE THAN WELCOME 
TO  
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SUBJECT 
OF YOUR QUESTIONS, MS. WILLIAMS 
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A PHONE 
CALL. 
WERE YOU ON THAT CALL? 
>> I WAS. 
>> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTE OF THE 
CALL? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT 
THAT CALL THAT YOU THINK MAY BE 
RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTIGATION? 
>> EXCUSE ME, HAVE YOU 
DISCUSSED THAT THE -- 
>> -- CAN YOU MOVE THE 
MICROPHONE CLOSER? 
>> AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED 
WITH BOTH MAJORITY AND MINORITY 
STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE, THE 
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE 
SEPTEMBER 18 CALL IS 
CLASSIFIED. 
AS A RESULT, BOTH RESPECT TO 
THE CALL I WOULD REFER THE 
COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC RECORD, 
WHICH INCLUDES MS. WILLIAMS 
NOVEMBER SEVENTH TESTIMONY, 
WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY 
RELEASED, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC 
READOUT OF THAT CALL, WHICH HAS 
PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE 
WHITEHOUSE. 
BEYOND THAT, GIVEN THE POSITION 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE 
ON CLASSIFICATION, I HAVE 
ADVISED MS. WILLIAMS NOT TO 
ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THAT CALL, IN AN UNCLASSIFIED 
SETTING. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
MS. WILLAMS, I WOULD ONLY ASK 
YOU IN THIS SETTING IF YOU 
THINK THERE IS SOMETHING 
RELATIVE TO OUR INQUIRY IN THAT 
CALL, AND IF SO YOU WOULD BE 
WILLING TO MAKE A CLASSIFIED 
SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE? 
>> I WOULD ALSO REFER TO MY 
TESTIMONY THAT I GAVE IN THE 
CLOSED SESSION, AND I AM VERY 
HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR A 
CLASSIFIED SETTING DISCUSSION 
AS WELL.>> IT MADE NOT BE 
NECESSARY TO APPEAR IF YOU 
WOULD BE WILLING TO SUBMIT THE 
INFORMATION IN WRITING TO THE 
COMMITTEE. 
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO. 
>> I THANK YOU. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, IF I TURN YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21 CALL, 
THAT IS THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT  TRUMP AND RESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, DID YOU PREPARE 
TALKING POINTS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO USE DURING THAT 
CALL? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> AND, DID THOSE TALKING 
POINTS INCLUDE ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?>> YES. 
>> THAT WAS SOMETHING THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE 
THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY? 
>> THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED 
TALKING POINTS THAT WERE 
CLEARED THROUGH THE NFC STAFF 
FOR THE PRESIDENT, YES. 
>> DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THAT 
CALL? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW 
RELEASED A RECORD OF THAT CALL 
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER 
MENTIONED CORRUPTION IN THE 
APRIL 21 CALL?>> TO THE BEST OF 
MY RECOLLECTION, HE DID NOT. 
>> ON THE APRIL 21 CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HE WOULD SEND A HIGH-
LEVEL U.S. DELEGATION TO THE 
INAUGURATION. 
MS. WILLIAMS, WAS IT AND YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WAS TO 
ATTEND? 
>> YES, THAT WAS MY 
UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND DID THE PRESIDENT THEN 
TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO 
ATTEND THE INAUGURATION? 
>> I WAS INFORMED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD TOLD THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND. 
I DID NOT WITNESS THAT 
CONVERSATION.>> AND, AM I 
CORRECT THAT YOU LEARNED THIS 
ON MAY 13? 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT THE 
INAUGURATION DATE HAD NOT BEEN 
SET RIGHT MAY 13th?>> THAT IS 
CORRECT.>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT 
ACCOUNTED FOR THE PRESIDENT 
DECISION TO INSTRUCT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND? 
>> I DO NOT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE A 
MEMBER OF U.S. DELEGATION TO 
THE INAUGURATION  ON MAY 20, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES CHAIRMAN. 
>> AND, DURING THAT TRIP DID 
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
OFFER ANY ADVICE TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY? 
>> YES MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> WHAT WAS THE ADVICE YOU GAVE 
HIM?>> DURING A BILATERAL 
MEETING IN WHICH THE WHOLE 
DELEGATION WAS MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS 
TEAM, I OFFERED TWO PIECES OF 
ADVICE. 
TO BE PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS 
WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE, WITH 
REGARDS TO RUSSIA EXCUSE ME. 
AND ITS DESIRE TO PROVOKE 
UKRAINE, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS 
TO STAY OUT OF U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLICY.>> AND, WHY DID YOU FEEL 
IT WAS NECESSARY TO ADVISE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STAY AWAY 
FROM U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS? 
>> CHAIRMAN, IN THE MARCH AND 
APRIL TIMEFRAME, I BECAME AWARE 
THAT IT WAS CLEAR THERE WERE 
ACTORS IN THE U.S.-PUBLIC 
ACTORS, NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS 
THAT WERE PROMOTING THE IDEA OF 
INVESTIGATIONS AND 2016 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE. 
IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY, 
ALL OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY 
PORTFOLIO. 
ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO NOT 
PARTICIPATE IN U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLITICS. 
SO, I WAS PASSING THE SAME 
ADVICE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY. 
>> AND WE WILL HAVE MORE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. 
BUT, LET ME TURN IF I CAN, TO 
THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, WHICH I THINK YOU 
BOTH TESTIFIED YOU LEARNED 
ABOUT IN EARLY JULY. 
AM I CORRECT THAT NEITHER OF 
YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH A REASON 
FOR WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE? 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT 
OMB WAS REVIEWING THE ASSISTANT 
TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN LINE 
WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES. 
BUT, IT WAS NOT MADE MORE 
SPECIFIC THAN THAT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN? 
>> THAT IS CONSISTENT.  
THE REVIEW WAS TO ENSURE IT 
REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH 
ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
ATTENDED A MEETING IN JOHN 
BOLTON'S OFFICE ON JULY 10  
WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
INTERJECTED TO RESPOND TO A 
QUESTION BY A SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL ABOUT THE WHITEHOUSE 
VISIT. 
WHAT DID HE SAY AT THAT TIME?>> 
TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT 
IN ORDER TO GET A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
HAVE TO PROVIDE A DELIVERABLE, 
WHICH IS INVESTIGATIONS. 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATONS. 
>> AND WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S RESPONSE OR ACTION TO 
THAT COMMENT? 
>> WE HAD NOT COMPLETED ALL OF 
THE AGENDA ITEMS, AND WE STILL 
HAD TIME FOR THE MEETING. 
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE MEETING.>> DID YOU 
REPORT THIS INCIDENT TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
LAWYERS? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> BASED ON AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S REMARK AT THE JULY 
10 MEETING, WAS IT THEIR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND THEY HAD 
TO COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED IN ORDER 
TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? 
>> IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN 
ENTIRELY CLEAR AT THAT MOMENT. 
CERTAINLY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS CALLING FOR THESE MEETINGS, 
AND HE HAD STATED THAT THIS WAS 
DEVELOPED PER CONVERSATION WITH 
THE CHIEF OF STAFF. 
MR. Mc MULVANEY, BUT THE 
CONNECTION TO THE PRESIDENT IS 
NOT CLEAR AT THAT POINT. 
>> BUT, THE IMPORT OF WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID DURING 
THAT MEETING WAS THAT, THERE 
WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH Mc 
MULVANEY THAT ZELENSKY WOULD 
GET THE MEETING IF THEY WOULD 
UNDERTAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT JULY 
10 MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THEIR 
SECOND CALL, THE NOW INFAMOUS 
JULY 25 CALL. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT WAS YOUR 
REAL TIME  REACTION TO HEARING 
THAT CALL? 
>> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION 
I KNEW I HAD TO REPORT THIS TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. 
I HAD CONCERNS, AND IT WAS MY 
DUTY TO REPORT MY CONCERNS TO 
THE PROPER PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN 
OF COMMAND. 
>> AND, WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN? 
>> CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN MY 
STATEMENT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO REQUEST, TO DEMAND 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT, ESPECIALLY 
A FOREIGN POWER WHERE THERE IS 
AT BEST, DUBIOUS BELIEF THAT 
THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETELY 
IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION.>>>> 
AND THAT THIS WOULD HAVE 
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS IF 
THIS BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. 
IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A 
PARTISAN PLAY AND WOULD 
UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE POLICY 
AND UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
>> COLONEL, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED 
THIS AS A DEMAND, THIS FAVOR 
THE PRESIDENT ASKED. 
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
THAT LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES ASKED A FAVOR 
LIKE THIS, IS REALLY A DEMAND? 
>> CHAIRMAN, THE MILITARY 
CULTURE I COME FROM, WHEN A 
SENIOR ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING, 
EVEN IF IT IS UNPLEASANT, IT IS 
NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST. 
IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER. 
IN THIS CASE, THE POWER 
DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO 
LEADERS, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT 
IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, I THINK YOU 
DESCRIBED YOUR REACTION IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION WHEN YOU LISTEN TO 
THE CALL, THAT YOU FOUND IT 
UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE. 
BUT, I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING 
AS YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION. 
YOU SAID IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON 
POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS 
BEHIND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HOLD. 
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?>> 
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS ASKED 
DURING THE CLOSED-DOOR 
TESTIMONY HOW I FELT ABOUT THE 
CALL. 
IN REFLECTING ON WHAT I WAS 
THINKING IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS 
THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD 
INTERNALLY THE PRESIDENT 
REFERENCED PARTICULAR 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY 
I HAD ONLY HEARD ABOUT THROUGH 
MR. GIULIANI'S PRESS INTERVIEWS 
AND PRESS REPORTING. 
IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS NOT 
CLEAR WHETHER THERE WAS A 
DIRECT CONNECTION OR LINKAGE 
BETWEEN THE ONGOING HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT MAY BE ASKING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE 
IN REGARDS TO INVESTIGATIONS. 
IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN THAT 
REGARD. 
I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH 
INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM 
CONCLUSIONS.>> BUT, IT RAISED A 
QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO 
WHETHER THE TWO ARE RELATED? 
>> IT WAS THE FIRST I HAD HEARD 
OF ANY REQUESTS OF UKRAINE 
WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN 
NATURE. 
IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO ME, IN 
THAT REGARD.>> BOTH OF YOU 
RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN 
THAT CONVERSATION RAISING THE 
ISSUE OR MENTIONING BARISMA, DO 
YOU NOT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YET ,  THE WORD BARISMA 
APPEARS NOWHERE  IN THE CALL 
RECORD THAT IS BEEN RELEASED TO 
THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS RIGHT.>> CORRECT.>> 
DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS THE 
CASE? 
WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT? 
>> I DO NOT. 
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
REDUCTION OF THAT TRANSCRIPT. 
>> I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FACT 
THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT IS 
BEING PRODUCED MAY HAVE NOT 
CAUGHT THE WORD TRAN 13. 
AND, IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS 
RELEASED, IT WAS RELEASED TO 
THE COMPANY, WHICH IS ACCURATE. 
IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT 
OMISSION.>> COLONEL, YOU 
POINTED OUT THAT THE WORD WOULD 
USE, DID YOU NOT? 
>> CORRECT>> AND YET IT WAS NOT 
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD RELEASED 
TO THE PUBLIC? 
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
I WOULD SAY IT IS INFORMED 
SPECULATION THAT THE FOLKS THAT 
PRODUCED THESE TRANSCRIPTS TO 
THE BEST THEY CAN. 
AND, THEY JUST DIDN'T CATCH THE 
WORD. 
THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO 
THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS 
POSSIBLE. 
THAT IS WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO 
BY PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN, 
BECAUSE IT WAS IN MY NOSE. 
>> COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED IN 
YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU FOUND 
IT STRIKING THAT ZELENSKY WOULD 
BRING UP BARISMA  THAT IT 
INDICATED TO YOU HE HAD BEEN 
PREPPED FOR THE CALL, TO EXPECT 
THIS ISSUE TO COME UP. 
WHAT LED YOU TO THAT 
CONCLUSION? 
>> IT SEEMED UNLIKELY HE WOULD 
BE FAMILIAR WITH A SINGLE 
COMPANY IN THE CONTEXT OF A 
IT SEEMED TO ME THAT HE WAS 
EITHER TRACKING THIS ISSUE 
BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PRESS OR 
HE WAS OTHERWISE PREPPED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. 
YOU BOTH WERE SITTING IN THE 
SITUATION ARE PROBABLY NOT TOO 
MUCH FURTHER AWAY FROM WHERE 
YOU ARE RIGHT NOW, AND YOU WERE 
PREPARING FOR A LONG-AWAITED 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY. 
NOW IN ADVANCE OF THE PHONE 
CALL, DID YOU PREPARE TALKING 
POINTS? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> WHAT WERE THE TALKING POINTS 
BASED UPON? 
>> THIS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC 
RECORD AND I CAN'T COMMENT TOO 
DEEPLY, BUT THE AREAS THAT WE 
HAVE CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT 
IN PUBLIC, COOPERATION ON 
SUPPORTING THE REFORM AGENDA 
AND ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS AND 
HELPING PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY IMPLEMENT HIS PLANS TO 
BRING AN END TO THE RUSSIAN WAR 
AGAINST UKRAINE. 
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE 
BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IS THERE A PROCESS TO 
DETERMINE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. 
>> MY JOB IS TO COORDINATE U.S. 
POLICY. 
SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING 
YEAR THAT I HAD BEEN ON STAFF, 
I HAD UNDERTAKEN AN EFFORT TO 
MAKE SURE WE HAD A COHESIVE AND 
COHERENT ADDRESS POLICY. 
>> DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FOLLOWING 
THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? 
>> THE PRESIDENT COULD CHOOSE TO
USE THE TALKING POINTS OR NOT, 
HE IS THE PRESIDENT, BUT THEY 
WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I 
PROVIDED. 
>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT A 
COUPLE OF EXCERPTS FROM THIS 
CALL. 
AND RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY THANKED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE UNITED 
STATES SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF 
DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS 
HIM FOR A FAVOR AND THEN RAISES 
THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
HE SAYS IN THE HIGHLIGHTED 
PORTION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO 
US A FAVOR, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY 
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND 
UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. 
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. 
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. 
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 
WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER, 
THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. 
NOW, WAS THIS STATEMENT BASED 
ON THE OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS 
THAT YOU HAD PREPARED? 
>> NO. 
>> AND WAS THIS STATEMENT 
RELATED TO THE 2016 UKRAINE 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION PART OF THE OFFICIAL 
U.S. POLICY? 
>> NO. 
IT WAS NOT. 
>> AT THE TIME OF THIS JULY 25 
CALL, WERE YOU AWARE OF A THEORY
THAT UKRAINE HAD INTERVENED OR 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. 
ELECTION? 
>> I WAS. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT 
THIS THEORY? 
>> I AM NOT. 
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT 
VLADIMIR PUTIN HAD PROMOTED 
THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION? 
>> I AM WELL AWARE OF THAT 
FACT. 
>> AN OLD MOVIE, WHICH COUNTRY 
DID U.S. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES 
DETERMINE TO HAVE INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION? 
>> IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE 
ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN 
U.S. ELECTIONS IN 2016. 
>> LET'S GO TO ANOTHER EXCERPT 
FROM THIS CALL WHERE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL COMPONENT, OPPONENT, 
JOE BIDEN. 
ANOTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF 
TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON AND THAT 
BY AND STOP THE PROSECUTION. 
WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
HE WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE 
STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF 
YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT? 
IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME, HE 
SAID. 
>> AGAIN, COLONEL VINDMAN, WAS 
THIS INCLUDED IN TALKING 
POINTS? 
>> IT WAS NOT. 
>> IS SUCH A REQUEST TO 
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT CONSISTENT WITH 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? 
IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
POLICY AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OR 
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION 
THAT VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
DID SOMETHING WRONG OR AGAINST 
U.S. POLICY WITH REGARD TO 
UKRAINE? 
>> I AM NOT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU 
FAMILIAR WITH ANY CREDIBLE 
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY 
AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN? 
>> NO, I AM NOT. 
NOW MS. WILLIAMS, PRIOR TO THE 
JULY 25 CALL, APPROXIMATELY HOW 
MANY CALLS BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE OF STATES AND 
FOREIGN LEADERS HAD YOU LISTEN 
TO? 
>> I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY ONE 
DOZEN. 
>> HAD YOU EVER HEARD A CALL 
LIKE THIS? 
>> AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I 
BELIEVE WHAT I FOUND UNUSUAL OR 
DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CALL WAS 
THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE TO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AND 
THAT STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT 
THAN OTHER CALLS I HAD LISTENED 
TO. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL IN 
NATURE, WHY DID YOU THINK THAT? 
>> I THOUGHT THAT THE 
REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC 
INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIONS 
SUCH AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON STRUCK ME 
AS POLITICAL IN NATURE GIVEN 
THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> SO YOU THOUGHT THAT IT COULD 
POTENTIALLY BE DESIGNED TO 
ASSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
REELECTION EFFORT? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION WAS AND 
REFERENCING IT, BUT I JUST 
NOTED THAT THE REFERENCE TO JOE 
BIDEN SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME. 
>> COLONEL, YOU SAID IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE 
A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THE 
POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS. 
FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE NOT 
ROCKET SCIENTISTS, CAN YOU 
EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT? 
>> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 
THE CONNECTION TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER. 
I MADE THAT CONNECTION AS SOON 
AS THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE 
JOE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM PRESENT
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WOULD BE 
CONSIDERED AS A DEMAND TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AFTER THIS 
CALL, DID YOU EVER HEAR FROM 
ANY UKRAINIANS EITHER IN THE 
UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE ABOUT 
ANY PRESSURE THAT THEY FELT TO 
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED? 
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
WITH OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY 
HERE, THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN 
WASHINGTON DC? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS IT ALL, THE 
DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ALL AT 
ANY POINT THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, IN THE AUGUST 
TIME FRAME, THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY STARTED TO BECOME AWARE 
OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND THEY WERE ASKING 
IF I HAD ANY COMMENT ON THAT OR 
IF I COULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT. 
>> THAT WAS BEFORE IT BECAME 
PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> AND WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? 
>> I BELIEVE I SAID, I DON'T 
RECALL, FRANKLY. 
I DON'T RECALL WHAT I SAID, BUT 
I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN 
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, 
I'M NOT AWARE OF IT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT ONE OF 
YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE REQUEST 
FOR INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO 
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS WAS THAT 
UKRAINE MAY LOSE BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT, WHY WAS THAT A CONCERN 
OF YOURS? 
>> UKRAINE IS IN A WAR WITH 
RUSSIA, AND THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE 
UKRAINE IS SIGNIFICANT. 
ABSENT THAT SECURITY SYSTEMS 
AND MAYBE EVEN MORE PORTLY, THE 
SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN 
SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY THAT WOULD LIKELY 
ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO PURSUE, 
POTENTIALLY ASKING TO PURSUE 
FURTHER AGGRESSION UNDERMINING, 
FURTHER UNDERMINING UKRAINIAN 
SOVEREIGNTY, EUROPEAN SECURITY, 
AND U.S. SECURITY. 
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE 
IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON UNITED 
STATES SUPPORT BOTH 
DIPLOMATICALLY OR FINANCIALLY, 
AND ALSO MILITARILY? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT 
LANGUAGES DO YOU SPEAK? 
>> I SPEAK RUSSIAN AND 
UKRAINIAN AND A LITTLE BIT OF 
ENGLISH. 
>> DO YOU RECALL WHAT LANGUAGE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE ON 
THIS JULY 25 PHONE CALL? 
>> I KNOW THAT HE MADE A 
VALIANT EFFORT TO SPEAK ENGLISH 
AND HAD BEEN PRACTICING UP HIS 
ENGLISH, BUT HE ALSO SPOKE 
UKRAINIAN. 
>> I WANT TO LOOK AT THE THIRD 
EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25 CALL. 
AND CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF 
ADDRESSED THIS WITH YOU IN HIS 
QUESTIONING. 
AND YOU SEE IN THE HIGHLIGHTED 
PORTION, IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY 
TO THE COMPANY THAT YOU 
MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE, IS 
THAT THE PORTION OF THE CALL 
RECORD THAT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
ACTUALLY SAID BURISMA? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER 
THAT HIS USE OF OR HIS 
UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED THE 
BIDENS, THAT IT REFERRED TO THE 
COMPANY, BURISMA, IT SOUNDED TO 
YOU LIKE HE WAS PREPPED OR 
PREPARING FOR THIS CALL, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
I WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE 
IF WE COULD. 
IT IS ACTUALLY A TEXT MESSAGE 
THAT NEITHER OF YOU IS ON, BUT 
THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER TO ANDRE YOUR MOCK AND 
WHO IS THAT? 
>> HE IS THE SENIOR ADVISOR 
WITHIN THE PRESIDENTIAL 
ADMINISTRATION, UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENTIAL MINISTRATION, 
SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
>> THIS TEXT MESSAGES LESS THAN 
A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL ON 
JULY 25.  
AND SINCE NEITHER OF YOU WERE 
ON IT, I WILL READ IT. 
IT SAYS FROM AMBASSADOR 
VOELKER, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, 
HEARD FROM WHITEHOUSE. 
ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES 
TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, GET 
TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, 
UNQUOTE, IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL 
DOWN A DATE FOR A VISIT TO 
WASHINGTON. 
GOOD LUCK, SEE YOU TOMORROW, 
KURT. 
IS THIS THE SORT OF THING THAT 
YOU ARE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU 
SAY THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE 
PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY 
WAS PREPARED FOR THE CALL? 
>> THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT, 
YES. 
>> NOW TURNING TO THE FOURTH 
EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25 CALL 
WHERE UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY LINKS THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTS, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, I ALSO 
WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED 
STATES, SPECIFICALLY, 
WASHINGTON DC.  
ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO 
WANTED TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE 
WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE 
CASE AND WE WILL WORK ON THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHEN HE SAYS ON THE OTHER HAND, 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE IS 
ACKNOWLEDGING A LINKAGE BETWEEN 
THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT HE 
MENTIONS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE 
AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE 
MENTIONS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE?
>> IT COULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY, 
BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I, IT SEEMS 
LIKE A REASONABLE CONCLUSION. 
>> IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT 
WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 
TEXT MESSAGE THAT KURT VOLKER 
SENT TO ANDRE YOUR MOCK BEFORE 
THE CALL. 
>> SEEMINGLY SO. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT A WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> THE SHOW OF SUPPORT, STILL A 
BRAND-NEW PRESIDENT, FRANKLY A 
NEW POLITICIAN ON THE UKRAINIAN 
POLITICAL SCENE LOOKING TO 
ESTABLISH HIS BONA FIDES AT AS 
A REGIONAL OR WORLD LEADER 
WOULD WANT TO HAVE A MEETING 
WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE 
MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE 
WORLD, AND UKRAINE'S MOST 
SIGNIFICANT BENEFACTOR IN ORDER 
TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT HIS 
AGENDA. 
>> IT WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH 
LEGITIMATE, SOME POTENTIAL 
LEGITIMACY AT HOME? 
>> YES. 
>> JUST TO SUMMARIZE IN THE 
JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DEMANDED A FAVOR OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT BOTH OF YOU 
ACKNOWLEDGE WERE FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST. 
AND IN RETURN FOR HIS PROMISE 
OF A MUCH DESIRED WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
IS THAT AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF 
THE EXCERPTS THAT WE JUST 
LOOKED AT? 
>> YES. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU IMMEDIATELY REPORTED 
THIS CALL TO THE NSC LAWYERS, 
WHY DID YOU DO THAT? 
>> SO AT THIS POINT, I HAD 
ALREADY BEEN TRACKING THIS 
INITIALLY, WHAT I WOULD 
DESCRIBE AS ALTERNATIVE 
ARRATIVE, FALSE NARRATIVE, AND 
I WAS CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE 
FACT THAT IT WAS STARTING TO 
REVERBERATE AND GAIN TRACTION, 
THE FACT THAT IT, IN THE JULY 
10 CALL, ENDED UP BEING 
PRONOUNCED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
, AMBASSADOR SOMNOLENT HAD ME 
ALERTED TO THIS, AND I WAS 
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT REPORT, I 
WAS INVITED TO FOLLOW UP WITH 
ANY OTHER CONCERNS TO MR. 
EISENBERG. 
>> WE WILL DISCUSS THE JULY 10 
MEETING IN A MOMENT, BUT WHEN 
YOU SAY ALTERNATIVE FALSE 
NARRATIVES, ARE YOU REFERRING 
TO THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED IN 
THE CALL? 
>> YES. 
>> AT SOME POINT, DID YOU ALSO 
DISCUSS HOW THE WRITTEN SUMMARY 
OF THE CALL RECORDS SHOULD BE 
HANDLED WITH THE NSC LAWYERS? 
>> FOLLOWING REPORT, THERE WAS 
A DISCUSSION IN THE LEGAL SHOP 
ON THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE THE 
TRANSCRIPT. 
YES. 
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE 
CONCLUDED? 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 
THIS WAS VIEWED AS A SENSITIVE 
TRANSCRIPT AND TO AVOID LEAKS 
AND IF I RECALL THE TERM 
PROPERLY, SOMETHING ALONG THE 
LINES OF PRESERVED INTEGRITY OF 
THE TRANSCRIPT, IT SHOULD BE 
SEGREGATED TO A SMALLER GROUP 
OF FOLKS. 
>> TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE TRANSFER, WHAT DID THAT 
MEAN? 
>> I'M NOT SURE I MEAN, IT 
SEEMS LIKE A LEGAL TERM, I'M 
NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I DIDN'T 
TAKE IT AS ANYTHING NEFARIOUS. 
I JUST UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY 
WANTED TO KEEP IT IN A SMALLER 
GROUP. 
>> IF THERE IS REALLY JUST IN 
PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT, DON'T YOU THINK 
THEY WOULD'VE ACCEPTED YOUR 
CORRECTION THAT BURISMA 
SHOULD'VE BEEN INCLUDED? 
>> NOT NECESSARILY. 
THE WAY THESE EDITS OCCUR, THEY 
GO THROUGH, LIKE EVERYTHING 
ELSE, AND APPROVAL PROCESS, I 
MADE MY CONTRIBUTION, IT WAS 
CLEARED BY MR. MORRISON. AND 
THEN WHEN I RETURNED IT 
COMMUNIST, SOMETIMES THAT 
DOESN'T HAPPEN. 
THERE ARE ADMINISTERED OF 
ERRORS. 
I THINK IN THIS CASE, I DIDN'T 
SEE, WHEN I FIRST SAW THE 
TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT THE TWO 
SUBSTANDARD ITEMS THAT I TEND 
TO CONCLUDE, I DIDN'T SEE IT AS 
NEFARIOUS, JUST THOUGHT IS 
OKAY, NO BIG DEAL. THESE MIGHT 
BE MEANINGFUL, BUT IT'S NOT 
THAT BIG A DEAL. 
>> YOU SAID TWO SUBSTANTIVE 
ISSUES, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? 
>> THERE WAS A REFERENCE IN A 
SECTION, ONE SECOND. 
ON PAGE 4, THE TOP PARAGRAPH, 
LET ME FIND THE RIGHT SPOT. 
OKAY. 
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT,&, THERE 
ARE VIDEOS IF I RECALL OR 
RECORDINGS, RECORDINGS. 
>> INSTEAD OF AN ELLIPSES, IT 
SHOULD'VE SAID TO WHAT YOU HEARD
THAT THERE ARE RECORDINGS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU ULTIMATELY LEARN 
WHERE THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT? 
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS 
BEING SEGREGATED INTO A 
SEPARATE SYSTEM, SEPARATE 
SECURE SYSTEM. 
>> WHY WOULD IT BE PUT ON A 
SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM? 
>> THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT 
UNPRECEDENTED, BUT AT TIMES, IF 
YOU WANT TO LIMIT ACCESS TO A 
SMALLER GROUP OF FOLKS, YOU PUT 
IT ON THE SECURE SYSTEM TO 
ENSURE THAT A SMALLER GROUP OF 
PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO THE 
SECURE SYSTEM HAVE IT. 
>> AND YOU ALSO LIMIT THE 
NUMBER PEOPLE WHO CAN ACCESS IT 
ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM? 
>> YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT TO THE 
BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THE 
DECISION WAS MADE FRANKLY ON-
THE-FLY. 
AFTER THE FACT, AFTER I 
CONVEYED MY CONCERNS TO MR. 
EISENBERG, MR. ELLIS CAME IN 
AND HE HAD IN HER THE ENTIRE 
CONVERSATION, AND WHEN IT WAS 
MENTIONED THAT IT WAS 
SENSITIVE, IT WAS KIND OF AN ON-
THE-FLY DECISION TO JUST 
SEGREGATE IN THIS OTHER SYSTEM. 
>> MR. EISENBERG AND MR. ELLIS 
ARE THE NSC LAWYERS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> BUT IT WAS YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS NOT A 
MISTAKE TO PUT ON THE HIGHLY 
CLASSIFIED SYSTEM, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
>> WAS IT INTENDED TO BE PUT ON 
THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM BY 
THE LAWYERS? 
OR WAS IT A MISTAKE THAT IT WAS 
PUT THERE? 
>> I THINK IT WAS INTENDED, BUT 
AGAIN, IT WAS INTENDED TO 
PREVENT LEAKS AND TO LIMIT 
ACCESS. 
>> NOW YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THE 
APRIL 21 CALL A LITTLE EARLIER. 
AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
INDICATED THAT YOU DID INCLUDE 
IN YOUR TALKING POINTS, THE 
IDEA OF UKRAINE ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION. 
BUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
NOT MENTION CORRUPTION. 
I WANT TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
READOUT FROM TABLE 21st CALL, 
AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE 
WHOLE THING, BUT YOU SEE THE 
HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WHERE IT 
SAYS ROOT OUT CORRUPTION? 
>> YES. 
>> SO IN THE END, THIS READOUT 
WAS FALSE, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> MAYBE THAT IS A BIT OF A, IT 
IS NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE. BUT 
I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD 
DESCRIBE IT AS FALSE. 
IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY, AND THESE ITEMS ARE 
USED AS MESSAGING TOOLS. 
SO A STATEMENT THAT GOES OUT, 
IN ADDITION TO READING OUT THE 
MEETING ITSELF, IS ALSO A 
MESSAGING PLATFORM TO INDICATE 
WHAT IS IMPORTANT WITH REGARDS 
TO U.S. POLICY. 
>> SO IT IS A PART OF U.S. 
OFFICIAL POLICY THAT UKRAINE 
SHOULD ROOT OUT CORRUPTION EVEN 
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
MENTION IT IN THE APRIL 21 
PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CERTAINLY. 
>> AND HE DIDN'T MENTION IT IN 
THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS 
INCLUDED IN HIS TALKING POINTS 
FOR THE APRIL 21 CALL AND 
PRESUMABLY EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN 
TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE JULY 21 
CALL, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN 
EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> FOR THE APRIL 21 CALL? 
>> YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT IN 
EITHER. 
>> CORRECT. 
SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS NOW 
THAT HE HELD UP SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE BECAUSE HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THAT 
CONCERN WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN 
THE TWO PHONE CONVERSATIONS 
THAT HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY EARLIER THIS 
YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> NOW MS. WILLIAMS, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT, EARLIER, THAT 
AFTER THE APRIL 21 CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO ATTEND 
THE INAUGURATION, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT ON MAY 13, YOU WERE 
JUST INFORMED BY THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF'S OFFICE THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE SHOULD 
NOT, WOULD NOT BE GOING AS PER 
REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS INFORMED. 
>> AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAD 
CHANGED FROM APRIL 21 TO MAY 
13, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> NOT IN TERMS OF THAT 
DECISION. 
>> WELL, COLONEL VINDMAN, SINCE 
YOU IN PARTICULAR, A LITTLE BIT 
MORE PERHAPS THAN MS. WILLIAMS 
WHO HAS A BROADER PORTFOLIO, 
FOCUSES ON UKRAINE, I WANT TO 
ASK YOU IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE 
FOLLOWING THINGS THAT HAPPENED 
FROM APRIL 21 TO MAY 13. 
WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS ABRUPTLY 
RECALLED FROM UKRAINE IN THAT 
TIME? 
>> YES. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THE OCEAN 
>> I'M SORRY, TO CORRECT IT, 
SHE WAS RECALL PRIOR, LET ME SEE
, THE NOTIFICATION OCCURRED 
TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL AND 
SHE WAS FINALLY RECALLED IN THE 
MAY TIMEFRAME IF I RECALL 
CORRECTLY. 
>> SO SHE LEARNED ABOUT IT ON 
APRIL 24, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THE PRISON 
TRUMP HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT BOUDIN DURING THIS 
TIME PERIOD IN EARLY MAY? 
>> I WAS. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI PLANNED A TRIP TO GO 
TO UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE 
UKRAINIANS TO INITIATE THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25 
CALL IN THIS TIME PERIOD? 
>> I WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS 
TRAVELING AND THAT HE HAD BEEN 
PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> I WANT TO MOVE NOW TO THE 
JULY 10 MEETING THAT YOU 
REFERENCED, COLONEL VINDMAN. 
WHAT EXACTLY DID AMBASSADOR 
SANDLIN SAY WHEN THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS RAISED THE IDEA OF A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING? 
>> AS I RECALL, HE REFERRED TO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO 
DELIVER IN ORDER TO GET THESE 
MEETINGS. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BROADER 
MEETING AFTER HE MADE THE 
REFERENCE? 
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON VERY 
ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON ABOUT THIS MEETING? 
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU FOLLOW AMBASSADOR 
SUNLIGHT AND THE OTHERS TO THE 
WARDROOM FOR A MEETING FOLLOW 
UP? 
>> THERE WAS A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
THAT WE LEVERAGED IN ORDER TO 
DEMONSTRATE U.S. SUPPORT, SO 
THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
DEMONSTRATING U.S. SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE AND THE NEW NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR WHO IS A 
TECHNOCRAT AND AFTER THAT, WE 
WENT DOWN TO A SHORT POST 
MEETING DEBRIEF. 
>> FOR THIS SPECIFIC REFERENCE 
BY SOMEONE DISCUSSED IN THE 
WARDROOM MEETING? 
>> THEY WERE. 
>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SAW 
GLENN SAY? 
>> HE REFERRED TO 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
AND BURISMA IN 2016. 
>> HOW DID YOU RESPOND IF AT 
ALL? 
>> I SAID THAT THIS REQUEST TO 
CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
THERE INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD 
NOTHING TO DO WITH INITIALS 30 
POLICY. 
>> WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTER IN 
THIS AS WELL? 
>> I BELIEVE HE WAS THERE FOR A 
PORTION OF THE TIME, BUT I 
DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS THERE 
FOR THE WHOLE MEETING. 
>> WAS THIS STATEMENT MADE IN 
FRONT OF THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS? 
>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME 
DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE 
UKRAINIANS LEAVING WHEN IT WAS 
APPARENT THERE WAS SOME DISCORD 
BETWEEN THE SENIOR FOLKS, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHER 
WHITE HOUSE STAFF, MYSELF, THEY 
WERE ASKED TO STEP OUT, SO I 
DON'T RECALL IF THEY WERE THERE 
FOR THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION. 
>> THE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF 
YOU REFER TO, IS THAT INCLUDING 
FIONA HILL, THE IMMEDIATE 
SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU SAID YOU ALSO REPORTED 
THIS INCIDENT TO THE NSC 
LAWYERS, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE? 
>> JOHN EISENBERG SAID THAT HE 
TOOK NOTES WHILE I WAS TALKING, 
AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD LOOK 
INTO IT. 
>> WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS 
MEETING AND THIS CONVERSATION 
TO THE NSC LAWYERS? 
>> BECAUSE IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE, AND FOLLOWING 
THE MEETING, I HAD A SHORT 
CONVERSATION FOLLOWING THE POST 
MEETING MEETING IN THE WARDROOM 
AND I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION 
WITH DOCTOR HILL, AND WE 
DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF NEEDING 
TO REPORT THIS. 
>> SO AM I CORRECT, COLONEL 
VINDMAN THAT AT LEAST NO LATER 
THAN THAT JULY 10 MEETING, THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD UNDERSTOOD OR AT 
LEAST HEARD THAT THE OVAL 
OFFICE MEETING THAT THEY SO 
DESPERATELY WANTED WAS 
CONDITIONED ON THE SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND 
THE 2016 ELECTION? 
>> THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I 
WAS AWARE OF THE UKRAINIANS 
BEING APPROACHED DIRECTLY BY A 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. 
>> AND DIRECTLY LINKING THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT 
THAT YOU ATTENDED THE SEPTEMBER 
1 MEETING BETWEEN VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED  
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE ABOUT 
AT THE MEETING? 
>> HE ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT THE STATUS OF SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE, BECAUSE 
HE HAD SEEN THE POLITICAL 
ARTICLE AND OTHER NEWS 
REPORTING THAT THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT IN THE 
CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMY ZELENSKY EMPHASIZED 
THAT THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT 
JUST IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE
IN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST 
RUSSIA, BUT THAT IT WAS ALSO 
SYMBOLIC IN NATURE? 
WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO 
MEAN BY THAT? 
>> RESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED 
THAT EQUALLY WITH THE FINANCIAL 
AND PHYSICAL VALUE OF THE 
ASSISTANCE THAT IT WAS THE 
SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THAT 
ASSISTANCE THAT REALLY WAS THE 
SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE
AND FOR UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY 
AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. 
AND I THINK HE WAS STRESSING 
THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO 
REALLY THE NEED FOR THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE 
RELEASED. 
>> AND IF THE UNITED STATES WAS 
HOLDING THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, IS IT ALSO TRUE 
THEN THAT RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT 
AS A SIGN OF WEAKENING U.S. 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF THAT? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
úINDICATING. 
THAT ANY SIGNAL OR SIGN  THAT 
U.S. SUPPORT WAS WAVERING WOULD 
BE CONSTRUED BY RUSSIA AS 
POTENTIALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 
THEM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN 
HAND IN UKRAINE. 
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
PENCE PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE 
HOLD ON 60 ASSISTANCE TO THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THE 
MEETING? 
>> THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON 
BEHIND THE HOLD, BUT HE DID 
REASSURE PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY OF THE STRONGEST U.S. 
UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE 
AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NEED 
FOR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO STEP 
UP AND PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE 
TO UKRAINE AS WELL. 
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
PENCE REPORT BACK ON THE 
MEETING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? 
>> THE VICE PRESIDENT CONVEYED 
TO PRESIDENT FOR A ZELENSKY 
THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH 
PRESIDENT OF THAT EVENING AND 
CONVEY WHAT HE HAD HEARD FROM 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH REGARD 
TO HIS EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT 
REFORMS IN UKRAINE. I'M AWARE 
THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT SPOKE 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT 
EVENING, BUT I WAS NOT PRIVY TO 
THE CONVERSATION. 
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE HOWEVER 
THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HOLD WAS NOT LIFTED FOR ANOTHER 
10 DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND AM I CORRECT THAT YOU 
DIDN'T LEARN THE REASON WHY THE 
HOLD WAS LIFTED? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU DIDN'T 
LEARN A REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU 
AWARE THAT THEY LAUNCHED AN 
INVESTIGATION TWO DAYS BEFORE 
THE HOLD WAS LIFTED? 
>> I AM AWARE, AND I WAS AWARE. 
>> AND ON SEPTEMBER 10, THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
REQUESTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ARE YOU 
AWARE OF THAT? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS AWARE 
OF THAT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT PRIOR 
TO THE DATE? 
>> THE FIRST I HEARD OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IS, I 
BELIEVE WHEN THE NEWS BROKE, I 
WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE 
COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATING THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
>> SO IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY, 
COLONEL VINDMAN, THAT WHATEVER 
REASON THERE WAS PROVIDED FOR 
THE HOLD, INCLUDING THE 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, WHICH 
WELL, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE 
HOLD, OR SUPPORT THE SECURITY 
SYSTEMS, IS THAT RIGHT, TO YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING? 
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND THAT. 
>> IS ASKING, THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES OF 
PRESENT DRUM SUPPORTED THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT 
YOUR UNDERSTANDING? 
>> SO THE INTERAGENCY POLICY 
WAS TO SUPPORT SECURITY 
DECISIONS FOR UKRAINE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> NOW RECOGNIZING NUNEZ FOR 45 
MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
WELCOME. 
I WANT TO JUST ESTABLISH A FEW 
BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE
, UKRAINE, BURISMA, AND THE 
ROLE OF THE BIDENS. 
YOU SPENT AN EXTRAORDINARY 
AMOUNT OF TIME ON UKRAINE, 
CORRECT? 
>> UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE 
COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. 
I WOULD NOT SAY AN 
EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME, 
BUT CERTAINLY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED ON 
UKRAINE POLICY QUITE A BIT IN 
MY EIGHT MONTHS. 
>> AND IT IS IN YOUR PORTFOLIO? 
>> FIRST OFF, WERE YOU AWARE IN 
SEPTEMBER 2015 THEN U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, JEFFREY 
PIATT CALLED PUBLICLY FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO SLOTS 
CHESKY, THE PRESIDENT OF 
BURISMA, WERE YOU AWARE OF 
THESE PUBLIC STATEMENTS? 
>> YOU ARE AWARE TODAY? 
>> I HAVE HEARD THEM, YES. 
>> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP 
EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS AS WELL AS ALEXANDER 
LUPO, THE DNC CONSULTANT? 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
STATE KENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
IN THE HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON 
THE BOARD OF BURISMA? 
>> I DO NOT WORK ON UKRAINE 
POLICY DURING THE TIMEFRAME. 
I'VE BECOME AWARE OF IT. 
>> IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO? 
>> I BECOME AWARE OF IT THROUGH 
MR. KENT'S TESTIMONY THROUGH 
THE PROCESS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL 
RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN 
NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN BURISMA 
ROUTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO 
U.S. COUNTS TIED TO HUNTER 
BIDEN? 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> UNTIL -- 
>> UNTIL YOU PREPARE FOR THIS 
HEARING? 
>> UNTIL OTHERS HAVE BEEN 
TESTIFYING IN MORE DETAIL ON 
THOSE ISSUES. 
>> YOU BEEN FOLLOWING IT MORE 
CLOSELY? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S 
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH 
UKRAINE OFFICIALS DAYS AFTER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE 
FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR? 
>> AGAIN, I WAS NOT WORKING ON 
UKRAINE POLICY DURING THAT 
TIME. 
>> NONE OF THESE ARE TRICK 
QUESTIONS, I'M JUST TRYING TO 
GET TO THEM. 
>> I UNDERSTAND. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA 
LAWYERS PRESSURE THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 
AFTER THE NIGHT, AFTER THE RAID 
AND AFTER THE FIRING OF SCHOLL, 
AND THAT THEY INVOKED HUNTER 
BIDEN'S NAME AS A REASON TO 
INTERVENE? 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN 
CALLED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
FORTUNE GO AT LEAST THREE TIMES 
IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF 
BURISMA'S HOME WAS RAIDED EVERY 
SECOND BY THE STATE 
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE? 
>> NOT AT THE TIME, AGAIN, 
BECOME AWARE OF THAT THROUGH 
THIS PROCEEDING. 
>> THANK YOU. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS.
JUST TO ESTABLISH SOME BASIC 
FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE 
ABOUT UKRAINE AND BURISMA AND 
THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS. 
IN SEPTEMBER 2015, U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE JEFFREY 
PIATT OFFICIALLY CALLED FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
PRESIDENT OF BURISMA. 
WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS? 
>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THEM AT 
THE TIME. 
>> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF 
THEM? 
>> DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITIONS BEGAN.
DID YOU KNOW OF EFFORTS BY 
ALEXANDER CHOPRA AND VARIOUS 
AGENTS? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF 
THESE INTERFERENCE EFFORTS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT DEBBIE 
ASSISTANCE KENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT
HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA? 
>> THE ONLY THING I'M AWARE OF 
IS, IT PERTAINS TO HIS 
DEPOSITION. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL 
RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN 
NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND BURISMA 
ROUTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO 
THE AMERICAN ACCOUNTS TIED TO 
HUNTER BIDEN? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS FACT. 
>> UNTIL RECENTLY? 
>> I GUESS I DIDN'T 
INDEPENDENTLY LOOK INTO IT. 
I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF WHAT KIND 
OF PAYMENTS HE MAY HAVE 
RECEIVED. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT THE LEGAL 
REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS JUST DAYS 
AFTER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF 
PROSECUTOR? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THESE 
MEETINGS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA 
LAWYERS PRESSURED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2013 
AFTER A RATE AND A MONTH BEFORE 
THE FIRING OF SPOKEN THAT THEY 
INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN NAME AS A 
REASON TO INTERVENE? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF 
THESE FACTS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN 
CALLED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN 
FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF 
BURISMA'S HOME WAS RAIDED BY 
STATE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE? 
>> I'M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT 
PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN WAS ENGAGED ON UKRAINE 
AND HAD NUMEROUS ENGAGEMENTS. 
THAT'S WHAT I'M AWARE OF. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, AS YOU MAY OR 
MAY NOT KNOW, THIS COMMITTEE 
SPENT NEARLY 3 YEARS CONDUCTING 
VARIOUS INVESTIGATION STARTING 
WITH THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX, 
PFIZER ABUSE, DEMOCRATIC 
HYSTERIA OVER THE LACK OF 
COLLUSION AND THE LACK OF THE 
MUELLER REPORT AND THIS 
IMPEACHMENT CHARADE? 
ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING 
THINGS REGARDING THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS IS THE AMOUNT OF 
CLASSIFIED OR OTHERWISE 
SENSITIVE INFORMATION I READ IN 
THE PRESS THAT DERIVES EITHER 
FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR SOURCES 
IN THE ADMINISTRATION. 
TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT ACCUSING 
EITHER ONE OF YOU OF LEAKING 
INFORMATION, BUT GIVEN THAT YOU 
ARE THE FIRST WITNESSES WHO 
ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FIRST-HAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CALL BY LISTENING IN ON JULY 
25, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDING 
OF THE EVENTS THAT WE GET A 
QUICK FEW MATTERS OUT OF THE 
WAY FIRST. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, LET ME GO TO 
YOU FIRST. 
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, I'M ONLY 
ASKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD 
BETWEEN, FROM JULY 25 TO 
SEPTEMBER 25. 
>> OKAY. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR 
ANY MATTERS WITH THE PHONE CALL 
WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS? 
>> NO. 
>> TO BE CLEAR, YOU NEVER 
DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH THE 
NEW YORK TIMES OR WASHINGTON 
POST OR POLITICO, CNN, OR ANY 
OTHER MEDIA OUTLET? 
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY 
INDIVIDUAL TO SHARE THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER 
OF THE PRESS? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY 
INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL OR MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH 
THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE 
PRESS? 
>> I DO NOT. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
THE SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR 
ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF 
THE PRESS? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DO NOT 
DISCUSS THIS WITH THE NEW YORK 
TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, 
POLITICO, CNN, OR ANY OTHER 
MEDIA OUTLET? 
>> I DO NOT. 
>> DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY 
INDIVIDUAL TO SHARE THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH EVERY, 
ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY 
INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER 
OF THE PRESS? 
>> WE HAVE AN NSC PRESS SHOP, 
AND THEY FEEL THAT ANY OF THESE 
TYPES OF QUESTIONS. 
I DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE PRESS 
AT ALL. 
>> LET ME ASK THE QUESTION 
AGAIN. 
DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL 
WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF 
THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY 
MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL 
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? 
>> WE HAVE AN NSC PRESS SHOP 
WHOSE JOB IS TO ENGAGE ON ANY 
OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. 
I'M NOT AWARE, BUT IT IS 
POSSIBLE AND LIKELY THAT THE 
PRESS SHOP WOULD FEEL THESE 
TYPES OF QUESTIONS. 
>> THE QUESTION IS. 
>> THE YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION 
IS DO YOU KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL, 
DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW ANY 
INDIVIDUAL THAT DISCUSSED THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH ANY 
MEMBER OF THE PRESS? 
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. 
I DO NOT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU DISCUSS
JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE 
OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 
25 OR JULY 26? 
AND IF SO, WITH WHOM. 
>> I DO NOT DISCUSS THE CALL 
WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE 
THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DURING YOUR 
TIME ON THE NSC, HAVE YOU EVER 
ACCESSED A COLLEAGUE'S WORK 
COMPUTER WITHOUT PRIOR 
AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL? 
>> I HAVE NOT, AND JUST TO 
CLARIFY, I'M IN THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT, SO NOT ON 
THE NSC. 
>> BUT REPRESENTING THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE 
CLARIFICATION. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
DO YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 20 THE 
PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE 
THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25 OR 
THE 26th? 
AND IF SO, WITH WHOM? 
>> I DID. 
MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO 
COORDINATE U.S. GOVERNMENT 
POLICY, INTERAGENCY POLICY, AND 
I SPOKE TO TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH 
REGARDS TO PROVIDING SOME SORT 
OF READOUT OF THE COLUMN. 
>> TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE 
NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? 
>> NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
CLEARED U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS WITH THE APPROPRIATE 
NEED TO KNOW. 
>> WHAT AGENCIES WERE THESE 
OFFICIALS WITH? 
>> THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT 
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 
PORTFOLIO, EASTERN EUROPE 
INCLUDING UKRAINE AND AN 
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE OFFICE, AN 
INDIVIDUAL IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY. 
>> WHAT, AS YOU KNOW, THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS 17 
DIFFERENT AGENCIES. 
WHAT AGENCY WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL 
FROM? 
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE, 
WE DON'T WANT TO USE THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
>> IT IS OUR TIME. 
>> WHAT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> PLEASE STOP. 
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THERE'S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER THROUGHOUT THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH 
BELIEF THAT THIS MAY REVEAL THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, 
THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT WE 
ARE HERE FOR, AND I WANT TO 
ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY. 
>> MR. VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED 
IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID 
NOT KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> RANKING MEMBER, IT IS 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU TESTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION 
THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS? 
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS. 
>> HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU 
TO NAME THESE PEOPLE AND THEN 
OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER? 
>> PER THE ADVICE OF MY 
COUNSEL, I'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT 
TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 
ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT 
IS CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING? 
>> OF COURSE I AM. 
>> WHAT AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
FOR YOU TO COME TO TO TESTIFY 
WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE ABOUT SOMEONE WITHIN 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY? 
>> RANKING MEMBER, PER THE 
ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL AND 
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, 
I'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO 
PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS ON WHO 
I'VE SPOKEN TO INSIDE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHAT I 
CAN OFFER IS THAT THESE WERE 
PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUALS OR 
WAS A PROPERLY CLEARED 
INDIVIDUAL WITH A NEED TO KNOW. 
>> THIS IS, I MEAN, YOU CAN 
PLEAD THE FIFTH, BUT YOU ARE 
HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND 
YOU ARE HERE UNDER SUBPOENA. 
SO YOU CAN EITHER ANSWER THE 
QUESTION OR YOU CAN PLEAD THE 
FIFTH. 
>> EXCUSE ME. ON BEHALF OF MY 
CLIENT, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE 
RULE OF THE COMMITTEE, THE RULE 
OF THE CHAIR WITH REGARD TO 
THIS ISSUE. 
AND THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR AN 
ANSWER THAT IS INVOKING THE 
FIFTH OR ANY THEORETICAL ISSUE 
LIKE THAT. 
WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULING OF 
THE CHAIR. 
>> COUNSELOR, WHAT RULING IS 
THAT? 
>> I COULD INTERJECT, COUNSEL 
IS CORRECT, THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
HAS THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO 
ANONYMITY. 
THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE 
USED TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> AND I HAVE ADVISED MY CLIENT 
ACCORDINGLY AND HE IS GOING TO 
FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. 
IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE OR 
YOU WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT 
WITH THE CHAIR, THAT IS UP TO 
YOU. 
>> WELL, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO 
SUBPOENA THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO 
SIT FOR A DEPOSITION, THE CHAIR 
HAS TABLED THE MOTION AND THAT 
HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE 
THE MOTIONS OVER THE LAST FEW 
DAYS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUISITION PROCESS, BUT THAT 
WILL GO TO MR. CASTRO. 
>> THANK YOU RANKING MEMBER 
NUNEZ. 
THE TRANSCRIPT AS PUBLISHED ON 
SEPTEMBER 25 IS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE. 
WILL BOTH OF YOU ATTEST TO THAT?
>> I DIDN'T TAKE A WORD FOR 
WORD ACCOUNTING. WHEN I FIRST 
SAW THE PUBLICLY RELEASED 
VERSION, IT LOOKED 
SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT ME. 
>> I THINK I CERTAINLY WOULD 
DESCRIBE IT AS SUBSTANTIVELY 
CORRECT. 
>> I THINK IN YOUR TESTIMONY OR 
DEPOSITION, YOU SAID VERY 
ACCURATE? 
>> CORRECT. 
AND YOU FLAG A COUPLE OF EDITS, 
COLONEL VINDMAN. 
I THINK YOU HAD BURISMA ON PAGE
, ON PAGE 4? 
>> WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
TALKING ABOUT THE COMPANY  
MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE? 
>> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY 
THAT QUESTION? 
>> OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, YOU 
EXPLAINED THAT YOU OFFERED AND 
EDIT THAT ON PAGE 4 OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT, IT WAS ULTIMATELY 
PUBLISHED, YOU THOUGHT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED 
THE WORD BURISMA? 
>> I HAD IN MY NOTES, I KNOW 
THAT THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. 
YES. 
>> AND THAT WAS ON PAGE 4, 
CORRECT? 
>> AND I BELIEVE AFTER YOUR 
DEPOSITION, YOU WENT BACK AND 
CHECKED YOUR NOTES AND YOU HAD 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY USING THE 
TERM  BURISMA AS WELL, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> BUT THAT CAME UP ON A 
DIFFERENT PART OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT THAN WHAT THE 
COLONEL WAS RELATING TO? 
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO. 
>> EWERS CAME UP ON PAGE 15 AND 
IT WOULD'VE BEEN IN 
SUBSTITUTION FOR THE WORD CASE? 
>> THAT IS WHERE I HAVE IT IN 
MY NOTES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, WE'VE HAD 
SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY 
AND ALSO YOUR DEPOSITION ABOUT 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD A 
DEMAND FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.  
AND I SUGGEST TO YOU IN THE 
DEPOSITION, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S WORDS ARE IN FACT, 
AMBIGUOUS. 
AND HE USES SOME PHRASES THAT 
CERTAINLY COULD BE CHARACTERIZED
AS HEDGING, ON PAGE 3 IN THE 
FIRST PARAGRAPH, HE TALKS ABOUT 
WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, HE TALKS 
ABOUT IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. ON 
PAGE 4, HE MENTIONS IF YOU 
COULD SPEAK TO HIM, TALK ABOUT 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR RUDY 
GIULIANI, AND THEN AT THE END 
OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 
4, HE SAYS WHATEVER YOU COULD 
DO AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS IF 
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, AND I 
ASKED YOU DURING THE DEPOSITION 
WHETHER YOU SAW OR ACKNOWLEDGE 
THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE 
COULD READ THAT TO BE AMBIGUOUS?
>> AND I SAID CORRECT. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID I 
THINK PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT 
THEY HAVE ALREADY PRECONCEIVED, 
IS THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED? 
>> ACTUALLY IF I COULD ASK FOR 
JUST A PAGE SITE? 
>> 256. 
>> JUST A MINUTE. 
>> JUST A MINUTE. 
OKAY. 
WE'VE GOT THE PAGE. 
>> THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY, 
YEAH, YOU AGREED WITH ME. 
HE SAID I GUESS YOU COULD 
INTERPRET IT IF IT WEIGHS, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> OKAY. 
TURNING THE ATTENTION TO THE 
PREPARATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, 
THAT FOLLOWED THE ORDINARY 
PROCESS, CORRECT? 
>> SO I THINK IT FOLLOWED THE 
APPROPRIATE PROCESS IN TERMS OF 
MAKING SURE THAT EVENTUALLY IT 
CAME AROUND FOR CLEARANCES FOR 
ACCURACY, BUT IT WAS IN A 
DIFFERENT SYSTEM, SO. 
>> I WILL GET TO THAT IN A 
SECOND. 
YOU HAD SOME CONCERNS, MR. 
MORRISON ARTICULATED HIS 
CONCERNS ABOUT IF THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS LEAKED OUT, AND 
I THINK BOTH YOU AND MR. 
MORRISON GREETED, AGREED THAT 
IT HAD TO BE PROTECTED? 
>> JUST A CORRECTION, I DON'T 
THINK IT WAS MR. MORRISON, IT 
WAS MR. EISENBERG, RIGHT? 
>> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED AT 
HIS DEPOSITION. 
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT 
OF US. 
IF YOU COULD GIVE US THAT, 
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK. 
>> I COULD SEE FOR MYSELF, 
THERE WERE, THE CONCERNS ABOUT 
LEAKS SEEMED VALID, AND I 
WASN'T PARTICULARLY CRITICAL. 
THIS WAS SENSITIVE, AND WAS NOT 
GOING TO QUESTION THE 
ATTORNEY'S JUDGMENT ON THAT. 
>> EVEN ON THE CODEWORD SERVER, 
YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT? 
>> YES. 
>> SO AT NO POINT IN TIME 
DURING THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL 
DUTIES WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS 
TO THE INFORMATION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN 
TO YOU FOR A MOMENT, AND YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT 
THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE OTHER THAN THE ONE 
ISSUE YOU MENTIONED? 
>> YES. 
SUBSTANTIVELY ACCURATE. 
YES. 
>> NOW, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY 
CONCERNS TO ANYONE IN YOUR 
OFFICE ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD ON 
THE CALL? 
>> MY SUPERVISOR WAS LISTENING 
ON THE CALL AS WELL. 
SO BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE 
SAME INFORMATION, I DO NOT FEEL 
THE NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT. 
>> AND YOU NEVER HAD ANY 
CONCERNS WITH ANYONE ELSE IN 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE? 
>> I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CALL 
WITH ANYONE. 
>> YOU DIDN'T FLAG IT FOR THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OR ANYONE 
OF THAT SORT? 
>> MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WAS 
IN THE ROOM WITH ME. 
>> AFTER THE CALL, DID YOU AND 
GENERAL KELLOGG DISCUSSED THE 
CONTENTS OF THE CALL? 
>> WE DID NOT. 
>> IN THE MEETING IN WARSAW, 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY. 
YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE 
PREPOSITION, THE PRESENTATION? 
>> I WAS. 
>> DID YOU FLAG THIS, THE PARTS 
OF THE CALL THAT CONCERNED YOU? 
>> NO. 
WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT AND THE TRIP THING 
BOOK, WE DON'T NORMALLY INCLUDE 
PREVIOUS CALLS IN TRIP BRIEFING 
BOOKS. 
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE 
CONCERNS WERE SO SIGNIFICANT, 
HOW COME NO ONE ON THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S STAFF AT LEAST 
ALERTED HIM TO THE ISSUE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MIGHT BE ON 
EDGE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAD 
BEEN MENTIONED ON THE 7/25 
CALL? 
>> AGAIN, MY SUPERVISOR HAD 
BEEN IN THE CALL WITH ME. 
AND I ENSURED THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT HAD ACCESS TO THE 
TRANSCRIPT IN THE MOMENT ON 
THAT DAY. 
AS WE WERE PREPARING FOR THE 
SEPTEMBER MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE MORE 
IMMEDIATE ISSUE AT HAND WAS TWO 
DAYS PRIOR, THE NEWS HAD BROKEN 
ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
SO WE WERE MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON 
THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS LIKELY 
TO OCCUR ABOUT THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THAT 
úMEETING. 
>> AND TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, 
YOU WERE IN THE MEETING WITH 
MIKE PENCE AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY  AND BURISMA OR THE 
BIDENS DIDN'T COME UP? 
>> NO. 
IT DID NOT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT HAS 
A LONG-STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, 
CORRECT? 
>> I DON'T RECALL, BUT THERE 
ARE BROAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION. 
>> BUT YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT 
IF THE U.S. IS GIVING HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO A 
FOREIGN NATION, THAT HAS A 
CORRUPTION PROBLEM THAT THAT IS 
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND 
PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO BE 
CONCERNED ABOUT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND IF THE FOREIGN COUNTRY 
HAS A PROBLEM WITH OLIGARCHS 
TAKING U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS, 
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IN ADVANCE OF DISPENSING 
THE AID? 
>> YES. 
>> AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU DID 
TESTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS 
ENDEMIC IN UKRAINE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE OF THE 
PRESENT'S SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN 
AID GENERALLY? 
>> I AM. 
>> AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT HE 
IS MADE PART OF HIS PRIORITIES 
TO MAKE SURE THAT U.S. FOREIGN 
AID IS SPENT WISELY? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU ARE ALSO AWARE THE 
PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING AMONG OUR 
ALLIES? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, 
HE WAS VERY INTERESTED AND 
ENGAGED IN SEEING IF THERE WAS 
A POSSIBILITY FOR OUR EUROPEAN 
ALLIES TO STEP UP AND 
CONTRIBUTE MORE? 
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE IN THE 
CONTEXT OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE, 
IN TERMS OF BURDEN SHARING, THE 
EUROPEAN UNION PROVIDES OVER 
$15 BILLION. 
HAS PROVIDED SINCE 2014. 
>> BUT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE 
RESIDENT CONCERN OF BURDEN 
SHARING? 
>> I AM. 
>> TURNING ATTENTION 
SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY OF 
BURISMA, MYKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY, THE 
COFOUNDER , ONE OF UKRAINE'S 
LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS, 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, 
YES. 
>> IT IS BEEN SUBJECT TO 
NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS OVER 
THE YEARS? 
>> I GUESS I COULD POINT TO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION, BUT 
THERE IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A 
PATTERN OF QUESTIONABLE 
DEALINGS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION. 
>> HE HAD SERVED AS THE 
MINISTER OF ECOLOGY DURING THE 
PRESIDENT'S TENURE? 
>>I'VE COME TO LEARN THAT THAT 
IS CORRECT. 
>> AND GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED 
ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK, THAT 
UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISRATION, 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
HE USED HIS GOVERNMENT POSITION 
TO GRANT HIMSELF OR BURISMA 
EXPLORATION LICENSES, ARE YOU 
AWARE OF THAT? 
>> I WOULD DEFER TO GEORGE 
KENT, HE IS A FUND OF KNOWLEDGE 
ON UKRAINE, MUCH DEEPER 
KNOWLEDGE THAN I HAVE. 
AND IF HE HAD ATTESTED TO THAT, 
THEN I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR 
THAT. 
>> AND HE TESTIFIED THAT THE 
U.S. ALONG WITH THE UNITED 
KINGDOM WAS ENGAGED IN TRYING 
TO RECOUP ABOUT 23 MILLION IN 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS FROM 
ZLOCHEVSKY AND THE BURISMA 
ENTITY? 
>> I UNDERSTAND HE TESTIFIED 
THAT, YES. 
>> AND MR. KENT ALSO TESTIFIED 
THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS 
MOVING ALONG AND THEN ALL OF A 
SUDDEN, THERE WAS  A BROAD 
PAYMENT AND INVESTIGATION WENT 
AWAY, DID YOU HEAR MENTION 
THAT? 
>> I HEARD HIM MENTION THAT 
THESE ARE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED 
BEFORE MY TIME. 
SO FRANKLY BEYOND WHAT HE SAID, 
I DON'T KNOW MUCH MORE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
>> RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE 
BRIDE WAS PAID, THE COMPANY 
SAW, SOUGHT TO BOLSTER THE 
BOARD. 
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY TAPPED 
SOME LUMINARIES FOR THE 
CORPORATE BOARD? 
>> I CERTAINLY LEARNED THAT AT 
SOME POINT. 
YES. 
>> INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF 
POLAND, I BELIEVE? 
>> YES. 
>> AND HUNTER BIDEN? 
>> I CAME TO LEARN THAT AS 
WELL. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE HUNTER 
BIDEN HAS IN THE UKRAINIAN 
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WORLD? 
>> I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MR. 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
>> AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT, 
ABOUT YOUR DEPOSITION ABOUT 
WHETHER MR. BIDEN WAS QUALIFIED 
TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD? AND I 
BELIEVE YOU'LL THE KNOWLEDGE 
THAT APPARENTLY HE WAS NOT IN 
FACT QUALIFIED? 
>> AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HE 
DIDN'T SEEM TO BE, BUT LIKE I 
SAID, I DON'T KNOW HIS 
QUALIFICATIONS. 
>> OKAY. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN 
OUR ATTENTION TO THE INAUGURAL 
TRIP. 
AT ONE POINT, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS FOCUSING 
ON ATTENDING THAT, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND IT'S SOMEWHAT 
COMPLICATED BECAUSE AS I 
UNDERSTAND IT, THE WHITE HOUSE 
DOESN'T WANT THE PRESIDENT AND 
VICE PRESIDENT TO BE OUT OF THE 
COUNTRY AT THE SAME TIME? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND DURING THE TIMEFRAME, 
THE PRESENT WAS IN JAPAN, I 
BELIEVE HE WAS IN JAPAN MAY 24-
28 AND THEN HE RETURNED TO 
EUROPE FOR THE D-DAY CEREMONIES
, JUNE 2-7, AND I THINK YOU 
TOLD US THERE WAS A WINDOW THAT 
YOU PROVIDED, FOUR DAYS AT THE 
END OF MAY THAT IF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO ATTEND 
THE INAUGURATION, IT HAD TO BE 
THE 29th AND 30th AND 31st OR 
FIRST? 
>> OUR EMBASSY IN KYIV WAS IN 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY STEAM, AND WE LEARNED 
THAT THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT 
WOULD NOT COME BACK INTO 
SESSION UNTIL MID-MAY. 
SO WE WOULDN'T KNOW FORMALLY 
WHAT THE DATE WOULD BE. 
BUT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 
INITIAL THINKING WAS THAT THEY 
WERE LOOKING AT DATES AT THE 
END OF MAY. 
SO HONING IN ON THE TIMEFRAME, 
WE WERE AWARE OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S PLANS TO TRAVEL ON 
EITHER END. 
SO THAT'S WHY WE ADVISED THE 
PRESIDENT THAT IF VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE WERE ABLE 
TO PUT THIS BIT, THE ONLY 
REALLY AVAILABLE DAYS WOULD BE 
MAY 30, 31st OR JUNE 1. 
>> AND BEFORE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT TRAVELS TO A FOREIGN 
NATION, YOU HAVE TO SEND THE 
SECRET SERVICE TO DO ADVANCED 
WORK AND BOOK HOTELS AND IT'S A 
RELATIVELY INVOLVED 
PREPARATION? 
EXPERIENCE? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE 
SECRET SERVICE EVER DEPLOYED OR 
BOOKED HOTELS? 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OUR 
ADVANCED TEAM WAS LOOKING INTO 
THOSE PREPARATIONS INCLUDING 
HOTEL AVAILABILITY. 
AND WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE 
WHEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO 
SEND OUT SECRET SERVICE AND 
OTHER ADVANCED PERSONNEL IN 
ORDER TO LAY GROUNDWORK FOR A 
TRIP, BUT BECAUSE WE WERE IN 
SURE WHEN THE DATE WOULD BE, WE 
HESITATED TO SEND THOSE 
OFFICIALS OUT. 
>> BUT ULTIMATE, THE SECRET 
SERVICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, 
DID NOT DEPLOY? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DID. 
>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION WAS MADE THE 20th 
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND HAD ABOUT 
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT WE 
HAD ALREADY STOPPED THE TRIP 
PLANNING BY THAT POINT. 
>> WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? 
>> STOPPING THE TRIP PLANNING? 
>> YEAH. 
>> MAY 13th. 
>> HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT? 
>> I WAS CALLED BY A COLLEAGUE 
IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF 
OF STAFF OFFICE AND TOLD TO 
STOP THE TRIP PLANNING. 
>> IT WAS THE ASSISTANT TO THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT 
FROM GENERAL KELLOGG OR THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT 
OR VICE PRESIDENT, HEARD ABOUT 
IT FROM AN ASSISTANT? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE 
OF THE REASONING FOR STOPPING 
THE TRIP? 
>> I ASKED MY COLLEAGUE WHY WE 
SHOULD STOP TRIP PLANNING AND 
WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD 
NOT BE ATTENDING, AND I WAS 
INFORMED THE PRESIDENT DECIDED 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT 
ATTEND THE INAUGURATION. 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHY THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT? 
>> NO, SHE DID NOT HAVE THAT 
INFORMATION. 
>> OKAY. 
AND ULTIMATELY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WENT TO CANADA FOR A 
USMCA EVENT DURING THIS WINDOW 
OF TIME, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO IT'S CONCEIVABLE THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WANTED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TO GO TO CANADA 
ON BEHALF OF USMCA INSTEAD OF 
DOING ANYTHING ELSE, CORRECT? 
>> I'M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION 
TO SPECULATE WHAT THE 
MOTIVATIONS WERE BEHIND THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION. 
>> THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS DONE 
QUITE A FEW OF THOSE USMCA 
EVENTS, CORRECT? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE WHETHER ANYONE 
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
INQUIRED WITH YOUR OFFICE ABOUT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
AVAILABILITY FOR THE TRIP TO 
CANADA? 
>> AT WHAT POINT? 
>> EARLY MAY, MAYBE MAY 8th. 
>> I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
TRIP PLANNING FOR CANADA. 
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO COVERS 
WESTERN HEMISPHERE WAS IN 
CHARGE OF THAT SO I'M NOT AWARE 
OF SPECIFIC REQUESTS ABOUT THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S AVAILABILITY. 
I WAS AWARE FROM MY COLLEAGUE 
THAT WE HAD COMPETING TRIPS BUT 
I WAS TOLD THE UKRAINE TRIP 
WOULD TAKE PRIORITY. 
>> ULTIMATELY YOU DON'T KNOW? 
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 
CANADA TRIP? 
>> YOU DON'T KNOW THE REASON AS 
TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS 
SENT TO CANADA FOR THE USMCA 
EVENT INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE 
UKRAINE? 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO GO TO UKRAINE. 
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE 
MOTIVATIONS ABOUT THE CANADA 
TRIP. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, I WOULD 
LIKE TO TURN A LITTLE BIT TO 
THE JULY 10th MEETING IN 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE AND 
THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN THE 
WAR ROOM. 
WHO WAS IN THE JULY 10th 
MEETING, BEST OF YOUR 
RECOLLECTION? 
>> THE BOARD ROOM OR THE ACTUAL 
MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON?3
>> START WITH THE FIRST MEETING 
IN THE AMBASSADOR'S OFFICE. 
>> FROM THE U.S. SIDE, WE HAD 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DR. HILL, I 
BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER 
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT, WELLS GRIFFITH WAS 
IN THERE, AND MYSELF. 
>> WHO FROM THE UKRANIANS? 
>> FOR THE UKRANIAN SIDE, WE 
HAD OLEKSANDR DANYLYUK, ANDREY 
YERMAK, AND I THINK OLEKSANDR 
DANYLYUK'S ADVISOR, SEMONY. 
>> AND YOU COULDN'T RECALL WHY 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STOPPED THE 
MEETING SHORT AND YOU ONLY 
LEARNED IT SUBSEQUENTLY FROM 
TALKING TO DR. FIONA HILL? 
>> YEAH, I NOTED IT ENDED 
ABRUPTLY BUT I DIDN'T FRANKLY 
-- I DIDN'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY. 
>> AND IN THE BOLTON MEETING, 
YOU DON'T REMEMBER AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND USING THE WORD BIDEN? 
>> HE DID NOT TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, I DON'T THINK HE 
DID. 
>> THEN THE GROUP DECAMPED TO 
TAKE A PHOTO, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE 
GROUP WAS A POSITIVE ONE AT 
THAT TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT ENDED 
ABRUPTLY? 
>> I THINK AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED 
THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE 
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS 
OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING A PHOTO, 
AND WE PROMPTED HIM TO -- 
BEFORE WE COMPLETELY ADJOURNED, 
TO SEE IF HE'D DO A PHOTO, AND 
HE DID. 
>> AND HE WENT TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND TOOK THE PHOTO, YOU 
TOOK IT? 
>> I TOOK A COUPLE OF THEM, 
YES. 
>> IN THE PHOTO IS SECRETARY 
PERRY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, MR. 
DANYLYUK, AND MR. YERMAK? 
>> YES, AND I APOLOGIZE. 
WHEN I WAS RUNNING THROUGH THE 
U.S. SIDE, OF COURSE AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON, VOLKER AND SONDLAND 
WERE THERE AND SECRETARY PERRY 
WAS THERE. 
>> OKAY. 
YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JULY 
10th MEETING, YOU HAD DEVELOPED 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE NARRATIVE 
INVOLVING RUDY GIULIANI, 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> HAD YOU HEARD LIKE A 
FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FROM ANYONE 
ON THE INSIDE OR JUST FOLLOWING 
NEWS ACCOUNTS? 
>> SO I CERTAINLY WAS FOLLOWING 
THE NEWS ACCOUNTS, AND THAT'S 
FROM THE UKRANIAN SIDE, 
UKRANIAN PRESS, AND U.S. PRESS. 
AND MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 
INTERAGENCY ALSO WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT THIS, AS THIS HAD STARTED 
IN THE MARCH TIME FRAME, KIND 
OF EMANATING PROSECUTE JOHN 
SOLOMON STORY ALL THE WAY 
THROUGH -- SO THERE HAD BEEN 
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS, SO 
SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES. 
>> AND SO WHEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MENTIONED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, YOU SORT OF HAD 
A LITTLE BIT OF A CLUE OF WHAT 
THE ISSUE WAS? 
>> DEFINITELY. 
>> AND YOU TOOK THE PHOTO, A 
VERY NICE PHOTO, THEN WENT TO 
THE BOARD ROOM? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU HAD A HARD TIME 
REMEMBERS WHAT WAS SAID THERE, 
AND IT'S FOUR MONTHS AGO. 
IT'S HARD TO BE PRECISE ABOUT 
WHETHER SONDLAND -- WHAT 
SPECIFIC WORDS HE USED, WHETHER 
HE USED BURISMA 2016 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> YEAH, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE 
DEPOSITION, THE THREE ELEMENTS, 
BURISMA, BIDENS AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS WERE ALL MENTIONED. 
>> IN THE WARD ROOM? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND I THINK MAYBE WE CAN GO 
BACK TO THIS, BUT I THINK ON 
PAGE 64 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU 
TOLD US THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER 
HIM USING 2016 IN THE WARD 
ROOM. 
>> I BELIEVE THAT I ACTUALLY 
FOLLOWED UP, AND -- BECAUSE 
THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED 
MULTIPLE TIMES. 
I SAID ALL THREE ELEMENTS WERE 
IN THERE. 
>> SO WHEN WE ASKED THE 
QUESTION, IT SORT OF REFRESHED 
YOUR RECOLLECTION? 
>> YES, I GUESS THAT'S THE TERM 
NOW. 
>> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION 
OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WHEN MR. 
MORRISON TOOK OVER THE 
PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL, WHETHER 
YOU WERE SIDELINED AT ALL. 
DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE? 
>> SO I CERTAINLY WAS EXCLUDED 
OR DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE 
TRIP TO UKRAINE, AT THE END OF 
AUGUST, BEFORE IT CHANGED FROM 
A POTUS TRIP TO VICE PRESIDENT 
TRIP TO WARSAW, I WASN'T 
PARTICIPATING IN THAT ONE. 
SO I DIDN'T MISS THAT, NO. 
>> DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS 
TO MR. MORRISON ABOUT WHY YOU 
WEREN'T INCLUDED ON THOSE 
TRIPS? 
>> SO, I WAS ON LEAVE -- I WAS 
SUPPOSED TO BE ON LEAVE FROM 
ABOUT THE 3rd OF AUGUST THROUGH 
ABOUT THE 16th OF AUGUST. 
HE CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO 
RETURN. 
THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY HIGH 
PRIORITY TRAVEL TO THE REGION 
AND HE NEEDED MY ASSISTANCE TO 
HELP PLAN FOR IT, AND ASKED ME 
TO RETURN EARLY FROM LEAVE, 
WHICH I TAKE INFREQUENTLY. 
I ASSUMED I WOULD BE GOING ON 
THE TRIP. 
AFTER RETURNING FROM LEAVE 
EARLY, WHEN I WAS TOLD I WASN'T 
GOING, I INQUIRED ABOUT IT, 
CORRECT. 
>> AND WHAT FEEDBACK DID HE 
GIVE YOU? 
>> HE INITIALLY TOLD ME THAT 
THE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS ACQUIRED 
WAS TOO SMALL AND THERE WASN'T 
ENOUGH ROOM. 
>> HAD YOU EVER HAD DISCUSSIONS 
WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT 
CONCERNS THAT HE OR DR. HILL 
HAD WITH YOUR JUDGMENT? 
>> DID I EVER HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. MORRISON 
ABOUT IT? 
NO. 
>> DID MR. MORRISON EVER 
EXPRESS CONCERNS TO YOU THAT HE 
THOUGHT YOU MAYBE WEREN'T 
FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND 
IN ALL INSTANCES? 
>> HE DID NOT. 
>> DID DR. HILL OR MR. MORRISON 
EVER ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHETHER YOU WERE TRYING TO 
ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE YOUR 
LANE? 
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> AND ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE 
UKRAINE PORTFOLIO THAT YOU WERE 
NOT A PART OF WERE SOME OF THE 
COMMUNICATIONS MR. MORRISON WAS 
HAVING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU EVER EXPRESS CONCERN 
THAT HE WAS LEAVING YOU OFF 
THOSE CALLS? 
>> WELL, CERTAINLY IT WAS 
CONCERNING HE HAD JUST COME ON 
BOARD. 
HE DIDN'T HAVE THE -- HE WASN'T 
STEEPED IN ALSO THE ITEMS WE 
WERE WORKING ON, INCLUDING THE 
POLICY THAT WE'D DEVELOPED OVER 
THE PRECEDING MONTHS. 
AND I THOUGHT I COULD 
CONTRIBUTE TO THAT, TO THE 
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. 
>> OKAY. 
YOU WENT TO UKRAINE FOR THE 
INAUGURATION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AT ANY POINT DURING THAT 
TRIP, DID MR. DANYLYUK OFFER 
YOU A POSITION OF DEFENSE 
MINISTER WITH THE UKRANIAN 
GOVERNMENT? 
>> HE DID. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES DID HE DO 
THAT? 
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE 
TIMES. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON WHY 
HE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW, BUT EVERY 
SINGLE TIME, I DISMISSED IT. 
UPON RETURNING, I NOTIFIED MY 
CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND THE 
APPROPRIATE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
FOLKS ABOUT THE OFFER. 
>> UKRAINE IS A COUNTRY THAT'S 
EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH RUSSIA, 
AND CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTER OF 
DEFENSE IS A PRETTY KEY 
POSITION. 
FOR THE UKRANIANS, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, MR. DANYLYUK TO 
BESTOW THAT HONOR ON YOU, AT 
LEAST ASKING YOU, THAT WAS A 
BIG HONOR, CORRECT? 
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT 
HONOR, AND FRANKLY I'M AWARE OF 
SERVICE MEMBERS THAT HAVE LEFT 
SERVICE TO HELP NURTURE THE 
DEVELOPING DEMOCRACIES MANY 
THAT PART OF THE WORLD, 
CERTAINLY IN THE BALTICS, 
FORMER OFFICERS. 
IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, AN AIR 
FORCE OFFICER BECAME MINISTER 
OF DEFENSE. 
BUT I'M AND AMERICAN. 
I CAME HERE WHEN I WAS A 
TODDLER AND IMMEDIATELY 
DISMISSED THESE OFFERS, DID NOT 
ENTERTAIN THEM. 
>> WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO 
YOU INITIALLY, DID YOU LEAVE 
THE DOOR OPEN? 
WAS THERE A REASON HE CAME BACK 
TO ASK A SECOND OR THIRD TIME 
OR WAS HE TRYING TO CONVINCE 
YOU? 
>> COUNSEL, THE WHOLE NOTION IS 
RATHER COMICAL THAT I WAS BEING 
ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER I 
WOULD WANT TO BE THE MINISTER 
OF DEFENSE. 
I DID NOT LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN 
AT ALL. 
BUT IT IS PRETTY FUNNY FOR A 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL OF THE 
UNITED STATES ARMY, WHICH IS 
NOT THAT SENIOR, TO BE OFFERED 
THAT ILLUSTRIOUS A POSITION. 
>> WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO 
YOU, WAS HE SPEAKIN IN ENGLISH 
OR UKRANIAN? 
>> MR. DANYLYUK IS AN 
ABSOLUTELY FLAWLES ENGLISH 
SPEAKER AND WAS SPEAKING IN 
ENGLISH. 
TO BE CLEAR, TWO OTHER STAFF 
OFFICERS, KYIV STAFF OFFICERS, 
SITTING  NEXT TO ME WHEN THIS 
OFFER WAS MADE. 
>> WHO WERE THEY? 
>> ONE YOU MAY HAVE MET, MR. 
DAVID HOLMES, AND THE OTHER WAS 
-- I DON'T KNOW. 
I GUESS I COULD -- IT'S ANOTHER 
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, KEITH 
BEAM. 
>> OKAY. 
WE MET MR. HOLMES LAST FRIDAY 
EVENING. 
>> I UNDERSTAND. 
DELIGHTFUL. 
>> AND YOU SAID WHEN YOU 
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, 
YOU GOT THE CLEARANCE WHENEVER 
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MAKES AN 
OVERTURE LIKE THAT, YOU PAPER 
IT UP AND TELL YOUR CHAIN OF 
COMMAND? 
>> I DID. 
I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY 
ENTERTAINED IT AS A LEGITIMATE 
OFFER. 
I WAS MAKING SURE I DID THE 
RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF 
REPORTING. 
>> DID ANY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS, 
DR. HILL AT THE TIME OR DR. 
KUPPERMAN OR AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
EVER FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ABOUT 
THAT? 
RATHER SIGNIFICANT THAT THE 
UKRANIANS OFFERED YOU THE POST 
OF DEFENSE MINISTER. 
DID YOU TELL ANYONE IN YOUR 
CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT IT? 
>> AFTER I SPOKE WITH OUR 
DEPUTY SENIOR DIRECTOR, ONCE I 
MENTIONED IT, I DON'T BELIEVE 
THERE WAS A FOLLOW-UP 
DISCUSSION. 
>> SO IT NEVER CAME UP WITH DR. 
KUPPERMAN OR DR. HILL? 
>> FOLLOWING THAT CONVERSATION 
I HAD WITH DR. HILL, I DON'T 
BELIEVE THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT 
CONVERSATION, AND I DON'T 
RECALL EVER HAVING A 
CONVERSATION WITH DR. KUPPERMAN 
ABOUT IT. 
>> DID YOU BRIEF DIRECTOR 
MORRISON WHEN HE CAME ON BOARD? 
>> NO. 
I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT IT. 
>> SUBSEQUENT TO THE NATURE, 
DID MR. DANYLYUK EVER ASK YOU 
TO RECONSIDER? 
WERE THERE ANY OTHER OFFERS? 
>> NO. 
>> WHEN YOU VISITED FOR THE 
JULY 10th MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DID IT COME 
UP AGAIN? 
>> IT NEVER CAME UP AGAIN. 
>> DID YOU EVER THINK THAT úPOS 
WAS, YOU KNOW, GOT OUT, IT 
MIGHT CREATE AT LEAST THE 
PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT, THAT 
THE UKRANIANS THOUGHT SO HIGHLY 
OF YOU TO OFFER YOU THE DEFENSE 
MINISTRY POST, ON ONE HAND, BUT 
ON THE OTHER HAND YOU'RE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRANIAN POLICY 
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
>> FRANKLY, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT 
ABOUT WHAT MY AMERICAN 
LEADERSHIP AND AMERICAN CHAIN 
OF COMMAND THINKS THAN ANY OF 
THE -- AND THIS IS -- THESE ARE 
HONORABLE PEOPLE. 
I'M NOT SURE IF HE MEANT IT AS 
A JOKE OR NOT, BUT IT'S MUCH 
MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT MY 
CIVILIAN WHITE HOUSE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND THINKS, AND FRANKLY, IF 
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ME 
BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE MY 
DUTIES, THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT 
THAT TO MY ATTENTION. 
DR. HILL STAYED ON SEVERAL MORE 
MONTHS AND WE CONTINUED TO WORK 
TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY. 
>> OKAY. 
DURING THE TIMES RELEVANT OF 
THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION, 
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS 
WITH MR. YERMAK OR DANYLYUK 
OUTSIDE THE JULY 10th MEETING? 
>> I RECALL A COURTESY NOTE 
FROM MR. YERMAK WITHIN DAYS OF 
HIS RETURN TO JULY, IN WHICH HE 
WANTED TO PRESERVE AN OPEN 
CHANNEL COMMUNICATION. 
AND I SAID, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO 
CONTACT ME WITH ANY CONCERNS. 
>> AND WERE YOU FOLLOWING THIS 
-- THERE'S SORT OF TWO TRACKS, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US 
THROUGH DURING HIS TESTIMONY 
LAST WEDNESDAY. 
HE CALLED IT A REGULAR CHANNEL 
AND THEN AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER. 
WERE YOU TRACKING THE SONDLAND 
AND VOLKER CHANNEL DURING THIS 
TIME PERIOD? 
>> I'M TRYING TO RECALL AT 
WHICH POINT I BECAME AWARE OF 
AMBASSADOR -- CERTAINLY I WAS 
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY 
WERE WORKING TOGETHER, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND 
SECRETARY PERRY WERE WORKING 
TOGETHER TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY 
INTERESTS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT 
HAD BEEN AGREED TO. 
BUT I DIDN'T REALLY LEARN, LIKE 
I SAID UNTIL THE JULY 10th -- 
ACTUALLY, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN 
EARLIER POINT. 
I RECALL A MEETING IN WHICH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON FACILITATED A 
MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON IN 
THE JUNE TIME FRAME, AND THERE 
MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION 
ABOUT THIS EXTERNAL CHANNEL. 
I FRANKLY DIDN'T BECOME AWARE 
OF THESE PARTICULAR U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING 
INVOLVED IN THIS ALTERNATE 
TRACK UNTIL JULY 10th. 
>> OKAY. 
I THINK WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION 
THAT, YOU KNOW, MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PROMOTING CERTAIN THINGS 
WITH UKRAINE AND WITH ZELENSKY 
IT WAS A NEW DAY, AND UKRAINE 
IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. 
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT, THAT IS WHAT 
WAS BEING REPORTED BY THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, BY THE 
POLICY CHANNELS AND THE 
CONCERTED VOICES OF THE VARIOUS 
PEOPLE THAT HAD MET WITH THEM, 
INCLUDING FOREIGN OFFICIALS. 
>> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT 
YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S GOALS WERE HERE, AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S GOALS WERE 
HERE, DO YOU THINK THEY WERE 
JUST TRYING TO DO THE BEST THEY 
COULD AND TRY AND ADVOCATE IN 
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED 
STATES?
>> THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVED AND 
THAT IS WHAT I STILL BELIEVE, 
FRANKLY. 
>> TO THE EXTENT GIULIANI MAY 
HAVE HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS, THEY 
WERE TRYING TO HELP HIM 
UNDERSTAND IT WAS TIME TO 
CHANGE THOSE VIEWS? 
>> I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO 
BRING HIM INTO THE TENT AND 
HAVE HIM KIND OF SUPPORT THE 
DIRECTION THAT WE'D SETTLED ON. 
>> AND YOU NEVER CONFERRED WITH 
MR. GIULIANI? 
>> NO. 
>> YOU NEVER HAD ANY MEETINGS, 
PHONE CALLS OR THAT SORT? 
>> I DID NOT. 
I ONLY KNOW HIM AS NEW YORK'S 
FINEST MAYOR. 
>> AMERICA'S MAYOR. 
>> AMERICA'S MAYOR. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
OR COMMUNICATIONS DURING THIS 
TIME PERIOD WITH THE PRESIDENT? 
>> I'VE NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> MY TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU. 
>> WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO 
THE FIVE-MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS. 
ARE YOU GOOD TO GO FORWARD OR 
DO YOU NEED A BREAK? 
>> I THINK WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A 
SHORT BREAK. 
>> LET'S TRY AND TAKE FIVE OR 
TEN MINUTES AND WE'LL RESUME 
WITH THE FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS. 
IF I COULD, ASK THE AUDIENCE 
AND MEMBERS TO PLEASE ALLOW THE 
WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM 
FIRST. 
COMMITTEE IS IN RECESS. 
>> ALL RIGHT, TESTIMONY THERE, 
REALLY SORT OF BOMBSHELL 
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN, AND WE HEARD FROM 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS. 
YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT OUR 
PANELISTS HERE. 
IS ANTOINE IN D.C. STILL? 
OKAY, HE'S HERE, JOSEPH, RIKKI 
KLIEMAN, MOLLY IS HERE. 
LET ME THROW OUT THE FIRST 
QUESTION. 
I'M NOT SURE WHO SHOULD TAKE 
THIS. 
THE VERY LAST TEN MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONING TO COLONEL VINDMAN 
I THOUGHT WAS REMARKABLE, AND 
IT WAS SOMETHING CHAIRMAN NUNES 
SAID AT THE OPENING OF HIS 
REMARKS, WHICH WAS THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO TRY 
AND ATTACK THE LOYALTY, IF YOU 
WILL, OF COLONEL VINDMAN. 
WE SAW THAT IN THE QUESTIONING 
BY ASKING ABOUT THE OFFER MADE 
FROM A UKRANIAN OFFICIAL TO 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AS 
TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTED TO 
BECOME THE DEFENSE MINISTER OF 
UKRAINE, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE 
A HARPING ON THAT. 
IT MADE ME THINK THERE'S A 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT YOU SEE 
FINALLY TAKING ROOT ON THE 
FLOOR OF UNITED STATES 
CONGRESS. 
>> Reporter: WELL, THEY HAVE TO 
DO SOMETHING. IF YOU CAN'T DO 
ANYTHING ELSE WITH THESE 
WITNESSES, LET'S ATTACK THE 
INTEGRITY OF THESE WITNESSES. 
AS JOSEPH SAID, BEING THE 
REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, HE SAID 
IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY HE 
BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS A 
MISTAKE. 
AND I THINK THAT -- FIRST OF 
ALL, THESE WITNESSES DID NOT 
GIVE ANYTHING THAT WE DID NOT 
ALREADY KNOW. 
SO WHY TRY TO MAKE THEM INTO 
BIASED INDIVIDUALS, WHEN 
THEY'RE NOT? 
>> AND YOU'LL HAVE TO HELP ME 
UNDERSTAND THIS. 
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR 
DEVIN NUNES TO TRY AND GET 
COLONEL VINDMAN TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WHEN IT'S BEEN 
AGREED THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
RECEIVED SECONDHAND 
INFORMATION, AND YOU HAVE 
PEOPLE THERE TESTIFYING THAT 
WERE ON THE CALL. 
I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT LINE OF THINKING. 
>> IT'S A LINE OF THINKING 
BECAUSE DEVIN NUNES AND OTHERS 
WHO ALIGN WITH HIM WOULD LIKE 
TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JOSEPH 
HERE, THE REPUBLICAN 
STRATEGIST. 
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? 
IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE WAS TRYING 
TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT 
PEOPLE THAT VINDMAN MAY HAVE 
SPOKEN TO. 
>> Reporter: IT'S ACTUALLY 
CONFUSING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE 
DEVIN NUNES BASICALLY PLAYING 
WHISTLEBLOWER BINGO ON THE 
CONGRESSIONAL FLOOR, AND NOW 
YOU HAVE THIS ALLEGATION THAT 
SOMEHOW YOU HAVE A UKRANIAN 
DOUBLE AGENT, YOU KNOW, WORKING 
KIND OF UNDERNEATH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
TO ME I THINK THAT LEADS TO 
THIS KIND OF IMPRESSION, IF ALL 
THIS CRAZINESS IS HAPPENING, 
HOW IS ALL THIS ROGUE ACTIVITY 
HAPPENING IN THE WHITE HOUSE? 
IT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. 
AND IT DETRACTS FROM THE FACT 
THAT WE HAD TWO WITNESSES THAT 
DIDN'T ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO 
ASSERT, AND SUPPORTED WHAT THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING 
GOING FORWARD. 
>> Reporter: NUMBER ONE, WHAT 
THEY ADD IS THEY WERE ON THE 
CALL. 
THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES, ASIDE 
FROM THE SECONDHAND REPORTS 
FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
THE REASON THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
TRYING TO GET AT WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS, GOES TO A 
LARGER ISSUE, WHICH IS THE 
WHOLE IDEA OF THIS DEEP STATE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT'S 
DOING ANYTHING THEY CAN TO 
REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE. 
THIS CAN BE A CONSPIRACY THEORY 
BUT SOME LAWMAKERS ON CAPITOL 
HILL GENUINELY BELIEVE THERE'S 
A PORTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY OUT TO GET PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
THEY WANT TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND THEY WANT TO 
KNOW WHO THIS PERSON IS, AND 
PROVE THIS PERSON WORKED 
CLOSELY WITH JOE BIDEN AND THAT 
THERE WAS SOME MOTIVATION FOR 
LEAKING THIS REPORT THAT 
LAUNCHED THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY TO BEGIN WITH. 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IT, 
THAT'S WHAT THE LAWMAKERS ON 
THE REPUBLICAN SIDE ARE 
THINKING AT THIS POINT. 
>> I JUST HAVE TO INTERJECT 
BEFORE YOU GET TO ANTOINE ON 
THE ALLOW. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY IS 
PROTECTED BY LAW. 
YOU CANNOT OUT HIM. 
YOU CANNOT RETALIATE AGAINST 
HIM OR HISTORY. 
AND THIS ACTIVITY ON THE PART 
OF DEVIN NUNES THROUGH HIS 
QUESTIONS IS NOT ONLY 
INAPPROPRIATE, BUT POTENTIALLY 
ILLEGAL. 
IT FINALLY TOOK COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S LAWYER TO GET 
INVOLVED AND STOP IT, BECAUSE 
SOMEBODY HAD TO STOP IT. 
WE WERE SITTING HERE, SOMEWHAT 
AGHAST THAT THEY WERE 
ATTEMPTING TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> IT WAS INTERESTING HE 
POINTED OUT, HEY, YOU WANTED TO 
PLEAD THE FIFTH. 
THE LAWYER HAD TO SAY, THERE'S 
NOTHING HERE TO PLEAD THE FIFTH 
ABOUT. 
>> NOT WITH THESE WITNESSES. 
>> WHICH SUGGESTS THERE WAS 
SOMETHING ILLEGAL, SOME WAY HE 
HAD TO PROTECT HIMSELF LEGALLY. 
IT WAS AN INTERESTING THING TO 
INTERJECT. 
JOSEPH SAID THESE TWO PEOPLE 
ADDED NOTHING NEW, THAT WE 
ALREADY KNEW EVERYTHING. 
ONE THING I THOUGHT WAS 
INTERESTING, VINDMAN SEEMED TO 
DOWNPLAY THE OMISSION OF 
BURISMA IN THE INITIAL 
TRANSCRIPT, AND THAT IT WASN'T 
A DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE 
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT. 
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? 
>> Reporter: WHAT I MAKE OF 
THAT IS THAT THIS IS A 
DECORATED U.S. OFFICIAL WHO 
WANTS TO GET TO THE TRUTH AND 
DOES NOT HAVE A POLITICAL 
AGENDA. 
LOOK, THE REPUBLICANS WANT A 
CIRCUS, AND SO WE SAW THE 
RANKING MEMBER BEHAVE LIKE A 
CLOWN DURING THIS HEARING. 
IT WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE 
PROCESS AND TO THESE DECORATED 
OFFICIALS WHO CAME HERE TO JUST 
FLUSH OUT THE TRUTH. 
JOSEPH SAID WE DIDN'T LEARN 
ANYTHING NEW. 
WE LEARNED SEVERAL THINGS. 
WE LEARNED FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE 
ON THE CALL, FIRSTHAND 
INFORMATION THAT THE THEORY 
THAT'S BEEN SHOT DOWN BY THE 
REPUBLICANS. 
WE ALSO KNOW THEY HAD AN AX TO 
GRIND ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S 
POLITICAL OPPONENT, JOE BIDEN. 
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING 
ELSE. 
THE CONTINUATION OF TRYING TO 
ATTACK THE FACTS AND ATTACK THE 
PERSONS WHO WERE UNDEROATH AS 
WITNESSES IT'S SOMETHING YOU 
SEE ON LAW & ORDER BECAUSE THEY 
HAVE NO ARGUMENT. 
THESE ARE THE SAME ELECTED 
OFFICIALS THAT WANT TO SAY 
DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING THE 
CIRCUS OR RUNNING A CLOWN 
CIRCUS. 
IT'S SO FRUSTRATING. 
>> ONE THING VINDMAN DID SAY IS 
THAT HE SAW THE SUGGESTION OF 
AN INVESTIGATION AS A DEMAND, 
AND FELT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE 
INTERPRETED IT AS A DEMAND. 
EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T HEAR, YOU 
BETTER DO THIS OR ELSE, THAT'S 
THE WAY HE INTERPRETED IT AND 
THAT'S THE WAY HE FELT ZELENSKY 
WOULD HAVE INTERPRETED IT AS 
WELL. 
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO 
ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A POWER 
IMBALANCE. 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LEADER 
OF THE FREE WORLD MAKING A 
REQUEST, AND YOU'RE A NEW 
INCOMING PRESIDENT OF A NATION 
THAT DEPENDS ON AMERICANS' 
SUPPORT. 
HOW VINDMAN WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT 
IS NOT NECESSARILY HOW THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IS GOING 
TO TAKE IT. 
THAT'S NOT A FACT. 
THAT'S A FEELING, A SENTIMENT. 
AGAIN, I THINK PARTISANSHIP 
NOTWITHSTANDING, THERE IS 
EVIDENCE HERE THAT THINGS ARE 
HAPPENING THAT CERTAIN 
AMERICANS WILL LOOK AT THROUGH 
A JAUNDICED EYE. 
IF YOU COME DOWN TO THE FACTS, 
THE FACTS ARE THAT NONE OF 
THESE WITNESSES SAID ANYTHING 
THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED 
TO THE PUBLIC, AND MANY OF 
THEIR STATEMENTS BOLSTER -- 
>> IT'S WEIRD NOT HAVING 
ANTOINE HERE. 
HE'D BE JUMPING ON THE TABLE. 
>> Reporter: I WANT TO DO THE 
TOOTSIE ROLL ALL OVER YOUR 
ARGUMENT. 
YOU SAY WE DIDN'T LEARN 
ANYTHING NEW BUT FOR THE PAST 
SEVERAL DAYS SINCE LAST WEEK, 
YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO PUT 
A STAIN ON EVERYTHING WE'VE 
HEARD STARTING FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S TESTIMONY TO 
EVERY WITNESS WE HAVE HAD TO 
ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT HAVE 
COME OUT, EVEN SOME OF THE 
TRANSCRIPTS. 
AND NOW WE'RE HEARING IT 
FIRSTHAND AND NOW YOU WANT TO 
PIVOT TO A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT 
THAT WE DIDN'T LEARN ANYTHING 
NEW. 
YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE OF THE 
HIGHWAY TO DRIVE ON, MY MAN. 
>> THIS IS THE THING, BROTHER. 
YOU HAVE ABOUT 15 REPUBLICANS 
MAKING 25 DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS. 
I THINK THE SAME CAN BE SAID 
ABDEMOCRATS, WHICH IS 
ULTIMATELY THE PROBLEM. 
AMERICANS ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW 
WHICHEVER THREAD, WHATEVER 
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT THEY 
LIKE MIGHT BE SUGGESTING TODAY. 
AND THE FLAVOR OF THE DAY IS 
NOT NECESSARILY THE ARGUMENT 
THAT'S GOING TO CARRY THE DAY 
BECAUSE THE THESIS THAT'S 
PRESENTED BY THE DEMOCRATS IS 
SO BROAD THAT IT CAN'T BE 
SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE 
PARAGRAPHS PRESENTED BY THE 
TEACHER. 
>> ANY AMERICAN WITH COMMON 
SENSE WHO SAW THESE TESTIMONIES 
TODAY FROM THESE TWO DECORATED 
RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS AND KNOW 
THAT THEY WERE TELLING THE 
TRUTH, IF YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE 
CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE SMOKE ON 
THAT, THEN YOU AND I SHOULD 
PROBABLY FIND A DIFFERENT 
CAREER BECAUSE ANY PERSON, 
POLITICS OR NOT, KNOW THAT 
THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE NO REASON 
TO LIE. 
>> I DON'T THINK THEY WERE 
LYING. 
>> I HAVE TO BREAK THIS UP FOR 
A SECOND. 
>> I'M USUALLY BETWEEN THEM. 
>> VINDMAN WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT 
SONDLAND AND SONDLAND'S 
MOTIVATIONS. 
WE WERE SITTING HERE SAYING, 
SONDLAND IS THE GUY WE WANT TO 
HEAR. 
HE WAS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH 
THE PRESIDENT AND HE'S THE GUY 
THAT KNOWS WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS TELLING HIM TO DO. 
VINDMAN SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT 
HE THOUGHT SONDLAND WAS DOING 
EVERYTHING IN THE BEST INTEREST 
OF THE COUNTRY. 
>> Reporter: AT THE VERY END 
WHEN VINDMAN SAID THAT, THAT 
SONDLAND WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE 
HE THOUGHT WAS DOING EVERYTHING 
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 
COUNTRY, THAT CERTAINLY PERKED 
UP MY YEARS BECAUSE I DIDN'T 
EXPECT THAT FROM VINDMAN OR 
ANYBODY ELSE. 
WHAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE OF THAT, 
SOME DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE 
HAS TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. 
WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE LAST 
WEEK THAT SONDLAND IS CARRYING 
OUT THE UNAUTHORIZED AGENDA, 
WHICH IS WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL 
THE RUDY GIULIANI AGENDA, FOR 
SHORTHAND. 
BUT THE UNAUTHORIZED AGENDA 
RATHER THAN A LEGITIMATE 
AGENDA. 
SO CERTAINLY THE UNAUTHORIZED 
AGENDA, WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY TO 
FURTHER THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE 
TO GO FORWARD WITH TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS, OR NOT, OR TO 
ANNOUNCE YOU'RE GOING FORWARD, 
WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT, INTO THE 
BIDEN SITUATION, WHICH IS 
BURISMA, AND INTO THE QUESTION 
OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND 
UKRANIAN INTERFERENCE RATHER 
THAN RUSSIA. 
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
SONDLAND IS THOUGHT ABOUT AS 
FURTHERING THE COUNTRY'S 
AGENDA. 
HE'S FURTHERING THE PRESIDENT'S 
AGENDA, OR SO WE HAVE BEEN LED 
TO BELIEVE. 
>> LET'S PLAY A LITTLE SOUND 
BASED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT HERE. 
WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
EXPLAINS TO THE COMMITTEE AS TO 
WHY HE REPORTED HIS CONCERNS 
AND THE RATIONALE FOR DOING SO, 
BUT LOOKS LIKE THE CHAIRMAN MAY 
BE ABOUT TO GET STARTED. 
THIS IS PAGE 65 ON MY NOTES, 
WHERE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN  EMPHASIZES WHY HE 
REPORTED HIS CONCERNS TO 
SONDLAND. 
>> WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS 
JULY 10th RELATING TO SONDLAND 
AND JULY 25th RELATING TO THE 
PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A 
SENSE OF DUTY. 
I REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN 
OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER 
AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. 
MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE 
CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. 
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE 
SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN 
FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY 
ACTIONS. 
WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY 
ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT 
PROPERLY AND CARRY OUT MY DUTY. 
>> WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT 
THAT, HE WENT ON TO SAY IT'S 
NOT JUST ASKING FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION, BUT THE 
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE DONE IN 
UKRAINE, WHERE HE FELT IT WOULD 
BE UNLIKELY THERE WOULD BE AN 
IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION, SO IT 
WOULDN'T BE SINCERE. 
>> HE HAD A MESSAGE FOR HIS 
FATHER, WHO I'M ASSUMING IS NO 
LONGER WITH US, AND THANKED THE 
FATHER FROM TAKING THE FAMILY 
FROM THE SOVIET UNION AND TO 
THE UNITED STATES AND HE KNEW 
IF HE TOLD THE TRUTH EVERYTHING 
WOULD BE OKAY. 
THIS IS FROM COLONEL KATHY 
TURNER, GIVEN TO DAVID MARTIN 
AT THE PENTAGON. 
THE ARMY IS PROVIDING SUPPORT 
TO COLONEL VINDMAN AS A MATTER 
OF PUBLIC ATTENTION. 
AS WITH ANY SOLDIER, THE ARMY 
WILL WORK WITH CIVILIAN 
AUTHORITIES TO BE SURE HE AND 
HIS FAMILY ARE PROPERLY 
PROTECTED. 
AGAIN, IT'S COUCHED IN PR 
SPEAK. 
>> BUT IT'S CHILLING. 
>> IT IS, THAT THIS DECORATED 
SOLDIER, WHO NEARLY LOST HIS 
LIFE SERVING IN IRAQ BY AN IED 
IS NOW POTENTIALLY FACING 
REPERCUSSIONS FROM FELLOW 
AMERICANS FOR DOING WHAT HE 
SAID THERE AS WHAT HE SAW WAS 
HIS DUTY. 
>> HIS SENTIMENTS ABOUT HIS 
FATHER, HOW CAN ANY AMERICAN 
LISTEN TO THAT AND FEEL 
UNMOVED? 
IF THERE WAS ONE DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN THE TESTIMONIES WE DID 
HEAR, ONE PERSON CALLED IT 
UNUSUAL, AND VINDMAN REFERRED 
TO IT AS IMPROPER. 
I THINK THAT WAS THE ONE 
STRONGEST DELINEATION BETWEEN 
THE TWO AND I WOULD HOPE THAT 
REPUBLICANS COMING UP WOULD 
ACTUALLY TEND TO REFRAIN FROM 
SOME OF THE ATTACKS ON VINDMAN 
AND TRY -- LIEUTENANT COLONEL, 
AS HE WOULD LIKE TO BE REFERRED 
TO, AND IF THEY WANT TO LEAN 
INTO ANYTHING, LEAN ON THE 
ATTACKS ON BIDEN, THE NOTION OF 
CORRUPTION AROUND, WHAT WAS 
HUNTER BIDEN DOING IN UKRAINE. 
I THINK THAT WAS MORE EFFECTIVE 
EARLIER ON. 
>> Reporter: BASED ON DOUG 
COLLINS' LETTER TO JERRY NADLER 
LAST NIGHT, I ANTICIPATE WE'LL 
HEAR REPUBLICANS BRING UP TIM 
MORRISON'S DEPOSITION, IN WHICH 
HE SAID THAT HE HAD CONCERNS 
ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT, AND -- THIS 
IS FROM THE DEPOSITION -- THE 
REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY ASKS DID 
ANYONE BRING CONCERNS TO YOU 
THEY BELIEVED COLONEL VINDMAN 
MAY LEAK SOMETHING, AND HE SAID 
YES. 
>> HE WAS ASKED HAD HE EVER 
LEAKED ANYTHING TO REPORTERS, 
AND BOTH HE AND MS. WILLIAMS 
TESTIFIED NO. 
>> HE WAS, BUT THIS IS 
SOMETHING I THINK THE 
REPUBLICANS, BASED ON THE 
LETTER/MEMO THAT JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE MEMBER COLLINS 
RELEASED IS IN LINE WITH THEIR 
THINKING. 
>> THAT'S WHY REPUBLICANS WANT 
MORRISON CALLED. 
>> Reporter: ABSOLUTELY. 
BUT VINDMAN SEEMS TO BE SO 
IMPECCABLE IN HIS INTEGRITY. 
THAT'S WHY THIS LAST ATTACK BY 
MR. CASTOR, I FOUND AS 
PERSONALLY SO DISTASTEFUL. 
>> LET'S GO BACK TO THE 
HEARING. 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS RECONVENING. 
>> THERE WAS A RECITATION OF 
INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA, 
ZLOCHEVSKY, THE BIDENS. 
IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU HAVE NO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
MATTERS ASKED IN THOSE 
QUESTIONS? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ASKED 
A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE AND 
WHETHER HE COULD HAVE MADE THE 
INAUGURATION OR WAS THE 
PRESIDENT TRAVELING OR THE TRIP 
TO CANADA. 
LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING: 
YOU WERE INSTRUCTED THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO GO BEFORE YOU 
KNEW THE DATE OF THE 
INAUGURATION? 
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO AT THE TIME HE WAS TOLD 
NOT TO GO, THERE WAS NO 
CALCULATION ABOUT WHERE HE 
MIGHT BE OR WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
MIGHT BE BECAUSE THE DATE 
HADN'T BEEN SET YET, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT, THE DATE HAD 
NOT BEEN SET, SO WE WERE 
WEIGHING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT 
SCENARIOS OF WHEN THE 
INAUGURATION MIGHT FALL. 
>> I THINK YOU SAID ORIGINALLY 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO GO, 
THEN RECEIVED THE INTRODUCTION 
THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WANTED 
HIM TO GO. 
WHERE YOU ARE IN THE INTERIM 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TELLING 
HIM TO GO AND NOT TO GO, THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI HAD TO ABORT A 
TRIP THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE 
TO UKRAINE? 
>> I'D SEEN THAT IN THE PRESS, 
YES. 
>> AND DID YOU SEE THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE AROUND 
ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL 
THE TRIP? 
>> FOR HAVING TO CONSELL HIS 
TRIP? 
>> YES. 
>> I READ THAT IN THE PRESS, 
YES. 
>> AND DID YOU READ THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WANTED TO GO TO 
UKRAINE TO, AS HE PUT IT, NOT 
MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS BUT 
MEDDLE IN THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> I DID READ THAT, YES. 
>> AND THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO 
THE CANCELLATION OF THE TRIP TO 
THE INAUGURATION? 
>> IT DID. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE 
ASKED BY THE MINORITY COUNCIL 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS ON 
THE JULY 25th CALL AND WHETHER 
THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS WERE 
AMBIGUOUS. 
WAS THERE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF THE WORD 
BIDEN? 
>> THERE WAS NOT. 
>> IT WAS CLEAR THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED ZELENSKY TO COMMIT TO 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, WAS 
IT NOT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE FAVORS 
THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE 
PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A 
DEMAND? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY 
ABOUT THAT? 
>> IN MY MIND, THERE WAS NOT. 
>> IT'S ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT, 
THAT THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED 
ZELENSKY FOR IN 2016 AND INTO 
THE BIDENS WERE PRECISELY THE 
TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS CALLING FOR 
PUBLICLY, WERE THEY NOT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO WHEN PEOPLE SUGGEST RIGHT-
HAND LANE  RUDY GIULIANI WAS 
ACTED ON HIS OWN, THE PRESIDENT 
REFERRED TO THE SAME TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS RUDY GIULIANI 
WAS OUT PUSHING ON HIS BEHALF, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ASKED 
ABOUT THE MEETING THE VICE 
PRESIDENT HAD WITH ZELENSKY IN 
SEPTEMBER, IN WHICH THE 
UKRANIANS BROUGHT UP THEIR 
CONCERN ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT 
WHETHER IN THAT MEETING, THE 
BIDENS OR BURISMA CAME UP, AND 
YOU SAID THEY DID NOT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT, THEY DID NOT 
COME UP. 
>> THAT BILATERAL MEETING WAS A 
LARGE MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE 
DOZEN PEOPLE, WASN'T IT? 
>> IT WAS. 
>> SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS 
MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE DOZEN 
PEOPLE, THE VICE PRESIDENT 
DIDN'T BRING UP THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? 
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
HE'S NEVER BROUGHT UP THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> WHERE YOU ARE THAT 
IMMEDIATELY -- AND I MEAN 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT MEETING 
BROKE UP, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAS SAID THAT HE WENT OVER TO 
MR. YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP 
ADVISORS TO ZELENSKY, AND TOLD 
YERMAK THAT IF THEY WANTED TO 
MILITARY AID, THEY WERE GOING 
TO HAVE TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS OR WORDS TO THAT 
EFFECT? 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE AT THE TIME 
OF ANY SIDE MEETINGS THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
FOLLOWING THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
I'VE ONLY LEARNED THAT THROUGH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY. 
>> SO AT THE BIG PUBLIC 
MEETING, IT DIDN'T COME UP, AND 
YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO THE PRIVATE 
MEETING HELD IMMEDIATELY 
THEREAFTER? 
>> CORRECT. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT MOVED ON 
WITH HIS SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER HIS MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT TO 
GO BACK TO THE JULY 10th 
MEETING OR MEETINGS, THE ONE 
WITH  AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THE 
ONE THAT FOLLOWED ON ITS HEELS. 
WHERE YOU ARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON INSTRUCTED YOUR 
SUPERIOR, DR. HILL, TO GO TALK 
TO THE LAWYERS AFTER THAT 
MEETING? 
>> I LEARNED SHORTLY AFTER SHE 
WAS FINISHED TALKING TO 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND AFTER WE 
WRAPPED UP WITH THE WARD ROOM, 
THAT SHE DID HAVE A MEETING 
WITH HIM AND THAT'S WHAT WAS 
EXPRESSED. 
>> YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD GO 
TALK TO THE LAWYERS ON YOUR 
OWN, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, 
YES. 
>> BUT BOLTON ALSO THOUGHT THAT 
DR. HILL SHOULD GO TALK TO THE 
LAWYERS BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERN 
OVER THIS DRUG DEAL THAT 
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE 
COOKING UP, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND IN FACT, THIS DRUG DEAL, 
AS BOLTON CALLED IT, INVOLVED 
THIS CONDITIONING OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING ON THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT SONDLAND 
BROUGHT UP, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND IN FACT, THE SAME 
CONDITIONS OR ISSUE OF WANTING 
THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS 
AND TYING IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, THIS CAME UP IN THE 
JULY 25th CALL, DID IT NOT? 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO THE VERY SAME ISSUE THAT 
BOLTON SAID TO HILL, GO TALK TO 
THE LAWYERS, THE SAME ISSUE 
THAT PROMPTED YOU TO GO TALK TO 
THE LAWYERS ENDS UPCOMING UP 
MANY THAT CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND IT WAS THAT CONVERSATION 
THAT ONCE AGAIN LED YOU BACK TO 
THE LAWYERS' OFFICE? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TOOK SEVEN 
MINUTES SO I ASSUME YOU'LL GIVE 
US EQUAL TIME? 
>> YES, MR. NUNES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, BEFORE I 
TURN TO MR. JORDAN, I ASKED MS. 
WILLIAMS ABOUT THIS, IF SHE'D 
EVER ACCESSED WITHOUT 
AUTHORIZATION A FELLOW 
EMPLOYEE'S COMPUTER SYSTEM. 
SHE ANSWERED NO TO THE 
QUESTION. 
HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED ANYONE'S 
COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE NSC 
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION? 
>> WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE? 
NO. 
>> KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? 
>> I'M SORRY? 
>> KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? 
YOU NEVER ACCESSED SOMEONE'S 
COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR 
KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MR. JORDAN? 
>> I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER. 
COLONEL, I WANT TO THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR SERVICE AND SACRIFICE 
TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY. 
THIS AFTERNOON YOUR FORMER 
BOSS, MR. MORRISON IS GOING TO 
SIT WHERE YOU ARE AND HE'S 
GOING TO TESTIFY. 
I THINK WE ARE BRINGING YOU A 
COPY AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A 
CHANCE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF 
THE THINGS HE SAID IN HIS 
DEPOSITION. 
PAGE 82 OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM 
MR. MORRISON. 
I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT AMONG THE 
DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL 
AND THE TRANSITION WITH OUR 
TEAM, ITS STRENGTHS AND 
WEAKNESSES. 
THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT 
ALEX'S JUDGMENT AND HE WAS 
ASKED DID ANYONE EVER BRING 
CONCERNS TO YOU THEY BELIEVED 
COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED 
SOMETHING, MR. MORRISON REPLIED 
YES. 
SO YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNED 
ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, YOUR 
FORMER BOSS, DR. HILL HAD 
CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, 
AND YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES FELT 
THERE WERE TIMES YOU LEAKED 
INFORMATION. 
ANY IDEA WHY THEY HAVE THOSE 
IMPRESSIONS COLONEL VINDMAN? 
>> YES, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN. 
I'LL START BY READING DR. 
HILL'S OWN WORDS, AS SHE 
ATTESTED TO IN MY LAST 
EVALUATION, DATED MIDDLE OF 
JULY BEFORE HE SHIFT. 
ALEX IS A TOP 1% MILITARY 
OFFICER AND THE BEST OFFICER 
I'VE WORKED WITH IN MY 15 YEARS 
OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES. 
HE'S BRILLIANT, UNFLAPPABLE AND 
EXERCISES EXEMPLARY JUDGMENT, 
SO FORTH AND SO ON. 
I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA. 
MR. MORRISON -- YEAH, THE DATE 
OF THAT WAS -- I'M SORRY. 
JULY 13th. 
SO MR. JORDAN, I WOULD SAY THAT 
I CAN'T SAY WHAT MR. MORRISON 
-- WHY MR. MORRISON QUESTIONED 
MY JUDGMENT. 
WE'D ONLY RECENTLY STARTED 
WORKING TOGETHER. 
HE WASN'T THERE VERY LONG AND 
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE 
OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP. 
MAYBE IT WAS DIFFERENT 
CULTURES, MILITARY VERSUS -- 
>> AND COLONEL, YOU HAVE NEVER 
LEAKED INFORMATION? 
>> I NEVER DID, NEVER WOULD. 
THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT I 
WOULD DO THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
COLONEL, WE DEPOSE A LOT OF 
PEOPLE IN THE BUNKER IN THE 
BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL BUT OF 
ALL THOSE DEPOSITIONS, ONLY 
THREE INDIVIDUALS WE DEPOSED 
WERE ON THE NOW SOMEWHAT FAMOUS 
JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
THERE WAS YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL 
BESIDE YOU, MS. WILLIAMS, THEN 
YOUR BOSS MR. MORRISON, WHO I 
JUST READ FROM HIS DEPOSITION. 
WHEN WE ASKED MS. WILLIAMS WHO 
SHE SPOKE TO AFTER THE CALL 
ABOUT THE CALL, SHE WAS WILLING 
TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. 
WHEN WE ASKED MR. MORRISON WHO 
HE SPOKE TO AFTER THE CALL 
ABOUT THE CALL, HE WAS WILLING 
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HIM TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
YOU FIRST TOLD US THREE 
INDIVIDUALS, YOUR BROTHER AND 
THE TWO LAWYERS. 
THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS A GROUP 
OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU 
COMMUNICATED WITH, BUT YOU 
WOULD ONLY GIVE US ONE 
INDIVIDUAL IN THE GROUP AND THE 
CHAIRMAN WOULD ONLY ALLOW YOU 
TO GIVE US THAT NAME. 
SO I WANT TO KNOW FIRST, HOW 
MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN THAT 
GROUP OF PEOPLE YOU 
COMMUNICATED WITH OUTSIDE THE 
FOUR INDIVIDUALS I JUST NAMED? 
>> MR. JORDAN, ON A CALL 
READOUT, CERTAINLY AFTER THE 
FIRST CALL, THERE WERE PROBABLY 
A HALF DOZEN PEOPLE OR MORE ON 
THE READOUT. 
THOSE ARE PEOPLE WITH THE 
PROPER CLEARANCE AND THE NEED 
TO KNOW. 
IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE 
SENSITIVITY OF THE CALL, AND 
MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO 
TALK TO ANYONE ELSE, KENT, AND 
ONE OTHER PERSON. 
>> AND YOU CAN'T TELL US WHO 
THAT PERSON IS? 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF 
ORDER. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. 
I WOULD ASK YOU TO ENFORCE THE 
RULE WITH REGARD TO THE 
DISCLOSURE, WITH REGARD TO THE 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICE. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
I INDICATED BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE USED TO 
OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
THAT SAME -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU STOP 
THE TIME SO I DON'T LOSE THE 
TIME? 
>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED AGAIN, MR. 
JORDAN. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE 
HOW THIS IS OUTING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
THE WITNESS TESTIFIED IN HIS 
DEPOSITION THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW 
WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. 
YOU HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH NO 
ONE BELIEVES YOU, YOU HAVE SAID 
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS. 
SO HOW IS THIS OUTING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO FIND OUT WHO 
THIS INDIVIDUAL IS? 
>> THIS IS YOUR TIME FOR 
QUESTIONS BUT YOUR QUESTIONS 
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE 
WITNESS AND NOT TO TRY AND OUT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, MR. 
MORRISON SAID HE WAS NOT 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL 
ITSELF, SAYING THERE WAS 
NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ON 
THE CALL. 
BUT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
CALL LEAKING, THE CONTENTS OF 
THE CALL LEAKING. 
HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED HOW IT 
WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT, HOW THE 
CONTENTS WOULD BE USED IN 
WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL PROCESS. 
>> EXCUSE ME, MR. JORDAN, COULD 
I GET A PAGE? 
>> 44. 
MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT. 
THE CALL LEAKS, WHISTLEBLOWER 
GOES TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF 
THEN RUNS OFF TO THE LAWYER, 
THE SAME LAWYER WHO SAID IN 
JANUARY 2017 THE COUP HAS 
STARTED AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T 
COUNT ON, ONE THING THEY DIDN'T 
COUNT ON WAS THE PRESIDENT 
RELEASING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, 
AND LETTING US ALL SEE WHAT HE 
SAID. 
THEY DIDN'T COUNT ON THAT. 
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO LEAKAGE. 
THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL 
HAVE SAID NO PRESSURE, NO 
PUSHING, NO LINKAGE OF THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS TO 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE CALL ON 
THE 25th, WE KNOW THAT COLONEL 
VINDMAN TALKED TO SEVERAL 
PEOPLE. 
AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, HOW 
MANY PEOPLE DID YOU TALK TO 
ABOUT THE CALL? 
>> I DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY 
ABOUT THE CALL. 
>> DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY. 
>> NO. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK YOU TO 
CONSENT TO ENTER THE LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW 
INTO THE RECORD. 
>> MAY I INQUIRE OF COLONEL 
VINDMAN, WHETHER HE'D LIKE US 
TO DO THAT? 
IF HE WOULD, WE'RE HAPPY TO. 
IF YOU WOULD PREFER IT NOT BE 
IN THE RECORD, I WOULD LEAVE 
THAT TO YOU. 
>> I GUESS WITH REDACTIONS, IT 
HAS PII IN IT THAT SHOULD BE 
PROTECTED. 
AND MAYBE THE ONLY RELEVANT 
ELEMENTS ARE THE ACTUAL 
NARRATIVE. 
>> DID YOU READ THE RELEVANT 
PORTIONS? 
>> THAT WAS THE SHORT VERSION. 
THERE WERE OTHER PARAGRAPHS IN 
THERE. 
>> I'LL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU JOINED THE 
FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2006, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WERE A 
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE 
BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN 1994? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW AS A FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER, YOU HAVE SERVED THREE 
PRESIDENTS, TWO REPUBLICANS AND 
ONE DEMOCRAT, IN A VARIETY OF 
ROLES, CORRECT? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION, 
YOU'RE DETAILED TO STATE 
FOREIGN ADVISOR? 
>> YES. 
>> ON SUNDAY THE PRESIDENT 
PERSONALLY TARGETED YOU IN A 
TWEET AFTER HE TARGETED 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DURING 
HER HEARING TESTIMONY. 
I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW AND READ 
YOU THE TWEET:  TELL JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS, WHOEVER THAT IS, TO 
READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS TO THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS AND SEE THE 
JUST-RELEASED STATEMENT FROM 
UKRAINE. 
THEN SHE SHOULD MEET WITH THE 
OTHER NEVER-TRUMPERS, WHO I 
DON'T KNOW AND MOSTLY NEVER 
EVEN HEARD OF, AND WORK OUT A 
BETTER PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK. 
MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU ENGAGED 
IN A PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU A 
NEVER-TRUMPER? 
>> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW AN 
OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF A NEVER-
TRUMPER, BUT I WOULD NOT, NO. 
>> DID THAT TWEET MAKE AN 
IMPRESSION ON YOU WHEN YOU READ 
IT? 
>> IT CERTAINLY SURPRISED ME. 
I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO BE 
CALLED OUT BY NAME. 
>> SURPRISED ME TOO AND LOOKED 
A LOT LIKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION 
AND TAMPERING IN AN EFFORT TO 
GET YOU TO SHAPE YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU HAVE 
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
HAVE DEDICATED YOUR ENTIRE 
PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA. 
ABOVE YOUR LEFT BREAST YOU'RE 
WEARING A DEVICE WHICH IS A 
SPRINGFIELD MUSKET ON A BLUE 
FIELD. 
WHAT IS THAT? 
>> COMBAT INFANTRYMAN'S BADGE. 
>> HOW DO YOU GET THAT? 
>> YOU HAVE TO SERVE IN A 
BRIGADE BELOW A TACTICAL UNIT, 
A FIGHTING UNIT, FRONT LINE 
UNIT IN COMBAT. 
>> UNDER FIRE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU'RE ALSO WEARING A PURPLE 
HEART. 
CAN YOU TELL US IN 20 OR 30 
SECONDS WHY YOU'RE WEARING A 
PURPLE HEART? 
>> IN 2014 IN THE RAMP UP TO 
PROBABLY THE LARGEST URBAN 
OPERATION IN DECADES OUTSIDE 
FALLUJAH, WE WERE CONDUCTING A 
RECONNAISSANCE PATROL IN 
CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARINES 
AND MY VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY AN 
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE 
THAT PENETRATED THE ARMOR. 
>> WERE YOU INJURED? 
>> I WAS. 
>> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED 
FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CALLED YOU A NEVER-
TRUMPER. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WOULD YOU CALL 
YOURSELF A NEVER-TRUMPER? 
>> REPRESENTATIVE, I WOULD CALL 
MYSELF NEVER PARTISAN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR 
MILITARY CAREER, YOU HAVE 
SERVED UNDER FOUR PRESIDENTS, 
TWO DEMOCRATS AND TWO 
REPUBLICANS. 
HAVE YOU EVER WAIVERED FROM THE 
OATH YOU TOOK TO SUPPORT AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? 
>> NEVER. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY POLITICAL 
MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE 
HERE TODAY? 
>> NONE. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, MULTIPLE 
RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS 
INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI HAVE 
ACCUSED YOU OF HARBORING 
LOYALTY TO THE UKRAINE, BECAUSE 
YOUR FAMILY, LIKE MANY 
FAMILIES, EMIGRATED TO THE 
UNITED STATES. 
THEY HAVE ACCUSED YOU OF 
ESPIONAGE AND DUAL LOYALTIES. 
WE HAVE SEEN THAT THIS MORNING, 
THE THREE MINUTES SPENT ASKING 
YOU ABOUT THE OFFER MADE TO 
MAKE YOU THE MINISTER OF 
DEFENSE THAT MAY HAVE COME 
CLOAKED IN A SUIT, BUT THAT WAS 
DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE 
THE RIGHT WING MEDIA AND 
OPENING TO QUESTION YOUR 
LOYALTIES. 
I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT. 
IT'S THE KIND OF THING YOU SAY 
WHEN YOU'RE DEFENDING THE 
INDEFENSIBLE. 
IT'S WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IT'S NOT 
ENOUGH TO ATTACK THE MEDIA, THE 
WAY THE RANKING MEDIA GAVE OVER 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT OR TO 
ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT'S 
WHAT YOU STOOP TO WHEN THE 
INDEFENSIBLE OF YOUR CASE 
REQUIRES THAT YOU ATTACK A MAN 
WEARING A SPRINGFIELD RIFLE ON 
A FIELD OF BLUE ABOVE A PURPLE 
HEART. 
I SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE, AND YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> I YIELD MY FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
IN A PRESS CONFERENCE LAST 
THURSDAY, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP 
COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE OF BRIBERY, EVIDENCED 
IN HIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
IN CONCERT WITH THAT, MULTIPLE 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS 
COMMITTEE GAVE TV AND RADIO 
INTERVIEWS OVER THIS PAST WEEK 
DISCUSSING HOW THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT SUPPORTED HIS 
IMPEACHMENT FOR COMMITTING 
BRIBERY, ALL OF WHICH STRUCK ME 
AS VERY ODD, BECAUSE FOR THE 
LONGEST TIME THIS WAS ALL ABOUT 
QUID PRO QUO, ACCORDING TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. 
BUT AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS 
BEGAN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID 
PRO QUO, OR EVEN THAT QUID PRO 
QUO WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, WE 
SAW A SHIFT FROM THE DEMOCRATS. 
THEY BRIEFLY STARTED TO REFER 
TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ON 
THE JULY 25th CALL AS 
EXTORTION. 
AND NOW IT'S SHIFTED AGAIN LAST 
WEEK TO BRIBERY. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU USED THE WORD 
UNUSUAL TO DESCRIBE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL JULY 25th. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
USED  THE WORDS INAPPROPRIATE 
AND IMPROPER. 
I'VE WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR 
TRANSCRIPTS, AND THE WORD 
BRIBERY OR BRIBE DOESN'T APPEAR 
ANYWHERE MANY THAT. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE NEVER 
USED THE WORDS BRIBERY OR BRIBE 
TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT, CORRECT? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN'T 
EITHER? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHERE THE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IT'S 
ALL ABOUT BRIBERY AND BRIBERY 
IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, NO 
WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD 
BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT. 
NONE OF THEM. 
THESE ARE ALL THE DEPOSITION 
TRANSCRIPTS. 
THESE ARE JUST THE TEN THAT 
HAVE BEEN RELEASED. 
SIX WEEKS OF WITNESS INTERVIEWS 
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, 
HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, 
THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED, 
THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS GIVEN. 
THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT 
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ASKED ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT 
CONSTITUTED BRIBERY BEFORE 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS 
ASKED LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO. 
THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES 
HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR 
BRIBE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT IN THE LAST SIX 
WEEKS OF THIS INQUIRY IS ZERO. 
IN FACT, IN THESE 3500 PAGES OF 
SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, IN 
JUST THESE TEN TRANSCRIPTS 
RELEASED THUS FAR, THE WORD 
BRIBERY APPEARS IN THESE 3500 
PAGES EXACTLY ONE TIME, AND 
IRONICALLY, IT APPEARS NOT IN A 
DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT, BUT IN 
A DESCRIPTION OF VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S ALLEGED CONDUCT. 
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS 
EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE GOING 
TO SAY, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE 
EVIDENCE FROM THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
THE PRESIDENT FOR BRIBERY. 
THEY'RE GOING TO SEND A REPORT 
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND 
BECAUSE THERE'S MORE DEMOCRATS 
THAN REPUBLICANS, IT'S GOING TO 
LIKELY PASS. 
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT 
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS -- WHAT THEY 
ARE DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY, NOT 
A SINGLE WITNESS IS DESCRIBING 
AS BRIBERY. 
WE HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THE 
COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT 
THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE 
NOT IN DISPUTE. 
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
ASKING, IF THE FACTS ARE THE 
SAME, WHY DO THE CRIMES THE 
PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF KEEP 
CHANGING? 
WHY GO FROM QUID PRO QUO TO 
EXTORTION AND NOW TO BRIBERY? 
CHAIRMAN NUNES TOLD YOU THE 
ANSWER. 
THE ANSWER IS POLLING, 
WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED 
AMERICANS WHAT WOULD BE THE 
MOST DAMNING ACCUSATION AND IT 
CAME BACK BRIBERY. 
IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE FORBIDDEN WHITE 
HOUSE LAWYERS FROM 
PARTICIPATING IN THIS 
PROCEEDING. 
THAT'S HARD ENOUGH. 
WHAT'S WORSE IS DEFENDING 
YOURSELF AGAINST AN ACCUSATION 
THAT KEEPS CHANGING IN THE 
MIDDLE OF THE PROCEEDING. 
IF DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIMES OR 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HE SHOULD 
AT LEAST KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS. 
WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAYS IT'S 
ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, SHE'S 
PROMISED US EVIDENCE ABOUT 
BRIBERY THAT WOULD BE 
COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING, 
AND INSTEAD IT'S INVISIBLE. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE 
TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THANKING 
BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR 
SERVICE. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AS 
PART OF YOUR POLICY PORTFOLIO 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU 
MAINTAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH 
UKRANIAN OFFICIALS, DO YOU NOT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YOU EXPLAINED EARLIER IN 
YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR JOB 
WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS TO 
COORDINATE UNITED STATES AND 
UKRAINE POLICIES, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> IT IS TO COORDINATE UNITED 
STATES POLICY VIS-A-VIS 
UKRAINE, CORRECT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN THE SPRING 
OF THIS YEAR THAT THESE 
UKRANIAN OFFICIALS BEGAN ASKING 
YOU QUOTE, ADVICE ON HOW TO 
RESPOND TO MR. GIULIANI'S 
ADVANCES, END QUOTE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY 
MET BY, MR. GIULIANI'S 
ADVANCES? 
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN 
BOTH HIS PUBLIC COMMENTARY, 
PUBLISHLY CALLING FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016, 
BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN, AS 
WELL AS HIS DIRECT OVERTURES TO 
THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE, 
DIRECTLY AND THROUGH PROXIES. 
THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. 
>> AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, UNDER 
WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU BELIEVE 
MR. GIULIANI WAS ACTING UNDER? 
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T KNOW. 
>> DID THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS 
YOU SPOKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT 
MR. GIULIANI WAS TELLING THEM 
TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S SON AND DEBUNK THE 2016 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES? 
>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT 
AGAIN? 
>> DO YOU THINK THE UKRANIAN 
OFFICIALS YOU SPOKE TO 
UNDERSTOOD THE UNDERLINING 
MEANING OF MR. GIULIANI'S 
ADVANCES TO BE BOTH 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS AS 
WELL AS DEBUNKING THE 2016 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES? 
>> YES, I THINK TO BE CLEAR, I 
THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO 
DEBUNKING THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE. 
>> EXACTLY. 
>> NOW, WAS THIS OFFICIAL U.S. 
FOREIGN POLICY TO PUSH FOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS? 
>> IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY 
PROCESS THAT I PARTICIPATED IN. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU AGREE 
THAT PRESSING THESE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS INCONSISTENT 
WITH OFFICIAL U.S.-UKRAINE 
POLICY? 
>> OBVIOUSLY ANTICORRUPTION 
REFORMS IS A BIG PART OF OUR 
POLICY. 
I UNDERSTAND. 
I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER THESE 
PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> THAT'S FAIR. 
COLONEL, IS IT TRUE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE 
UKRANIAN PRESIDENT ON THE CALL 
ON JULY 25th TO WORK WITH MR. 
GIULIANI ON THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI HAS 
MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THAT 
HE'S ACTING ON BEHALF OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS MR. 
GIULIANI TOLD THE NEW YORK 
TIMES, QUOTE, MY ONLY CLIENT IS 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
HE'S THE ONE I HAVE THE 
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, AND TO 
TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENS. 
HE ADDED THAT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE QUOTE, 
VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO MY 
CLIENT, AND MY TURN OUT TO BE 
HELPFUL TO MY GOVERNMENT, END 
QUOTE. 
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE UKRANIAN 
OFFICIALS YOU WERE ON A DAILY 
BASIS YOU'RE IN CONTACT WITH 
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MR. 
GIULIANI'S ADVANCES? 
>> YES, THEY WERE. 
>> IN YOUR ASSESSMENT, DID THEY 
UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL NATURE 
OF THE REQUESTS BEING ASKED OF 
THEM? 
>> I BELIEVE THEY DID. 
>> DID THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT 
WAS AFFECTING U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLICY? 
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY 
FRANKLY UNDERSTOOD. 
I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE 
IMPLICATIONS, YES. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT 
YOU WARNED THE UKRANIANS NOT TO 
GET INVOLVED IN U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I COUNSELED THEM, YES. 
>> IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT 
YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT 
THAT YOU WERE EXPRESSING NOT 
JUST WHAT YOU THOUGHT BUT 
TRADITION AND POLICY OF THE 
UNITED STATES? 
>> IT WAS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TO 
BE U.S. POLICY. 
>> WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS NOT TO GET INVOLVED 
IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF A 
NATION LIKE THE UNITED STATES? 
>> THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT COMES 
TO MIND IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE 
IN THE 2016, THE IMPACT THAT 
HAD ON INTERNAL POLITICS, AND 
THE CONSEQUENCES IT HAD FOR 
RUSSIA ITSELF. 
THIS ADMINISTRATION ENFORCED 
SANCTIONS, HEAVY SANCTIONS 
AGAINST RUSSIA FOR THEIR 
INTERFERENCE. 
>> I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME. 
IS IT NORMAL FOR THE -- FOR A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN, A NONU.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, TO GET 
INVOLVED IN FOREIGN POLICY AND 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS LIKE MR. 
GIULIANI? 
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE TO 
EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT. 
IT CERTAINLY WASN'T HELPFUL AND 
DIDN'T HELP ADVANCE U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SERVICE AND KNOWLEDGE AND 
EXPERTISE AS WE LOOK TO 
FORMULATING POLICY WITH OUR 
ALLIES AND TO TRY AND COUNTER 
THOSE WHO ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. 
I THINK WE ARE ALL VERY 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN 
POLICY AND HOW IT CAN THWART 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE 
RESPONSIBLE AS YOU SAID AS PART 
OF YOUR PORTFOLIO, TO ADVICE 
THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT 
UKRAINE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR 
OPENING, YOU SAY YOU'RE THE 
PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE 
PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE AND YOU 
COORDINATE U.S.-UKRAINE POLICY, 
CORRECT? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN THIS 
STATEMENT I ISSUED THIS 
MORNING, I PROBABLY EASED THAT 
BACK. 
I TOOK IT OFF MY JOB 
DESCRIPTION, BUT I SPENT MUCH 
NOT REALLY TIME ADVISING THE 
AMBASSADOR THAN I DID THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> YOUR STATEMENT AS YOU 
SUBMITTED IT AND READ IT TODAY, 
SAYS AT THE NSC I'M THE 
PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I READ INTO 
THE TRANSCRIPT. 
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAD 
IN THERE YESTERDAY CHOSE TO 
EASE BACK IN MY LANGUAGE JUST 
BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO -- 
>> YOU WROTE WHAT I JUST READ? 
>> WHAT I READ INTO THE RECORD 
THIS MORNING DIDN'T SAY THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
NOTED. 
BECAUSE YOU KNOW UKRAINE, YOU 
KNOW WE WORK THROUGH OUR ALLIES 
AND MULTILATERAL RELATIONS, AND 
YOU KNOW UKRAINE IS A SPIRALING 
MEMBER OF THE EU? 
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU KNOW PROBABLY THE EU 
AND NATO BOTH HAVE OFFICES IN 
UKRAINE, AND WE TRY TO ADVANCE 
OUR POLICY WITH THE EU AND 
NATO, AND YOU WOULD AGREE OUR 
AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON AND 
SONDLAND WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE 
FOR ADVANCING OUR POLICY 
INTERESTS WITH UKRAINE AT THE 
EU AND AT NATO, RIGHT MS. 
WILLIAMS? 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY 
IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND 
UKRAINE, THAT WOULD FALL TO 
AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON, AND 
BETWEEN THE EU AND UKRAINE, TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN AMBASSADOR 
IN UKRAINE AS WELL. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WOULD 
AGREE? 
>> I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU SAID 
IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT 
MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI PROMOTED 
FALSE INFORMATION THAT 
UNDERMINED THE U.S. POLICY. 
HAVE YOU EVER MET GIULIANI? 
>> JUST TO BE ACCURATE, I SAID 
FALSE NARRATIVE. 
THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN THE 
RECORD THIS MORNING. 
I'VE NOT MET HIM. 
>> SO YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM OR BEEN 
IN A MEETING WHERE HE'S SPOKEN 
TO OTHERS ABOUT UKRAINE? 
>> NO, JUST WHAT I SAW, HIS 
COMMENTS ON TV. 
>> NEWS REPORTS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND SIMILAR, YOU HAVE NEVER 
MET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YOU HAVE NEVER ADVISED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ON UKRAINE? 
>> I ADVISED HIM INDIRECTLY AND 
MADE PREPARATIONS FOR THE 
CALLS. 
>> BUT YOU HAVE NEVER SOKEN TO 
THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD HIM 
ADVICE ON UKRAINE? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT, 
YOU SAID IN MAY I ATTENDED THE 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE 
DELEGATION WITH PERRY AND 
FOLLOWING, THE MEMBERS PROVIDED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP A BRIEFING. 
YOU WERE A MEMBER BUT YOU WERE 
NOT IN THAT MEETING, WERE YOU? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO THAT MEETING OCCURRED 
WITHOUT YOU. 
YOU DO KNOW THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES? 
>> I DO, REPRESENTATIVE. 
>> YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU'RE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING 
U.S.-UKRANIAN POLICY. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
POMPEO REPORT TO YOU? 
>> HE DOES NOT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER? 
>> HE DOES NOT. 
>> AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPE, 
ANYONE AT DOD REPORT TO YOU 
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF 
COORDINATING U.S. POLICY WITH 
UKRAINE? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, AT MY LEVEL, I 
CONVENE A SUB POLICY 
COORDINATING COMMITTEE. 
THAT'S DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY, I CHAIR THOSE 
MEETINGS -- 
>> DOES ANYBODY NEED YOUR 
APPROVAL IN YOUR ROLE ON 
UKRAINE POLICY TO FORMULATE 
UKRAINE POLICY, DO THEY SEEK 
YOUR APPROVAL? 
>> ACCORDING TO THE EU, THE 
POLICY IS COORDINATED BY THE 
NSC, CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE 
ANY INFORMATION THAT ANY PERSON 
WHO'S TESTIFIED AS PART OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, EITHER IN 
SECRET OR IN PUBLIC, HAS EITHER 
PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
>> I'VE NOT READ THE OTHER 
TESTIMONIES. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE 
THEY HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES 
OR LIED? 
>> NO, BECAUSE I'VE NOT READ 
THEM. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU HAVE 
ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS 
TESTIFIED DURING THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS 
PERJURED HELPS OR LIED TO THIS 
COMMITTEE? 
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
I WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT 
CLEAR FOR THE FOLKS WATCHING 
THE HEARING TODAY. 
BRIBERY DOES INVOLVE A QUID PRO 
QUO. 
BRIBERY INVOLVES THE 
CONDITIONING OF AN OFFICIAL ACT 
FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE. 
AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING OR $400 MILLION 
IN MILITARY AID, AND SOMETHING 
OF VALUE TO A PRESIDENT MAY 
INCLUDE INVESTIGATIONS OF THEIR 
POLITICAL RIVALFUL THE REASON 
WE DON'T ASK WITNESSES THAT ARE 
FACT WITNESSES TO MAKE THE 
JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER A CRIME 
OR BRIBERY HAS BEEN COMMITTED 
OR MORE SIGNIFICANTLY WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY 
ITEMIZED BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS, IS YOU'RE 
FACT WITNESSES. 
IT WILL BE OUR JOB TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THE IMPEACHABLE ACT OF 
BRIBERY HAS OCCURRED. 
THAT'S WHY WE DON'T ASK YOU 
THOSE QUESTIONS. 
FOR ONE THING, YOU'RE ALSO NOT 
AWARE OF ALL THE OTHER FACTS 
INTRODUCED DURING THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE IN A 
JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IN THAT MEETING THE 
UKRANIANS ASKED ABOUT WHEN THEY 
WOULD GET THEIR OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND REPLIED THEY NEED TO 
QUOTE, SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE 
DELIVERING SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO 
SECURE A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, END QUOTE. 
IS THAT CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU 
LATER LEARN WHY AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT? 
>> I DIDN'T. 
>> AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
ENDED THAT MEETING, SOME OF THE 
GROUP HAD A DIFFERENT MEETING 
IN THE WARD ROOM IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
THERE WITH SENIOR UKRANIAN 
OFFICIALS, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DID NSC LAWYERS TELL YOU TO 
COME DIRECTLY TO THEM SIR, IF 
YOU HAD ANY OTHER CONCERNS 
AFTER JULY 10th? 
>> THEY SAID, I BELIEVE THE 
WORDS WERE SOMETHING TO THE 
EFFECT OF, IF YOU HAVE ANY 
OTHER CONCERNS, FEEL FREE TO 
COME BACK. 
>> AND THIS FOLLOWING MEETING, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEFT, IN 
YOUR WORDS, NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT 
WHAT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS HE 
WAS REQUESTING. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR 
THAT HE WAS REQUESTING AN 
INVESTIGATION OF FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S SON, 
THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND HE WAS ASKING THESE IN 
COORDINATION WITH WHITE HOUSE 
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY? 
>> THAT IS WHAT I HEARD HIM 
SAY. 
>> COLONEL, IN YOUR CAREER, HAD 
YOU EVER BEFORE SEEN A REQUEST 
TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN 
RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
POLITICAL OPPONENT? 
>> I HAVE NOT. 
>> AND YOU IMMEDIATELY RAISED 
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, CORRECT 
SIR? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? 
>> AFTER I REPORTED IT TO THE 
-- I'M SORRY. 
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THAT 
AGAIN? 
>> YOU RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT 
THIS. 
WHAT HAPPENED? 
>> TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IF I 
UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, I 
STATED THAT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING 
TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY. 
>> DID YOU ALSO RAISE CONCERNS 
THAT DAY WITH WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS? 
>> I DID. 
>> WHAT DID YOU TELL THEM? 
>> I REPORTED THE SAME THING. 
I REPORTED THE CONTENT OF THE 
CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. 
AT THAT POINT I WAS NOT AWARE 
THAT DR. HILL HAD HAD A 
CONVERSATION, SO I RELATED WHAT 
I HAD EXPERIENCED TO THE LEAD 
LEAGUE COUNSEL. 
>> AS WE ARE NOW AWARE SIR, 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED HIS 
CONCERNS AND INSTRUCTED DR. 
FIONA HILL, YOUR SUPERVISOR, TO 
MEET WITH THE SAME WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS TO TELL THEM WHAT 
HAPPENED. 
I AGREE THERE'S NO QUESTION 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
PROPOSING A TRANSACTION THAT 
UKRANIAN OFFICIALS TRADING 
WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS FOR 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. 
BUT THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, 
WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS AND HIS 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. 
IN MY VIEW SIR, THAT'S 
APPALLING. 
I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN. 
I WOULD JUST POINT OUT AS WELL 
THAT WHEN THE MATTER MOVES TO 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND NO 
DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT 
THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION, THE 
WHITE HOUSE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL 
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
I NOW TURN TO DR. WINSTON. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, I APPRECIATE 
YOUR SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE 
YOU HAVE MADE, AND I KNOW TO 
ENVIRONMENT. 
I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE 
IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. 
IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU 
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF 
CHAIN OF COMMAND. 
YOU WERE DIRECTLY REPORTING TO 
DR. HILL AND TIM MORRISON AS 
YOUR SENIORS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHEN YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE 25th CALL BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENTS, YOU DIDN'T GO TO 
MR. MORRISON ABOUT THAT, DID 
YOU? 
>> I WENT TO JOHN EISENBERG, 
THE LEAD LEGAL COUNSEL. 
>> THAT'S NOT A CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. 
IN THE DEPOSITION, PAGE 58 TO 
60. 
>> PLEASE ALLOW COLONEL VINDMAN 
TO ANSWER. 
>> I REPORTED TO JOHN 
EISENBERG, AND ATTEMPTED TO 
REPORT IT TO MR. MORRISON. 
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. 
>> HE DIDN'T AVAIL HIMSELF, AND 
AT THAT POINT I WAS TOLD NOT TO 
SPEAK OF IT. 
>> PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESS TO 
FINISH. 
COLONEL, ARE YOU FINISHED? 
>> YES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> OKAY. 
IN THE MORRISON DEPOSITION ON 
PAGE 58 TO 60, THE QUESTION 
WAS, DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE 
ON THE CALL WENT TO EISENBERG 
TO EXPRESS CONCERNS, AND THE 
ANSWER WAS, I LEARNED BASED ON 
TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, BASED ON 
OPEN SOURCE REPORTING, WHICH I 
HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, 
THAT OTHER PERSONNEL DID RAISE 
CONCERNS. 
WHO? 
BASED ON OPEN SOURCE, WITHOUT 
KNOWLEDGE, ALEX VINDMAN ON MY 
STAFF. 
>> HE REPORTS TO YOU, CORRECT? 
HE DOES. 
THE DIRECT REPORT WAS MR. 
MORRISON AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 96, IF 
QUESTION WAS AFTER THE CALL ON 
7/25, DID YOU HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORRISON 
ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS? 
ANSWER, AFTER THE CALL -- PER 
THE EXERCISE IN THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND IN EXPRESSING, I 
IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE SENIOR 
LEGAL COUNSEL AND SHARED THOSE 
CONCERNS. 
THAT WOULD BE MR. EISENBERG, 
CORRECT? 
>> I'M SORRY, MY LAWYER WAS 
TALKING. 
COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? 
>> YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU HAVE SAID THAT. 
YOU'RE NOT A JAG OFFICER, NOT A 
LAWYER. 
AND PAGE 153 OF YOUR TESTIMONY 
DEPOSITION IN REFERENCING THAT 
MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, YOU 
SAID, I WAS NOT MAKING A LEGAL 
JUDGMENT, JUST SHARING MY 
CONCERNS WITH MY CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. 
YET WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT 
YOUR DIRECT REPORT IS TO MR. 
MORRISON. 
SO LET'S ESTABLISH YOUR ROLE 
AND YOUR TITLE. 
IN YOUR DEPOSITION, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 200 AND 
201, YOU SAID, I WOULD SAY 
FIRST OF ALL I'M THE DIRECTOR 
FOR UKRAINE. 
I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE. 
I'M THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE. 
AND I'M HERE FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE OF THE 
ENTIRE UNIVERSITY OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE THAT 
CAN ADVISE THE PRESIDENT ON 
UKRAINE? 
COULDN'T SOMEONE LIKE MS. 
WILLIAMS ALSO ADVISE ON 
UKRAINE? 
IT'S IN HER PORTFOLIO. 
>> THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT 
WOULD HAPPEN. 
FRANKLY, IT WOULD BE AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON. 
>> SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN ADVISE 
ON UKRAINE BESIDES YOU. 
GOING ON, IN YOUR TESTIMONY, 
YOU SAID I UNDERSTAND ALL THE 
NUANCES, CONTEXT AND SO FORTH 
SURROUNDING THESE ISSUES. 
I, ON MY JUDGMENT, EXPRESSED 
CONCERNS WITHIN THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND, WHICH I THINK TO ME AS 
A MILITARY OFFICER, IS 
COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE AND I 
EXERCISED THAT CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. 
YOUR DEPOSITION PAGE 259, YOU 
SAID I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS 
THROUGH IF CHAIN OF COMMAND AND 
THE SENIORS DECIDE THE ACTION 
TO TAKE. 
MR. MORRISON IS YOUR SENIOR. 
HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. 
HOW CAN HE DECIDE AN ACTION TO 
TAKE? 
BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. 
PAGE 60 OF HIS TESTIMONY, WHEN 
DID HE LEARN ABOUT THE THAT 
PHONE CALL, IN THE COURSE OF 
VIEWING THIS PROCEEDING, 
VIEWING THE OPEN RECORD. 
NEXT QUESTION, EISENBERG NEVER 
CAME TO YOU AND RELAYED THE 
CONVERSATION? 
HE SAID NO. 
SO MR. MORRISON WAS SKIPPED IN 
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT 
YOUR OTHER CONCERNS. 
SO MR. MORRISON SAID HE'S THE 
FINAL CLEARING AUTHORITY, AND 
HE SAID HE SAW YOUR EDITS. 
DO YOU REMEMBER IF ALL THE 
EDITS WERE INCORPORATED? 
HE SAID YES, I INCORPORATED ALL 
OF THEM. 
THAT'S PAGE 61 AND 62. 
HE BELIEVES ALL YOUR EDITS WERE 
ACCEPTED. 
IN YOUR EDITS, DID YOU INSIST 
THAT THE WORD DEMAND BE PUT IN 
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> BUT YOU DID SAY THAT IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT TODAY. 
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND YOUR SERVICE. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WASN'T IT THE 
CASE THAT MR. EISENBERG, THE 
ATTORNEY HAD SAID TO YOU AFTER 
THE JULY 5th MEETING THAT YOU 
SHOULD COME TO HIM IF YOU HAVE 
ANY OTHER CONCERNS? 
>> AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING, 
YES, MA'AM, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WE ARE GOING TO PAUSE FOR 
JUST A MOMENT TO WELCOME CBS 
NEWS VIEWERS TO OUR COVERAGE. 
WELCOME TO OUR CONTINUING 
COVERAGE OF THE TESTIMONY OF 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AIDE TO THE 
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN. 
LET'S GET YOU BACK TO THE 
TESTIMONY. 
>> YOU IN YOUR COMMENTS TODAY 
SAID, I WANT TO STATE THAT THE 
VILE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE 
DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE 
PUBLIC SERVANTS IS 
REPREHENSIBLE. 
WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON 
THAT AT ALL? 
>> MA'AM, I THINK THEY STAND ON 
THEIR OWN. 
I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO 
EXPAND ON IT. 
>> IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS, 
SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN 
DEPOSITIONS AND THOSE 
DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE 
PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE 
JOBS CHANGED OR HAVE YOU BEEN 
TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY? 
>> I HAVE NOT, NO. 
>> SINCE THE REPORT ON THE JULY 
25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE 
I WAS BEING EXCLUDED FROM 
SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY 
POSITION. 
>> SO IN SOME RESPECTS THEN, 
THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS? 
>> I'M NOT SURE IF I COULD MAKE 
THAT JUDGMENT. 
I WOULD SAY IT WAS OUT OF THE 
COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT 
HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF 
THESE EVENTS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
IN PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 
25th PHONE CALL, IT'S STANDARD 
FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TALKING 
POINTS, THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> BECAUSE THE WORDS OF THE 
PRESIDENT CARRY INCREDIBLE 
WEIGHT, THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO ENSURE 
THAT EVERYONE HAS CAREFULLY 
CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT SAY TO 
A FOREIGN LEADER? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ARE THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, DID 
YOU PREPARE THE REMARKS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL? 
>> I PREPARED THEM. 
>> AND THEY WERE REVIEWED AND 
EDITED BY SENIOR OFFICERS AT 
THE WHITE HOUSE, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DID THE TALKING POINTS FOR 
THE PRESIDENT CONTAIN ANY 
DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE 
BIDENS OR BURISMA? 
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN 
PRODUCT FROM THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL SUGGESTING 
THAT INVESTIATIONS INTO THE 
2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS OR 
BURISMA ARE PART OF THE 
OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED 
STATES? 
>> NO, I'M NOT. 
>> SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ALLIES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT REQUESTED THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR OFFICIAL 
POLICY REASONS AS PART OF SOME 
PLAN TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE. 
IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, DID THE 
OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED 
STATES INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE 
TO SPECIFICALLY OPEN 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
AND INTERFERENCE BY UKRAINE IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION? 
>> NOTHING THAT  WE PREPARED OR 
DISCUSSED UP TO THAT POINT 
CONTAINED THESE ELEMENTS. 
>> WOULD IT BE YOUR POLICY TO 
ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION? 
>> THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURES 
IN WHICH TO DO THAT. 
CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT IS WELL 
WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT. 
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THE NSC 
WOULD DO. 
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE 
PROHIBITED FROM BEING INVOLVED 
IN ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND A 
FOREIGN POWER, TO ENSURE THAT 
THERE'S NO PERCEPTION OF 
MANIPULATION FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE 
PARTICIPATE IN. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, IN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE, DO THE OFFICIAL 
POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES 
INCLUDE OPENING INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO THE BIDENS? 
>> I HASN'T SEEN ANY OF THOSE 
INDICATIONS IN OUR POLICY 
PREPARATION PROCESS. 
>> LET ME SAY TO COLONEL 
VINDMAN, IN LISTENING TO YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT, I HAD CHILLS 
UP AND DOWN MY SPINE. 
I THINK MOST AMERICANS 
RECOGNIZE WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY 
HERO YOU ARE TO OUR COUNTRY, 
AND I WOULD SAY TO YOUR FATHER, 
HE DID WELL. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. STEWART? 
>> THANK YOU, MS. WILLIAMS AND 
COLONEL VINDMAN FOR BEING HERE 
TODAY. 
I SEE YOU'RE WEARING THE DRESS 
UNIFORM, KNOWING THAT'S NOT THE 
UNIFORM OF THE DAY, I THINK 
IT'S A GREAT REMINDER OF YOUR 
MILITARY SERVICE. 
I TOO COME FROM A MILITARY 
FAMILY. 
MY FATHER WAS A PILOT IN WORLD 
WAR II, SO ONE MILITARY FAMILY 
TO ANOTHER, THANK YOU AND YOUR 
BROTHERS FOR THEIR EXAMPLE 
HERE. 
I'M CURIOUS WHEN RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES CALLED YOU MR. VINDMAN, 
AND YOU WANTED TO BE CALLED 
COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU ALWAYS 
INSIST? 
>> I'M IN MILITARY UNIFORM 
WEARING MY RANK. 
I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO 
STICK WITH THAT. 
>> I'M SURE YOU MEANT NO 
DISRESPECT. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID. 
BUT THE ATTACKS THAT I'VE HAD 
IN THE PRESS AND TWITTER HAVE 
KIND OF ELIMINATED THE FACT 
THAT, EITHER MARGINALIZED ME AS 
A MILITARY OFFICER OR -- 
>> I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THE 
RANKING MEMBER MEANT NO 
DISRESPECT TO YOU. 
>> I BELIEVE THAT. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO 
YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. 
MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE 
WORDS FAVOR. 
THIS BEING INTERPRETED AS A 
BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD 
FAVOR, AND I'LL PARAPHRASE YOU, 
YOU SAID IN THE MILITARY 
CULTURE, WHEN A SUPERIOR 
OFFICER ASKS FOR A FAVOR OF A 
SUBORDINATE, THEY WILL 
INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND. 
IS THAT A FAIR SYNOPSIS OF WHAT 
YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED? 
>> REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN A 
SUPERIOR MAKES A REQUEST, 
THAT'S AN ORDER. 
>> OKAY. 
IN SHORT THEN, DO YOU THINK 
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF A FAVOR 
AS A DEMAND IS BASED ON YOUR 
MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND THE 
MILITARY CULTURE? 
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. 
IS PRESIDENT TRUMP A MEMBER OF 
THE MILITARY? 
>> HE IS NOT. 
>> HAS HE EVER SERVED IN THE 
MILITARY? 
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
>> IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A 
MEMBER OF THE MILITARY? 
>> I DON'T KNOW. 
>> HE'S NOT. 
WOULD IT BE FAIR THEN, TO TAKE 
A PERSON WHO'S NEVER SERVED IN 
THE MILITARY, AND TO TAKE YOUR 
EVALUATION OF THEIR WORDS BASED 
ON YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE, 
AND YOUR MILITARY CULTURE, AND 
TO ATTACH THAT CULTURE AND THE 
MEANING OF THOSE WORDS TO 
SOMEONE WHO'S NEVER SERVED? 
>> REPRESENTATIVE, I MADE THAT 
JUDGMENT AND I STANDBY THAT 
JUDGMENT. 
>> I THINK IT'S NONSENSE. 
LOOK, I WAS IN THE MILITARY. 
I CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A 
FAVOR AND ORDER AND DEMAND, AND 
SO COULD MY SUBORDINATES. 
I THINK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID 
AS WELL. 
HE NEVER INITIATED AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
IN FACT, HE'S BEEN VERY CLEAR. 
HE SAID, I NEVER FELT ANY 
PRESSURE AT ALL. 
SO INTERPRETED THE WORD FAVOR, 
BUT THE TWO PEOPLE SPEAKING TO 
EACH OTHER DIDN'T INTERPRET 
THAT AS A DEMAND. 
IT WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION, IS 
THAT FAIR? 
>> THE CONTEXT OF THIS CALL 
CONSISTENT WITH THE JULY 10th 
MEETING WITH THE REPORTING THAT 
WAS GOING ON, INCLUDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, 
MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS NOT 
SIMPLY A REQUEST. 
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT CLEAR AT 
ALL. 
YOU SAY IT MAKES IT CLEAR. 
IT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL. 
AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 
TALKING TO EACH OTHER DIDN'T 
INTERPRET IT THAT WAY. 
I WOULD LIKE TO GO ONTO DISCUSS 
YOUR REACTION TO THE PHONE CALL 
AND YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. 
FOR BREVITY, AND FOR CLARITY, 
I'LL REFER TO PAGE 155, YOUR 
ATTORNEYS CAN FOLLOW ALONG. 
QUOTING YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THIS WAS A 
CRIME OR ANYTHING OF THAT 
NATURE. 
I THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG. 
AND I'D LIKE TO KEY ON THE WORD 
WRONG HERE. 
IN MY MIND, DID I CONSIDER THE 
PACK THERE COULD HAVE BEEN 
OTHER IMPLICATIONS? 
YES, BUT NOT LIKE A CRIMINAL 
COMPLAINT. 
THEN YOU TALK ABOUT POLICY 
CONCERNS AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS. 
SO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS 
PHONE CALL WERE NOT LEGAL. 
THEY WERE BASED ON MORAL, 
ETHICAL AND POLICY DIFFERENCES. 
LETTED LET ME ASK YOU, YOU SAID 
THIS WAS WRONG, NOT ILLEGAL, 
BUT WRONG. 
AS I'VE STATED PREVIOUSLY 
SITTING HERE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, 
THERE ARE DOZENS OF CORRUPT 
NATIONS IN THE WORLD, HUNDREDS 
OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS. 
EXACTLY ONE TIME DID A VICE 
PRESIDENT GO TO A NATION AND 
DEMAND THE SPECIFIC FIRING OF 
ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVE A SIX-
HOUR TIME LIMIT AND THREATEN TO 
WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN 
AID. 
IT WAS THE ONE INDIVIDUAL 
INVESTIGATING THE COMPANY THAT 
WAS PAYING HIS SON. 
WAS THAT ALSO WRONG? 
>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I -- I 
FRANKLY DON'T HAVE ANY 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. 
>> YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO? 
>> YOU HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO. 
>> THAT'S ALL I'VE DESCRIBED IS 
THE VIDEO. 
EVERYTHING I SAID TO YOU WAS IN 
THE VIDEO. 
WAS THAT WRONG AS WELL? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS 
SOMETHING I ACTUALLY 
PARTICIPATED IN. 
>> THE TIME IS EXPIRED. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, IF YOU WOULD 
LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
>> I FRANKLY DON'T KNOW MUCH 
MORE ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR 
INCIDENT. 
I SAW A SNIPPET OF THE VIDEO 
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE 
A JUDGMENT OFF THAT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
COLONEL, IT'S ONE THING TO ASK 
SOMEBODY A FAVOR LIKE, PICK UP 
MY DRY CLEANING, AND IT'S 
ANOTHER WHEN THE COMMANDER IN 
CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL ARMY 
IN THE WORLD ASKS AN ALLY, 
WHO'S IN A VULNERABLE POSITION, 
TO DO HIM A FAVOR, IS IT NOT? 
>> YES. 
>> LET ME GO BACK TO THE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IF I 
COULD. 
MS. WILLIAMS, WHEN DID YOU 
FIRST LEARN THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UP, 
THE $400 MILLION THAT WAS 
REFERENCED? 
>> JULY 3rd. 
>> WHERE YOU ARE OF ANY 
ADDITIONAL OR DID YOU ATTEND 
ANY ADDITIONAL MEETINGS IN 
WHICH THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
BEING WITHHELD WAS DISCUSSED? 
>> I DID. 
I ATTENDED MEETINGS ON JULY 
23rd AND JULY 26th WHERE THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS 
DISCUSSED. 
I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN 
DISCUSSED JULY 31st. 
>> AND AT THAT POINT, DID 
ANYONE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC 
REASON FOR THE HOLD? 
>> IN THOSE MEETINGS, THE OMB 
REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THE 
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD AT 
THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF. 
>> AND DID THEY GIVE REASONS 
BEYOND THAT IT WAS BEING 
WITHHELD BY THE WHITE HOUSE 
CHIEF OF STAFF? 
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY. 
THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THERE 
WAS AN ONGOING REVIEW, WHETHER 
THE FUNDING WAS STILL IN LINE 
WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES. 
>> DID ANYONE IN ANY OF THOSE 
MEETINGS OR ANY SUBSEQUENT 
DISCUSSION YOU HAD DISCUSS THE 
LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THAT 
AID? 
>> THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS, I 
BELIEVE IN THE JULY 31st 
MEETING, AND POSSIBLY PRIOR AS 
WELL, IN TERMS OF DEFENSE AND 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS 
LOOKING INTO HOW THEY WOULD 
HANDLE A SITUATION IN WHICH 
EARMARKED FUNDING FROM CONGRESS 
THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR UKRAINE 
WOULD BE RESOLVED IF THE 
FUNDING CONTINUED TO BE HELD AS 
WE APPROACHED THE END OF THE 
FISCAL YEAR. 
>> AND FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED, 
DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT 
WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE? 
>> NO. 
>> COLONEL, WHEN DID YOU LEARN 
OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
BEING HELD? 
>> JULY 3rd. 
>> WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT 
PROMPTED YOU TO DRAFT THE 
NOTICE JULY 3rd? 
>> I BECAME AWARE OF INQUIRIES 
INTO SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
FUNDING IN GENERAL. 
THERE ARE TWO TYPICAL POTS:  
STATE DEPARTMENT, AND DOD. 
I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THAT 
DATE THAT OMB PUT A HOLD ON 
CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION. 
>> HAD YOU HAD ANY EARLIER 
INDICATIONS THAT THIS MIGHT BE 
THE CASE? 
>> PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WERE 
GENERAL INQUIRIES ON HOW THE 
FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT, THINGS 
OF THAT NATURE. 
NOTHING SPECIFIC, NO HOLD 
CERTAINLY. 
>> WHERE YOU ARE OF ANYONE IN 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY 
WHO SUPPORTED WITHHOLDING THE 
AID? 
>> NO. 
>> NO ONE FROM THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY? 
>> NONE. 
>> NO ONE FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> NO ONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID ANYONE TO YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING RAISE THE 
LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THIS 
ASSISTANCE? 
>> IT WAS RAISED ON SEVERAL 
OCCASIONS. 
>> AND WHO RAISED THOSE 
CONCERNS? 
>> SO FOLLOWING THE JULY 18th 
SUB PCC, WHICH IS AGAIN WHAT I 
CONVENE AT MY LEVEL, THERE WAS 
A JULY 23rd PCC, WHICH WOULD 
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY MR. 
MORRISON. 
THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED AS 
TO THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD. 
OVER THE SUBSEQUENT WEEK, THE 
ISSUE WAS ANALYZED AND DURING 
THE JULY 26th DEPUTIES -- THE 
DEPUTIES FROM ALL THE 
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THERE 
WAS OPINION RENDERED THAT IT 
WAS LEGAL TO PUT THE HOLD. 
>> EXCUSE ME? 
>> THERE WAS AN OPINION 
RENDERED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO -- 
THAT THE HOLD WAS LEGAL. 
>> FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> VERY GOOD. 
I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL 
VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE. 
AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE 
WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE 
FRENZIED MEDIA COVERAGE, TWO 
FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT ARE 
CRITICAL TO THESE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS. 
ONE, UKRAINE IN FACT RECEIVED 
THE AID, AND TWO, THERE WAS NO 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. 
MY QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU 
TODAY WILL FOCUS ON SYSTEMIC 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, 
HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE PUBLIC THAT 
BY LAW AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRES 
ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS, AND WHO 
IN OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE 
DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN 
IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY AND 
NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS? 
ON CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AS 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
TESTIFIED, ONE OF THE KEY 
REASONS WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WAS OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED BY 
THE UKRANIAN PEOPLE WAS THAT 
THEY WERE FINALLY STANDING UP 
TO RAMPANT CORRUPTION IN THEIR 
COUNTRY. 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE 
AMBASSADOR'S ASSESSMENT? 
>> YES. 
>> YES. 
>> AND MS. WILLIAMS, CORRUPTION 
WAS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR 
YOU THAT WHEN YOU PREPARED THE 
PRESIDENT FOR THE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU 
TESTIFIED THE POINTS YOU WANTED 
TO COMMUNICATE ON THE CALL WERE 
THE FOLLOWING:  LOOK FORWARD TO 
SEEING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
REALLY IMPLEMENT THE AGENDA ON 
WHICH HE'D RUN RELATED TO 
ANTICORRUPTION FORMS, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD 
YOU AGREE THIS FOCUS ON 
ANTICORRUPTION IS A CRITICAL 
ASPECT OF OUR POLICY TOWARD 
UKRAINE? 
>> YES. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU'RE 
AWARE THAT IN 2014 DURING THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IF FIRST 
ANTICORRUPTION INVESTIGATION 
PARTNERED BY THE U.S., UK AND 
UKRAINE, WAS INTO THE OWNER OF 
THE COMPANY BURISMA? 
>> I'M AWARE OF IT NOW. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
WERE AWARE BURISMA HAD 
QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALS AS 
PART OF ITS TRACK RECORD? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED REGARDING 
BURISMA, MONEY LAUNDERING AND 
TAX EVASION COMPORTS WITH YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BUSINESS 
IS DONE IN UKRAINE, CORRECT? 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULD 
NOT BE OUT OF THE REALM OF THE 
POSSIBLE FOR BURISMA. 
>> THAT'S PAGE 207 FROM YOUR 
TESTIMONY. 
YOU'RE AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
SAT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA AT 
THIS TIME? 
>> I AM. 
>> I KNOW THAT MY CONSTITUENTS 
IN NEW YORK 21 HAVE MANY 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN, THE SON OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT, SAT ON THE 
BOARD OF OF CORRUPT COMPANY 
LIKE  BURISMA.  
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS 
CONCERNED BUT ADAM SCHIFF 
REFUSES TO ALLOW US TO CALL 
BIDEN. 
EVERY WITNESS HAD ANSWERED YES, 
DO YOU AGREE THAT  HUNTER BIDEN 
ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA HAS THE 
POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST? 
>> CERTAINLY. 
>> YES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD 
CONGRESS HAD PASSED UNDER THE 
UKRANIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
INITIATIVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION 
TO CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS 
BEING ADDRESSED? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFY IT'S 
REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL 
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING, 
WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOCUSING ON 
ANTICORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT 
IT IS SO CRITICAL, SO IMPORTANT 
THAT HARD-EARNED TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS WHEN GIVEN TO FOREIGN 
NATIONS, THAT BY LAW 
OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT REQUIRES ANTICORRUPTION 
IN THE UKRAINE IN ORDER TO GET 
U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDED AID. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU SPOKE 
ABOUT THE AID TO UKRAINE, 
SPECIFICALLY JAVELINS, IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THE 
JAVELIN IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE 
OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN TERMS 
OF INFLUENCING THE RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION, IT'S ONE OF THE 
MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS WE HAVE 
WHEN IT COMES TO PROVIDING 
DEFENSIVE LEGAL AID. 
>> THE SYSTEM ITSELF, AND 
SIGNALING OF U.S. SUPPORT, YES. 
>> AND THAT WAS PROVIDED UNDER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOT 
PRESIDENT OBAMA? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN, I KNOW 
YOU SERVE AT THE NSC IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
I SERVED IN THE WEST WING FOR 
PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE DOMESTIC 
POLICY COUNCIL AND I'M FAMILIAR 
WITH THE POLICY PROCESS. 
I KNOW AS A STAFF MEMBER, THE 
PERSON WHO SETS THE POLICY OF 
THE UNITED STATES IS THE 
PRESIDENT, NOT THE STAFF. 
AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY, 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND I RESPECT YOUR DEEP 
EXPERTISE AND TREMENDOUS 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. 
WE CAN NEVER REPAY THOSE THAT 
HAVE WORN THE MILITARY UNIFORM 
AND SERVED OUR NATION. 
BUT I WAS STRUCK WHEN YOU 
TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION, I 
WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL, I'M THE 
DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE, I'M 
RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE, I'M 
THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, I'M THE 
AUTHORITY FOR UKRAINE FOR THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
THE WHITE HOUSE. 
I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION, YOU 
REPORT TO TIM MORRISON, 
CORRECT? 
>> IN MY -- I ADVISE UP THROUGH 
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. 
>> AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS 
TIM MORRISON TO AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DO YOU AGREE THE PRESIDENT 
SETS THE POLICY AS COMMANDER-IN-
CHIEF? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MY TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU BOTH. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, I THINK THE 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM NEW YORK DIDN'T ASK YOU 
BUT IS RELEVANT FOR EVERYONE 
FROM HOME, ISN'T IT TRUE THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED 
THAT THE ANTICORRUPTION 
REQUIREMENTS OF UKRAINE HAD 
BEEN MET WHEN THE HOLD WAS PUT 
ON BY THE PRESIDENT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, MR. JORDAN SUGGESTED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID 
SOMETHING NONE OF US EXPECTED 
BY RELEASING THAT CALL 
TRANSCRIPT. 
YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS 
THAT RIGHT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL? 
>> IT IS. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU LISTENED 
TO THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY A LOT OF 
OTHER PEOPLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
LISTENED TO THE CALL OR READ 
THE TRANSCRIPT? 
>> I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE HOW 
MANY. 
I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE OR 
SIX OF US IN THE LISTENING ROOM 
AT THE TIME. 
>> AND THE TRANSCRIPT WAS  
DISTRIBUTED TO OTHERS, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S NOT 
PART OF MY PROCESS. 
>> SO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE 
LISTENED TO THE CALL OR SAW THE 
TRANSCRIPT AND THEN HE RELEASED 
IT. 
THE DIFFERENCE OF COURSE 
BETWEEN THIS AND HIS MEETING 
WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN, THERE IT 
WAS A ONE ON ONE MEETING AND HE 
TOOK THE NOTES FROM THE 
INTERPRETER SO NONE OF US COULD 
SEE IT. 
THE POINT BEING, THE PRESIDENT 
HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE 
THE CALL EVERYONE HAD SEEN. 
YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO 
CHARACTERIZE WHAT LEGALLY ALL 
OF THIS MEANS, AND IT WAS 
POINTED OUT NO ONE USED TO TERM 
BRIBERY IN OUR DEPOSITIONS. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'RE NOT A 
LAWYER? 
>> I'M NOT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU'RE NOT 
A LAWYER? 
>> NO, HE'S BACK THERE. 
>> BORN SOON AFTER YOU? 
>> NINE MINUTES. 
>> SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A SHOOTING 
VICTIM AND POLICE RESPOND AFTER 
THE VICTIM IS DOING BETTER AND 
THEY ASK THE VICTIM, TELL US 
WHAT HAPPENED. 
AND THE VICTIM SAYS, SOMEONE 
CAME UP TO MY CAR AND SHOT INTO 
THE CAR, HIT ME IN THE 
SHOULDER, HIT ME IN THE BACK, 
IN THE NECK. 
I SURVIVED, BUT I CAN IDENTIFY 
WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. 
POLICE SAY, OKAY, YOU WERE 
SHOT, YOU KNOW WHO IT IS. 
BUT SHUCKS, YOU DIDN'T TELL US 
THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED MURDER, 
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LET 
THE PERSON GO. 
IS THAT HOW IT WORKS IN OUR 
JUSTICE SYSTEM, UNLESS VICTIMS 
IDENTIFY THE LEGAL THEORIES OF 
A CASE, WE JUST LET PEOPLE OFF 
THE HOOK? 
IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? 
>> I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT 
DOESN'T SEEM SO. 
>> I DON'T THINK YOUR BROTHER 
WOULD THINK SO EITHER. 
MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE APRIL 
21 CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, YOU PUT A TRANSCRIPT 
OF THE CALL IN THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S READ BOOK, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT 
CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TWO 
DAYS LATER, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND HE STUCK FAITHFULLY TO 
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SAID 
IN THE APRIL 21 CALL, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE HIS REMARKS WERE 
CONSISTENT, BUT HE SPOKE ON 
OTHER ISSUES AS WELL INCLUDING 
ANTICORRUPTION. 
>> AND YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THE 
VICE PRESIDENT AS SOMEBODY WHO 
WOULD MAKE FOLLOW-UP CALLS TO 
WORLD LEADERS AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT HAD DONE SO, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> HE HAS ON OCCASION. 
IT'S NOT A NORMAL PRACTICE. 
IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. 
>> AND IN THAT CASE, HE STUCK 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TALKING 
POINTS? 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT I PROVIDED 
TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 
23rd CALL FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT, WHICH INCLUDED 
DISCUSSION OF THE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION, WHICH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ALSO 
DISCUSSED WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
I WOULD SAY THE VICE PRESIDENT 
DISCUSSED OTHER IRES WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS WELL. 
>> AND AS WAS STATED EARLIER, 
THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN 
POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES, 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> AND AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU PUT THE 
CALL TRANSCRIPT IN VICE 
PRESIDENT'S INTELLIGENCE 
BRIEFING BOOK, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> MY COLLEAGUES PREPARE THE 
BOOK BUT YES. 
>> FAST FORWARD TO VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
YOU'RE THERE? 
>> AND THEY TALK ABOUT A LOT OF 
THINGS BUT YOU AGREE VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE DIDN'T BRING UP 
THE BIDENS? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT, HE DID NOT. 
>> DID NOT BRING UP 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> NO. 
>> IS ONE REASONABLE 
EXPLANATION THAT, ALTHOUGH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE WILL DO A LOT 
OF THINGS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
THAT HE WAS NOT WILLING TO 
BRING UP INVESTIGATIONS AND 
BIDENS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT 
WAS WRONG? 
>> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO 
SPECULATE. 
WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THAT. 
>> YOU DIDN'T BRING IT UP AFTER 
THE JULY 25th CALL? 
>> NO. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU 
ASK THE UKRANIANS TO DO WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING THEM 
TO DO AFTER THE JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL? 
>> I DIDN'T RENDER ANY OPINION 
ON WHAT WAS ASKED. 
>> THANK YOU. 
YIELD BACK. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO JOIN 
MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU 
FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR 
OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS 
ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION 
COLLECTED FROM THE UKRANIANS ON 
THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN? 
>> NO, I DID NOT PARTICIPATE OR 
OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS 
ALONG THOSE LINES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, I THINK ALL OF 
US WOULD AGREE THAT YOUR FATHER 
MADE THE RIGHT MOVE TO COME 
HERE AND WE'RE GLAD THAT HE 
DID. 
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW PART OF 
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS 
DEVELOPING TALKING POINTS, IS 
THAT CORRECT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU DO THAT FOR YOUR 
SUPERVISOR NOW, MR. MORRISON? 
>> MR. MORRISON HAS LEFT THE 
POSITION SOMETIME AGO, AT LEAST 
THREE WEEKS AGO. 
>> BUT YOU PREPARE TALKING 
POINTS FOR YOUR SUPERVISORS? 
>> TYPICALLY, AND FRANKLY AT 
THAT LEVEL THEY DON'T REALLY 
TAKE TALKING POINTS, ESPECIALLY 
IF THEY HAVE EXPERTISE. 
THE TALKING POINTS ARE MORE 
INTENDED FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR, THOUGH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIDN'T 
REQUIRE THEM BECAUSE OF HIS 
DEEP EXPERTISE. 
THE NEXT LEVEL UP. 
>> TRADITIONALLY, I'M TRYING TO 
ESTABLISH THE POSITION WITH 
TALKING POINTS FOR A NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DO THEY ALWAYS USE THEM? 
>> NO. 
>> IS PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWN TO 
STICK TO A SCRIPT? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
>> SO IS IT ODD THAT HE DIDN'T 
USE YOUR TALKING POINTS? 
>> NO, IT IS NOT. 
>> PAGE 306 OF YOUR DEPOSITION, 
YOU REMEMBER ASKED ABOUT EVENTS 
DURING THE TEMPORARY HOLD ON 
U.S. ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE. 
THIS IS THAT 55-DAY PERIOD OR 
SO. 
YOU TESTIFIED THE U.S. 
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RECEIVE 
ANY NEW ASSURANCES FROM UKRAINE 
ABOUT ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS 
AND THE FACTS ON THE GROUND DID 
NOT CHANGE BEFORE THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED. 
IS THAT ACCURATE IN RECOUNTING 
YOUR TESTIMONY? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> WHEN WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SWORN IN? 
>> HE WAS SWORN IN MAY 20th, 
2019. 
>> AND HE HAD A NEW PARLIAMENT 
ELECTED AFTER HE WAS, CORRECT? 
>> HE DID. 
>> WHEN WAS THAT PARLIAMENT 
SEATED? 
>> THAT WAS -- I'M SORRY, JULY 
21st, 2019. 
>> THAT WAS WHEN THEY WON, 
RIGHT? 
THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY SEATED 
UNTIL AUGUST? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT, AND THEY WERE 
SEATED IN AUGUST. 
>> YOUR BOSS' BOSS, AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON, TRAVELED TO UKRAINE IN 
ATE AUGUST, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID HE TAKE YOU WITH HIM? 
>> HE DIDN'T. 
>> WE KNOW FROM OTHER WITNESSES 
THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS 
THERE, HE MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND HIS STAFF, AND 
THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW 
THEY WERE VISUALLY EXHAUSTED, 
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID DURING 
THAT TIME PERIOD WAS CHANGE THE 
UKRANIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM THE 
DEPUTIES, RIGHT THERE, THEIR 
PARTICLETARIANS, BECAUSE THAT 
HAD BEEN A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION 
FOR YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S ACCURATE. 
>> WHERE YOU ARE OF THIS 
IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE LAW? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A 
SIGNIFICANT ANTICORRUPTION 
EFFORT? 
>> IT IS SIGNIFICANT. 
>> IT IS. 
AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THIS 
NEW PARLIAMENT OPENED UKRAINE'S 
HIGH ANTICORRUPTION COURT. 
THIS HAD BEEN AN INITIATIVE 
THAT MANY FOLKS IN OUR STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN PUSHING TO 
HAPPEN, AND THAT WAS 
ESTABLISHED MANY THAT TIME 
FRAME. 
WHERE YOU WHERE YOU AWARE OF 
THIS? 
>> YES. 
>> DO YOU THINK THIS IS 
SIGNIFICANT ANTICORRUPTION? 
>> I DO. 
>> WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- HOW 
MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MET 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
>> I THINK IT WAS JUST THE ONE 
TIME, MULTIPLE ENGAGEMENTS BUT 
JUST THE ONE TRIP. 
>> THAT'S A ONE ON ONE MEETING? 
>> THAT WAS A LARGER BILATERAL 
FORMAT. 
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SMALLER 
VENUE -- THEY WERE ALL IN -- 
THERE WAS NEVER A ONE ON ONE. 
BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE TOUCH 
POINTS, SO THE BILATERAL 
MEETING, HANDSHAKE, MEET AND 
GREET. 
>> SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE 
IN THE ROOM WHEN YOU MET WITH 
HIM? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU STILL ADVISED THE 
UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO WATCH OUT 
FOR THE RUSSIANS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND THAT WAS -- AND THAT -- 
EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM, I'M 
ASSUMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR WAS THERE, I BELIEVE IN 
THIS CASE YOU HAD OTHER MEMBERS 
OF THE ADMINISTRATION. 
WERE YOUR POINTS PREAPPROVED? 
DID THEY KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO 
BRING UP THOSE POINTS? 
>> WE DID HAVE A HUDDLE 
BEFOREHAND AND IT'S POSSIBLE I 
FLAGGED THEM. 
I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. 
IT'S POSSIBLE I DIDN'T. 
>> YOU COUNSELED THE UKRANIAN 
PRESIDENT TO STAY OUT OF U.S. 
POLITICS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK 
THE TIME. 
>> MR. CASTRO. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MS. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SERVICE. 
IT'S GREAT TO TALK TO A FELLOW 
IDENTICAL TWIN. 
I HOPE YOUR BROTHER IS NICER TO 
YOU THAN MINE IS TO ME, DOESN'T 
MAKE YOU GROW A BEARD. 
YOU BOTH LISTENED IN REALTIME 
TO THE JULY 25th CALL. 
IN PARTICULAR, YOU WOULD HAVE 
HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, QUOTE, 
I'D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. 
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE, END 
QUOTE. 
THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE 
HAS IT. 
THIS IS A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN 
FACT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S 
ASSERTION THAT UKRAINE 
INTERVENED IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS QUOTE, NOT ONLY A 
CONSPIRACY THEORY, BUT 
COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, UNQUOTE. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE 
OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE 
THEORY THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M NOT. 
AND FURTHER MORE, I WOULD SAY 
THIS IS A RUSSIAN NARRATIVE, 
THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS 
PROMOTED. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN POLICY 
THAT SUPPORTS THAT THEORY? 
>> NO, I'M NOT AWARE. 
>> YOU'RE AWARE OTHER PARTS OF 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, OUR 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FOR 
EXAMPLE, HAVE SAID DEFINITIVELY 
THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS THAT 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> IT SEEMS INCREDIBLY ODD, 
UNFORTUNATELY BUT NOT 
INCONSISTENTLY, THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WOULD BE GIVING CREDENCE 
TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT 
UKRAINE THAT HELPS RUSSIA. 
FIRST, IT IGNORES AND 
UNDERMINES THE ASSESSMENT OF 
THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, AND SEEKS TO WEAKEN 
A STATE DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED 
STATES' SUPPORT TO FIGHT 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
IT ALSO FOR THE UNITED STATES 
HURTS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
EMBOLDENS RUSSIA. 
I WOULD TO LOOK AT WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING ON 
HIS CALL INSTEAD OF PUSHING 
BACK AGAINST RUSSIAN HOSTILITY. 
HE WAS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO DO 
HIS POLITICAL WORK. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED ON THAT 
JULY 25th CALL, QUOTE, THERE'S 
A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S 
SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE 
PROSECUTION, AND A LOT OF 
PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT 
THAT. 
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE 
GREAT. 
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO 
IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT, IT 
SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN YOU HEAR 
THOSE WORDS, DO YOU HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT REQUESTING A 
THOUGHTFUL AND WELL CALIBRATED 
ANTICORRUPTION PROGRAM 
CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY? 
>> I DO NOT. 
>> IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENCOURAGING 
THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO 
ENGAGE IN PRECISELY THE SAME 
TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT 
THAT WE DISCOURAGE FOREIGN 
LEADERS FROM UNDERTAKING IN 
THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, AND 
DISCOURAGING OTHER COUNTRIES 
FROM TAKING POLITICALLY 
MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IS 
PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. 
ANTICORRUPTION POLICY, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN 
THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS FAMILY 
MEMBERS? 
>> I AM NOT. 
>> THESE FALSE NARRATIVES, IT 
SHOULD BE SAID, ARE DAMAGING 
OUR COUNTRY. 
THEY POISON OUR POLITICS AND 
DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH, AND 
PRESSING ANOTHER COUNTRY TO 
ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION IS 
ANTITHETICAL TO WHO WE ARE AS A 
NATION. 
YOU ALSO MENTIONED YOU FELT 
THIS REQUEST WAS WRONG, AND YOU 
HAVE ALSO SAID THAT CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC TO 
UKRAINE, AS IT IS IN OTHER 
PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. 
CAN YOU SPEAK TO, WHAT IS THE 
DANGER OF A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, WHETHER IT'S 
DONALD TRUMP OR ANY FUTURE 
PRESIDENT, ASKING ANOTHER 
NATION WHERE THERE'S RAMPANT 
CORRUPTION, TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL RIVAL OR JUST ANY 
OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN? 
WHAT WOULD BE THE DANGER TO 
THAT AMERICAN? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, THE UKRANIAN 
JUDICIARY IS IMPERFECT AT THE 
MOMENT. 
AND THE RELIANCE ON U.S. 
SUPPORT COULD CONCEIVABLY CAUSE 
THEM TO TIP THE SCALES OF 
JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF FINDING A 
U.S. CITIZEN GUILTY IF THEY 
THOUGHT THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT. 
>> SO THEY COULD TRUMP UP 
CHARGES IF THEY WANTED TO IN A 
CORRUPT SYSTEM LIKE THAT? 
>> THEY COULD, AND UKRAINE IS 
MAKING PROGRESS, CERTAINLILY 
MORE BROADLY THAN RUSSIA, AND 
IT'S LIKELY THE STATE WILL BE 
INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL OUTCOMES 
AND DRIVE THEM. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. RATCLIFFE? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT YOU NOTED WHAT WAS UNUSUAL 
ABOUT THE CALL ON THE 25th WAS 
THE PRESIDENT RAISED WHAT 
APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ISSUE, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> BUT RAISING AN ISSUE, EVEN 
ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS 
UNUSUAL, IS DIFFERENT THAN 
MAKING A DEMAND. 
WOULD YOU AGREE? 
>> YES. 
>> AND AS I READ YOUR 
DEPOSITION, IT DIDN'T SOUND 
LIKE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THAT 
YOU HEARD WHAT TOOK PLACE ON 
THAT CALL AS A DEMAND FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
IS THAT FAIR? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I'M IN A 
POSITION TO CHARACTERIZE IT 
FURTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT DID 
IN TERMS OF ASKING FOR A FAVOR. 
>> YOU DIDN'T HEAR A DEMAND? 
>> AGAIN, I WOULD REFER BACK TO 
THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU HAVE TESTIFIED AND 
EXPLAINED TO US WHY IN YOUR 
MIND IT WAS A DEMAND, AND YOU 
HAVE GIVEN US REASONS, 
DISPARITY OF POWER BETWEEN THE 
TWO PRESIDENTS. 
BECAUSE YOU DID FEEL THAT WAY, 
YOU ALSO FELT THAT YOU HAD A 
DUTY TO REPORT WHAT YOU  
THOUGHT WAS IMPROPER, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> TWO IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS, AND 
ONE FELT THE NEED TO REPORT THE 
CALL BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEMAND 
AND IT WAS IMPROPER, AND ONE 
THAT DIDN'T REPORT IT TO 
ANYONE. 
RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS? 
>> I ENSURED THE INFORMATION 
WAS AVAILABLE TO MY SUPERIORS. 
>> WHILE ALL THIS MAY SEEM AS 
CLEAR AS MUD, I THINK YOUR 
HONEST AND CANDID ASSESSMENTS 
OF THE CALL TELLS US WHAT WE 
NEED TO KNOW. 
WE HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT FOLKS, 
NONPARTISANS, AND I'M NOT 
HEARING A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE 
TWO OF YOU ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY 
YOU BOTH HEARD ON THE CALL THAT 
YOU HEARD AT THE EXACT SAME 
TIME, AND IF YOU CAN'T REACH AN 
AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO WHAT 
HAPPENED ON THE CALL, HOW CAN 
ANY OF US? 
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR. 
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS. 
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 
OVERWHELMING AND COMPELLING, 
AND IF TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL 
DISAGREE HONESTLY ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT THERE WAS A DEMAND, AND 
WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING SHOULD 
BE REPORTED ON A CALL, THAT IS 
NOT A CLEAR AND COMPELLING 
BASIS TO UNDO 63 MILLION VOTES 
AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE. 
I YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO 
MR. JORDAN. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHY DIDN'T YOU 
GO -- AFTER THE CALL, WHY 
DIDN'T YOU GO TO MR. MORRISON? 
>> I WENT IMMEDIATELY, PER THE 
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE JULY 10th 
INCIDENT, I WENT IMMEDIATELY TO 
MR. EISENBERG. 
AFTER THAT, ONCE I MADE THAT -- 
EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS, IT WAS 
AN EXTREMELY BUSY WEEK. 
WE HAD A PCC JUST FINISH AND WE 
HAD THE CALL, THEN WE HAD A 
DEPUTIES' MEETING, WHICH 
CONSUMED ALL MY TIME. 
I WAS WORKING EXTREMELY LONG 
DAYS. 
I ATTEMPTED TO TRY AND 
COMMUNICATE -- I MANAGED TO 
SPEAK TO TWO FOLKS IN THE 
INTERAGENCY AND ATTEMPTED TO 
TALK TO MR. MORRISON. 
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BEFORE I 
RECEIVED INTRODUCTIONS FROM 
EISENBERG TO NOT TALK TO 
ANYBODY FURTHER. 
>> SO YOU DIDN'T GO TO YOUR 
BOSS BUT YOU WENT TO THE LAWYER 
AND HE TOLD YOU NOT TO GO TO 
YOUR BOSS? 
>> NO, HE TOLD ME -- WHAT ENDED 
UP UNFOLDING, I HAD THE 
CONVERSATION WITH THE ATTORNEY. 
I DID MY CORE FUNCTION, WHICH 
IS COORDINATION. 
I SPOKE TO THE APPROPRIATE 
PEOPLE WITHIN THE ININTERAGENCY 
AND CIRCLING BACK AROUND, MR. 
EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK 
TO ANYBODY ELSE. 
>> YOUR RESPONSE, PAGE 102, 
BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME 
TO TAKE MY CONCERNS TO HIM. 
I ASK YOU, DID MR. EISENBERG 
TELL YOU NOT TO REPORT, TO GO 
AROUND MR. MORRISON, AND YOU 
SAID HE SAID I SHOULDN'T TALK 
TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> YES, BUT THERE'S A PERIOD OF 
TIME IN THERE BETWEEN WHEN I 
SPOKE TO HIM AND WHEN HE 
CIRCLED BACK AROUND. 
IT WASN'T THAT LONG BUT ENOUGH 
TIME -- 
>> ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO TALK 
TO SOMEONE THAT YOU WON'T TELL 
US WHO IT IS, RIGHT? 
[ CHANGING CAPTIONERS ] 
THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. 
>> I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN,  BUT 
THAT IS NOT THE SECRET HOW IT 
TURNED OUT. 
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE 
TRANSCRIPT, COLONEL VINDMAN . 
>> IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD I 
EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS AND I DID 
MY COORDINATION FUNCTION AND 
MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO 
TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE .  
>> SO THAT IS WHEN IT HAPPENED. 
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
COLONEL VINDMAN , LET'S GO BACK 
TO THE PAIR OF MEETINGS IN THE 
OFFICE OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WHERE YOU WITNESSED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND  INFORMED OFFICIALS 
THAT AS A PREREQUISITE THE 
UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO 
DELIVER AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE BIDENS AND HE SAID 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND  IS CALLING 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT DID 
NOT EXIST INTO THE BIDENS  AND 
BURISMA. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT  EXPECT THE 
SAME AFTERNOON? 
BACK I AM SURE IT WAS WITHIN A 
COUPLE HOURS I SPOKE TO MR. 
EISENBERG . 
>> HOW DID HE REACT? 
>> HE WAS COLLECTED AND TOOK 
NOTES AND SAID HE WOULD LOOK 
INTO IT.  
>> DID HE NOT SAY FEEL FREE TO 
COME BACK? 
>> HE DID. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SAID 
THAT HIS  REQUEST TO THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN COORDINATED 
WITH THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY. 
DID YOU REPORT THAT TO MR. 
EISENBERG?  
>> I DID. 
>> WHAT WAS HIS REACTION? 
>> YOU TOOK NOTES AND HE SAID 
HE WOULD FOLLOW-UP OR LOOK INTO 
IT. 
I DO NOT RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HE 
SAID. 
>> YOU'VE ALSO TESTIFIED ON THE 
JULY 25 CALL THERE WAS NO DOUBT 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION AND THE SON OF VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN RETURN 
FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING. 
WITHIN ONE HOUR OF THE CALL YOU 
REPORTED THAT,  MR. EISENBERG, 
DID YOU NOT? 
>> I DID.  
HE IS AN ASSISTANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IT WAS LESS A SUGGESTION AND 
MORE OF AN INSTRUCTION. 
EXPECTED UTILITY LAWYERS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO SPEAK TO MR. 
GIULIANI ? 
>> YES. 
>> AND THE LAWYERS IT WAS AT 
THIS POINT TOLD YOU NOT TO TALK 
TO ANYONE ELSE? 
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT WITH 
REGARDS TO TIMING. 
THEY DO NOT CIRCLE BACK AROUND 
AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS 
IN MY CORONATION ROLE I SPOKE 
TO A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, AND THE GENERAL 
COUNSEL FOR ONE OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE BUDDIES NOTIFIED 
MR. EISENBERG  THAT THERE WAS 
INFORMATION ON THE CALL ON THE 
JULY 25 CALL. 
AT THAT POINT, MR. EISENBERG 
SAID I SHOULD NOT TALK TO 
ANYONE ELSE ABOUT IT . 
>> COLONEL, I WANT TO GO BACK 
TO 2014 IN IRAQ WHEN YOU WERE 
BLOWN UP. I PRESUME THAT GIVING 
THE POINT IN YOUR MILITARY 
CAREER AND WHAT ELSE WAS GOING 
ON IN THE WORLD THAT UPON 
RECOVERY THERE WAS THE VERY 
REAL POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT 
ONCE AGAIN FIND YOURSELF IN 
HARMS WAY. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN TOOK IT 
HAPPENED IN 2004, BUT YES. 
>> DID YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE 
MILITARY SERVICE AT THAT POINT? 
>> NO. 
FRANKLY, I SUFFERED LIGHT 
WINDS. 
I WAS FORTUNATE COMPARED TO MY 
COUNTERPARTS IN THE SAME 
VEHICLE, AND I RETURNED TO DUTY 
AND I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN 
THAT SAME DAY. 
>> BUT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN 
EXPERIENCING ARM AND YOU 
CONTINUE TO SERVE IN UNIFORM. 
>> I CONTINUED TO SERVE FOR THE 
REMAINING MONTHS OF THE TOUR. 
>> I FIND IT A RICH BUT 
INCREDIBLY PAINFUL IRONY THAT 
WITHIN A WEEK  OF THE PRESIDENT 
CONTRARY TO ALL ADVICE OF THE 
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIALS, HE 
PARDONS THOSE WHO WERE 
CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES, WHICH 
WAS DECRIED IN THE MILITARY 
COMMUNITY. 
WITHIN THE WEEK OF HIM DOING 
THAT, HE HAS ENGAGED IN AN 
EFFORT WITH ALLIES ON HIS 
BEHALF TO DEMEAN YOUR RECORD OF 
SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE AND 
THE CONTRIBUTION THAT YOU HAVE 
MADE. 
INDEED LESS THAN 20 MINUTES AGO 
THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALLY 
QUOTED OUT OUT OF CONTEXT THE 
COMMENTS REFERRED TO EARLIER BY 
MR. MORRISON  IN YOUR JUDGMENT. 
I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT'S WHAT 
WE THOUGHT WAS JUST THE 
PRESIDENT AS THE SUBJECT OF OUR 
DELIBERATIONS IN THIS INQUIRY 
ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO CAPTURE 
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. 
INDEED WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS 
INQUIRY AND WHAT IS AT PERIL IS 
OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VERY 
VALUES UPON WHICH IT IS BASED. 
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOUR 
SERVICE BUT THANK YOU DOESN'T 
CUT IT. 
PLEASE NOTE THAT IT COMES FROM 
THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, AND I 
KNOW ON THE BOTTOM OF THE HEART 
OF COUNTLESS OF OTHER 
AMERICANS. 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
I YELLED BACK. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
SUNDAY THE SPEAKER OF THE 
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AN IMPOSTER. 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER. 
THE GUY 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED 
FOR AND WON IN A LANDSLIDE THE 
SPEAKER CALLS AN IMPOSTER. THAT 
IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR 
COUNTRY, TO THIS CONGRESS. 
THE SPEAKER STATEMENT SAYS IT 
ALL. 
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER 
ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. DEMOCRATS DO 
NOT TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WANTED 
TO SEND SOMEONE TO THIS TOWN 
WHO WAS WILLING TO SHAKE IT UP 
A BIT. 
THEY DO NOT TRUST THAT, AND 
THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO 
EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO 
UNDO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016. 
THEY HAVE BEEN ELSE TO GET THE 
PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY HE WAS 
ELECTED PICKED IT WAS A BOY'S 
LAWYER, AND LEGAL TEAM SAID THIS
. JANUARY 30, 2017, THE 
PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE 
ABOUT A WEEK. 
THE COUP HAS STARTED . FIRST OF 
MANY STEPS. 
IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW 
ULTIMATELY. 
I GUESS WE ARE IN THE FINAL 
STEP. 
IT STARTED 3.5 YEARS AGO. 
CONGRESSMAN TO LEAVE STARTED 
THIS CONGRESS AND THE FIRST DAY 
OF CONGRESS SAID IF WE DO NOT 
IMPEACH HIM THE PRESIDENT WILL 
GET REELECTED AND MOST 
IMPORTANTLY FIVE DEMOCRAT 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE VOTED 
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH 
IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE PHONE 
CALL EVER HAPPENED. 
THE TRUTH IS THE ATTACKS 
ACTUALLY STARTED BEFORE THE 
INAUGURATION, EVEN BEFORE THE 
ELECTION. 
THE RANKING MEMBER TALKED ABOUT 
THIS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
JULY 2016. 
FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE SO-CALLED TRUMP RUSSIA 
CORONATION AND COLLUSION, WHICH 
WAS NEVER THERE AND SPITE ON 
TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 
MY GUESS IS THAT HAS PROBABLY 
NEVER HAPPENED IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY, BUT THEY DID IT AND 
FOR 10 MONTHS THEY INVESTIGATED 
THE PRESIDENT AND THEY HAVE 
NOTHING AND WE KNOW THAT 
BECAUSE WE DEPOSED JAMES COMEY 
LAST CONGRESS AND THEY SAID 
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING AND 
THEY DO A TWO-YEAR AND 
$40,000,000.90 LAWYER 
UNBELIEVABLE INVESTIGATION AND 
GUESS WHAT, THEY COME BACK AND 
THEY HAVE GOT NOTHING PICK BUT 
THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CARE. 
SO NOW WE GET THIS. 
A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS IN THE 
BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL. 
WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED 
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO 
THEY TALKED TO ABOUT THE PHONE 
CALL. 
WE GET THIS. 
ALL BASED ON SOME ANONYMOUS 
WHISTLEBLOWER, NO FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE, BIAS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THESE FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED. 
WHO WROTE A MEMO THE DAY AFTER 
SOMEBODY TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE 
CALL. 
BUT WAITED 18 DAYS TO FILE A 
COMPLAINT. 18 DAYS TO FILE A 
COMPLAINT. 
WHAT DID HE DO IN THOSE 18 
DAYS? 
WE ALL KNOW. 
RAN OFF AND SPOKE WITH THE 
STAFF OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND 
HIRED THE LEGAL TEAM THAT IT 
JUST TALKED ABOUT.  
ONE OF THE STEPS IN THE WHOLE 
IMPEACHMENT COUP AS HIS LEGAL 
TEAM HAS SAID . THIS IS SCARY 
WHAT THESE GUYS ARE PUTTING OUR 
COUNTRY THROUGH. 
IT IS SAD AND SCARY AND WRONG 
AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH IT 
ALL. 
THEY KNOW THE FACTS ARE ON THE 
SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT AS 
REPRESENTATIVE STEPHANI SAID 
FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE. 
HE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH 
THEY NEVER THOUGHT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD RELEASE SHOWING 
NO LINKAGE AND WE HAVE THE TWO 
GUYS ON THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HAVE SAID NOTHING WRONG AND WE 
HAVE THE EFFECT THE UKRAINIANS 
DO NOT EVEN KNOW THAT AID WAS 
HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE CALL 
AND MOST IMPORTANT HAVE YET TO 
HAVE ONE WHEN YOU TELL US THAT  
ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANYONE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID ANYTHING 
TO GET THE AID RELEASED.  
THOSE FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE. 
THE FACTS ARE ON THE SIDE OF 
THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PROCESS 
IS CERTAINLY NOT. 
IT HAS BEEN THE MOST UNFAIR 
PROCESS WE HAVE EVER SEEN, AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND 
THAT THOSE 63 MILLION AMERICANS 
THEY UNDERSTAND IT AND FRANKLY 
I THINK A LOT OF OTHERS DO AS 
WELL. 
THEY SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS, 
AND THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS 
WRONG. 
ESPECIALLY WRONG JUST 11 MONTHS 
BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. 
I YELLED BACK. 
>> MR. WELCH. 
>> THANK YOU. 
WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT I 
THINK WAS BEST STATED BY THE úO 
VINDMAN. 
THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THIS. 
IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE THE UNITED STATES 
CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT? 
IT WAS VERY WELL STATED. 
I JUST LISTENED TO MR. JORDAN, 
AS YOU DID AS WELL, AND I HEARD 
HIS CRITICISM OF THE PROCESS. 
NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET 
THE PRESIDENT. 
I DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE 
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT IS 
PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. AND TO DATE 
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE OF MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ADDRESS 
THAT QUESTION. 
COLONEL VINDMAN  AND MS. 
WILLIAMS , THANK YOU. 
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME 
QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE 
BACKGROUND. 
WAS COME OUT DURING THIS 
PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD TWO 
UKRAINE POLICIES. 
ONE WAS BIPARTISAN AND LONG-
STANDING. 
AND THAT WAS TO ASSIST UKRAINE, 
WHICH HAD FREED ITSELF FROM THE 
DOMINATION OF RUSSIA, TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION AND TO RESIST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
IS THAT IF YOUR STATEMENT, 
COLONEL VINDMAN? 
>> I THINK THAT IS A FAIR 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
>> AND TO GIVE  FOLKS A 
REMINDER OF THE EXTENT OF 
CORRUPTION. 
BY THE WAY, IN LEGACY OF 
PUTIN'S RUSSIA. 
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT 
WHEN THEIR PRIOR PRESIDENT  
FLED TO RUSSIA HE TOOK WITH HIM 
30 AND $40 BILLION OF THAT 
IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY? 
>> THERE ARE DIFFERENT 
ESTIMATES BUT IS ON THAT SCALE, 
YES. 
>> A VAST SCALE FOR A POOR 
COUNTRY AND IS IT YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT POWERLESS 
BUT MOTIVATED UKRAINIANS ROSE 
UP IN PROTEST TO THIS INCREDIBLE
CRAFT AND THEFT AND ABUSE BY 
THEIR PRESIDENT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT WAS CALLED THE 
REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOUNG PEOPLE WENT INTO 
THAT SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN KYIV 
AND  DEMONSTRATED FOR MANY 
MONTHS. 
>> CORRECT. AND 100 DIED. 
>> 106 YOUNG PEOPLE AND OLDER 
PEOPLE DIED. 
CORRECT? 
THAT WAS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 2014. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> 106 DIED, INCLUDING PEOPLE 
WHO WERE SHOT NICE NEIGHBORS. 
KIDS. YANUKOVYCH  HAD PUT 
SNIPERS TO SHOOT INTO THAT 
SQUARE AND KILL AND MURDER 
THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE. 
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN OUR BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, 
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, A LOT OF 
LEADERSHIP TO HAVE THIS 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT CAME FROM 
YOUR SIDE. 
THANK YOU. 
BUT OUR WHOLE COMMITMENT WAS TO 
GET RID OF CORRUPTION AND TO 
STOP THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT AMOUNTS TO SOME OF THE 
KEY PILLARS. 
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
AND IT APPEARS TRUMP POLICY WAS 
NOT ABOUT THAT. 
IT IS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
A POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
CORRECT? 
I WILL TAKE THE QUESTION BACK. 
WE KNOW IT. 
AND I WILL SAY THIS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP YOU WANT TO 
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN, YOU WANT 
TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN? 
GO AHEAD AND DO IT. 
DO IT THE WAY YOU DO DO IT. 
JUST DON'T DO IT BY ASKING A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO HELP YOU IN 
YOUR CAMPAIGN. 
THAT IS YOUR JOB. IT IS NOT 
HIS. 
MY GOAL IN THESE HEARINGS IS 
TWO THINGS ONE IS TO GET AN 
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF 
COLONEL VINDMAN. 
AND THE SECOND COMING OUT OF 
THIS IS FOR US AS A CONGRESS  
TO RETURN TO THE UKRAINE POLICY 
THAT NANCY PELOSI AND KEVIN 
McCARTHY BOTH SUPPORT. 
IT IS NOT INVESTIGATIONS. 
IT IS THE RESTORATION OF 
DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE AND THE 
RESISTANCE OF RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION. 
I YELLED BACK. 
>> MR. MALONEY, THANK YOU BOTH 
FOR BEING HERE. 
YOU KNOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN , THIS MAY BE ONE OF 
YOUR FIRST CONGRESSIONAL 
HEARINGS LIKE THIS SO YOU MAY 
NOT. 
>> AND THE LAST. 
>> I CANNOT BLAME YOU FOR 
FEELING THAT WAY. 
ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES TO BE AT 
THE KIDS TABLE IS YOU GET TO 
HEAR THE FOLKS ABOUT THE ASK 
THE QUESTION I'VE BEEN LIVING 
LISTENING CLOSELY AND HEARD 
THEM SAY JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING 
EXCEPT TO CONTRADICT ANY OF THE 
SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY THAT YOU 
HAVE GOT GIVEN. 
YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT 
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
COMPLAINTS AND INSINUATION AND 
SUGGESTIONS MAYBE THAT YOUR 
SERVICE IS SOMEHOW NOT TO BE 
TRUSTED, YET YOU WERE TREATED 
TO QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LOYALTY 
BECAUSE OF SOME HALF-BAKED JOB 
OFFER I GUESS THE UKRAINIANS 
MADE YOU, WHICH YOU DUTIFULLY 
REPORTED AND I GUESS HE IS 
IMPLYING YOU HAVE SOME DUAL 
LOYALTY. 
THEY TRY TO DEMEAN YOU AS 
THOUGH YOU HAVE OVERSTATED YOUR 
IMPORTANCE OF YOUR JOB BUT OF 
COURSE YOU ARE THE GUY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING 
UKRAINIAN POLICY. 
YOU HAVE HEARD THEM SHARE 
ALLEGATIONS WITH NO BASIS OF 
PROOF BUT THEY ARE HOPING MAYBE 
SOME OF IT WILL STICK ON THE 
WALL IF THEY KEEP THROWING IT. 
WE EVEN HAD A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE QUESTION WHY YOU WOULD
WEAR YOUR DRESS UNIFORM TODAY. 
EVEN THOUGH THE DRESS UNIFORM 
INCLUDES A BREASTPLATE THAT HAS 
A COMBAT INFANTRY ON IT AND A 
PURPLE HEART MEDAL ROOM AND. 
IT SEEMS LIKE IF ANYONE GETS TO 
WEAR THE UNIFORM IT IS SOMEBODY 
WHO HAS GOT THOSE ON IT. 
SO LET'S DO IT AGAIN. 
LET'S DO THE SUBSTANCE BECAUSE 
WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DUST  
KICKED UP. 
YOU HEARD THE CALL WITH YOUR 
OWN EARS, MS. WILLIAMS ? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> IN YOUR CONCLUSION WAS WHAT 
HE SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE 
BIDENS WAS UNUSUAL AND AN 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY . 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN YOU 
HEARD AMBASSADOR  SONDLAND 
RAISING INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU 
THOUGHT  WERE UNDULY POLITICAL 
AND YOU WENT TO THE COUNCIL AND 
REPORTED IT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THEN LATER YOU TWO WERE 
ON THE WHITE HOUSE CALLING YOU 
HEARD IT WITH YOUR OWN EARS NOT 
SECONDHAND OR FROM SOMEBODY 
ELSE. 
YOU HEARD THE VOICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT ON THE CALL. 
AND YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THE 
SUBJECT AGAIN THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD RAISED BEFORE 
ABOUT INVESTIGATING  THE 
BIDENS. 
WHAT WAS THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT 
WENT THROUGH YOUR MIND ? 
>> FRANKLY, I COULDN'T BELIEVE
WHAT I WAS HEARING. IT WAS 
PROBABLY AN ELEMENT OF SHOCK 
THAT MAY BE IN CERTAIN REGARDS 
MY WORST FEAR OF HOW OUR 
UKRAINE POLICY COULD PLAY OUT 
WAS PLAYING OUT AND HOW THIS 
WAS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT 
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
>> AND YOU REPORTED IT. 
WHY? 
>> BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY. 
>> DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT HANDY? 
COULD HE READ THE LAST 
PARAGRAPH FOR ME AGAIN? 
I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
DESERVES TO HEAR IT AGAIN. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
I THINK MY DAD WOULD APPRECIATE 
THIS ONE. 
DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN 
THE'S CAPITAL IS PROOF THAT YOU 
MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 
YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET 
UNION AND COME HERE TO THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR 
FAMILY. 
DO NOT WORRY. 
I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE 
TRUTH. 
>> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME 
FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY 
THAT YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF 
IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE 
MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE 
WORLD. DO YOU REALIZE THAT? 
>> I KNOW THAT I WAS ASSUMING A 
LOT OF RISK. 
>> YOU SAID TO YOUR DAD DO NOT 
WORRY.  
DID HE WORRY? 
HE WOULD HAVE WORRIED IF YOU 
WERE PUTTING YOURSELF UP 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES? 
>> IN HIS CONTEXT IT WAS THE 
ULTIMATE RISK.  
>> AND WHY DO HAVE CONFIDENCE 
THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND TELL 
YOUR DAD  NOT TO WORRY? 
>> BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA. 
THIS IS THE COUNTRY HAVE SERVED 
AND DEFENDED THAT ALL MY 
BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE 
RIGHT MATTERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE TO OUR NATION, MS. 
WILLIAMS. 
IT TRULY MATTERS.  
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN , I 
HAD THE HONOR OF SPEAKING TO A 
GROUP OF VETERANS THIS PAST 
WEEKEND. 
WHAT I SAID TO THEM WAS THAT NO 
WORDS ARE REALLY ADEQUATE OR 
SUFFICIENT TO FULLY EXPRESS OUR 
GRATITUDE FOR THEIR SERVICE TO 
OUR NATION. 
SO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
TODAY I SAY TO YOU THERE ARE NO 
WORDS  THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO 
FULLY EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO 
YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR 
OUR NATION AND AMAZINGLY WHAT 
YOU ARE STILL WILLING TO DO FOR 
OUR NATION. IT IS VITALLY 
IMPORTANT THAT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S UNETHICAL DEMAND THAT 
UKRAINE DELIVER POLITICALLY 
MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IN 
EXCHANGE FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE
CREATED A SECURITY RISK FOR OUR 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
NATIONAL SECURITY THE PRESIDENT 
WAS NOT JUST PLAYING A 
POLITICAL GAME BY UPHOLDING 
MILITARY AID AND MEETINGS WITH 
UKRAINE, THREATENING THE 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT 
CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED HAS 
REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCES FOR 
UKRAINE AND FOR THE USA. 
IN YOUR DEPOSITION, COLONEL 
VINDMAN YOU TESTIFIED A STRONG 
AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS 
CRITICAL  TO OUR SECURITY 
INTERESTS. COULD YOU PLEASE 
EXPLAIN WHY A STRONG AND 
INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS THE 
CRITICAL AND WHY IT IS SO VITAL 
TO U.S. INTERESTS? 
>> WE SOMETIMES REFER TO 
UKRAINE AS A FRONT-LINE STATE. 
IT IS ON THE FRONTLINE OF 
EUROPE. 
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED TO 
ME, THE UKRAINIANS, THAT THEY 
CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS A BARRIER
BETWEEN RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND 
EUROPE, AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD 
THEM DESCRIBE IS THE NEED FOR 
U.S. SUPPORT IN ORDER TO SERVE 
THIS ROLE MEANT TO PROTECT 
EUROPEAN AND WESTERN SECURITY. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL, THIS IS 
NOT JUST A THEORETICAL CONFLICT 
BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. 
YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS 
MORNING THAT RUSSIA IS ACTIVELY 
FIGHTING TO EXPAND INTO 
UKRAINE. 
THAT UKRAINE IS IN A HOT WAR 
WITH RUSSIA RIGHT NOW. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> IT IS STABLE BUT IT IS STILL 
A HOT WAR. 
>> AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT EVEN  
EVENTUALLY DELIVERED TO CRANE, 
THE FACT THAT IT WAS DELAYED 
JUST THAT FACT COULD SIGNAL TO 
RUSSIA THAT THE BOND BETWEEN 
UKRAINE AND THE U.S. WAS 
WEAKENING? 
>> THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF 
MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES. 
>> AND WAS THE RISK OF EVEN THE 
APPEARANCE THAT THE U.S. AND 
UKRAINE BOND IS SHAKY IS THAT 
IT COULD EMBOLDEN RUSSIA TO ACT 
WITH MORE AGGRESSION. 
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS CORRECT? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS MY 
TESTIMONY. 
>> LAST MONTH PRESIDENT PUTIN 
JOKED ABOUT INTERFERING IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.  
I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT IS WHAT 
WE HAVE BECOME TO RUSSIA AND 
ITS PRESIDENT. 
I THINK HE FELT EMBOLDENED BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S RECKLESS ACTIONS
BOTH ATTEMPTS TO HOLD CRITICAL 
MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO 
BLAME UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA OR 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN  AND 
MS. WILLIAMS, I CAN ONLY SAY 
THAT EVERY AMERICAN, REGARDLESS 
OF OUR POLITICS, SHOULD BE 
CRITICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A 
THAT  AND LET ME JUST SAY THIS. 
YES WE DO TRUST THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TRUST US TO SUPPORT, 
PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES 
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. 
AND WE INTEND TO DO JUST THAT. 
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE
. I YIELD BACK. 
>> GOOD AFTERNOON MS. WILLIAMS  
AND COLONEL VINDMAN. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
AM CONCERNED YOUR LOYALTY HAS 
BEEN QUESTIONED NOT JUST 
BECAUSE YOU ARE BRINGING 
FORWARD EVIDENCE OF  WRONGDOING 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES BUT BECAUSE YOU 
ARE AN IMMIGRANT. 
RECENTLY FOX NEWS HOST BRIAN 
KILMEADE SAID THAT YOU WERE 
BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION AND 
EMIGRATED YOUNG. 
HE TENDS TO FEEL SIMPATICO WITH 
UKRAINE. 
I FIND THIS STATEMENT 
REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT 
APPEARS THAT YOUR IMMIGRANT 
HERITAGE IS BEING USED AGAINST 
YOU. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, I CAME TO 
THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS THREE 
MONTHS OLD. 
YOUR FAMILY MOVED TO AMERICA 
WHEN YOU WERE JUST 3.5 YEARS 
OLD. 
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR 
FATHER WORKED MULTIPLE JOBS 
WHILE ALSO LEARNING ENGLISH FOR 
YOUR FATHER STRESSED THE 
IMPORTANCE OF EMBRACING WHAT IT 
MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN. 
>> ALL YOUR CHILDHOOD MEMORIES 
RELATE TO BEING AN AMERICAN. 
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FACED 
DIFFICULT TIMES DURING YOUR 
CHILDHOOD. 
>> YES. 
>> I CAN RELATE. 
THAT IS MY STORY TO GO. 
BUT YOUR FATHER WENT ON TO 
BECOME AN ENGINEER. 
RIGHT? 
>> HE REESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN 
HIS FORMER PROFESSION IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> I CAN RELATE. 
YOUR FATHER NEVER GAVE UP 
WORKING HARD TO BUILD HIS VERY 
OWN AMERICAN DREAM. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOUR FATHER 
ACHIEVED THE AMERICAN DREAM, 
AND SO DID YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. 
FROM ONE IMMIGRANT AMERICAN TO 
ANOTHER IMMIGRANT AMERICAN, I 
WANT TO SAY TO YOU THE YOU AND 
YOUR FAMILY REPRESENT THE VERY 
BEST OF AMERICA. 
I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE AS PROUD 
TO BE AN AMERICAN AS I AM. 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> I WANT TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION
TO YURY LUTSENKO WHO YOU CALLED 
A DISRUPTIVE  ACTOR. 
MR. LUTSENKO HAS MADE VARIOUS 
CLAIMS ABOUT VARIOUS AMERICANS. 
YOU ARE UNAWARE OF ANY FACTUAL 
BASIS FOR HIS ACCUSATIONS  
AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
AND WAS A SOURCE  OF JOHN 
SOLOMON IN THE HILL AND YOU SAID
THE KEY ELEMENT OF THAT ARTICLE 
AS WELL AS HIS ACCUSATIONS ARE 
FALSE. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YURY LUTSENKO  IS NOT A 
CREDIBLE SOURCE. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMS THAT 
THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO PRESSURE 
ON THIS JULY 25 THEM CALL. 
I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE HEARD 
EARLIER. 
>> I BELIEVE SO. 
>> AND IN TERMS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS IT IS A DEMAND. 
YOU HAVE POINTED OUT THE LARGE 
POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE ONE HAND 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 
OTHER. 
THERE WAS PRESSURE ON THAT 
PHONE CALL , RIGHT? 
>> THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THE 
MEETING. 
THEY NEEDED THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
>> SO THE PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT 
TO BEAR ON THEM. 
>> I BELIEVE SO. 
>> LAST WEEK WE HEARD A 
DECORATED MILITARY VETERAN 
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR COME 
BEFORE US. 
YOU INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND YOU KNOW 
HIM TO BE A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. 
I ASKED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A 
SERIES OF QUESTIONS BASED ON 
HIS EXPERIENCE. 
I ASKED HIM IS AN OFFICER 
ALLOWED TO HOLD UP ACTION 
PLACING HIS TROOPS AT RISK 
UNTIL SOMEONE WRITES THEM A 
PERSONAL BENEFIT? 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED NO, 
SIR. 
COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE ? 
>> I DO EXPECT I SAID IS THAT 
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING 
THE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATION? 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YES, SIR.
COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE? 
>> I DO. 
>> I THEN ASKED FOR THAT TYPE 
OF CONDUCT TREVOR A COURT-
MARTIAL? 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YES, SIR 
. DO YOU AGREE? 
>> I DO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER 
QUESTIONING AND REPRESENTATIVE 
NUNES ARE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
>> AT ONE OF TODAY'S CIRCUSES 
OVER. 
THOSE OF YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING 
AT HOME, THE DEMOCRATS ARE NO 
CLOSER TO IMPEACHMENT THAN 
WHERE THEY WERE THREE YEARS 
AGO. 
IN THE PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT 
JUSTICE, FBI, STATE DEPARTMENTS 
AND ELEMENTS HAVE ALL SUFFERED 
LONG-TERM DAMAGE. THE DEMOCRATS 
CAN CONTINUE TO POISON THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS 
NONSENSE WE CAN SIT HERE ALL 
MORNING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE 
FOR IMPEACHMENT, WHICH WOULD BE 
A VERY SERIOUS CRIME. HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, AS IT 
SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
NO SUCH THING. 
POLICY DISAGREEMENTS AND THE 
DEMOCRAT FAILURE TO KNOWLEDGE 
THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
I WOULD SAY IT IS ASTONISHING 
THAT THAT WOULD BE PUTTING TOO 
LITTLE EMPHASIS ON THEIR ACTIONS
. FOR THAT I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> I WANT TO THANK OUR 
WITNESSES TODAY. 
MS. WILLIAMS , AND COLONEL 
VINDMAN BUT FOR YOUR SERVICE TO 
THE COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY HERE TODAY AND I JUST 
WANT TO ADDRESS BRIEFLY  SOME 
OF THE EVIDENCE HE PRESENTED, 
AS WELL AS OTHERS THUS FAR IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JOIN MY 
COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU,  
COLONEL VINDMAN, FOR YOUR 
MILITARY SERVICE . AND I SHOULD 
TELL YOU THAT NOTWITHSTANDING 
ALL OF THE QUESTIONS YOU GOT ON 
WHY DIDN'T YOU CONTACT YOUR 
SUPERVISOR OR MR. MORRISON WHY 
DID YOU GO TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY LAWYER, AS IF THERE IS 
SOMETHING WRONG WITH GOING TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER. 
ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ASKED MR. 
MORRISON WHETHER HE WENT 
TONIGHT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
LAWYER RIGHT AFTER THE CALL AND 
THAT HE DID? 
AND ARE YOU AWARE ALSO THAT WE 
ASKED HIM IF YOU HAD THIS 
PROBLEM WITH COLONEL VINDMAN 
NOT GOING TO YOU AND CERTAINLY 
LAWYER NATURAL YOU MUST'VE GOT 
YOUR SUPERVISOR AND YOU NOTED 
ANSWER WAS? 
HE DIDN'T GO TO HIS SUPERVISOR 
EITHER . YOU WENT DIRECTLY TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
LAWYER SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES 
WOULD GIVE HIM THE SAME HARD 
TIME FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE 
CHAIN OF COMMAND HE COMPLAINED 
ABOUT WITH YOU. 
THE PRESIDENT MAY ATTACK YOU 
AND HAS. 
OTHERS ON RIGHT-WING TV MIGHT 
ATTACK YOU AND THEY HAVE. 
BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW AND 
MAYBE YOU KNOW ALREADY THAT 
THIS IS WHAT THE FORMER 
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF 
STAFF HAD TO SAY ABOUT YOU, 
COLONEL VINDMAN. 
IS A PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT, 
PATRIOTIC, AND LOYAL OFFICER . 
HE HAS MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY 
CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECURITY OF 
OUR NATION IN BOTH PEACETIME 
AND COMBAT. 
I AM SURE YOUR DAD IS PROUD TO 
HEAR THAT. 
MY COLLEAGUES  HAVE TRIED TO 
MAKE THE ARGUMENT HERE TODAY, 
AND WE HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST 
INTERESTED IN FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION. 
THAT IS OUR GOAL FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
THE PROBLEM OF COURSE WITH THAT 
IS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE 
PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION. THE EVIDENCE ALL 
POINTS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. 
THE EVIDENCE POINTS IN THE 
DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 
INVITING UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN 
THE CORRUPT ACT OF 
INVESTIGATING A U.S. POLITICAL 
OPPONENT. 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH  IS 
RECALLED FROM HER POST AND A 
MASTER YOVANOVITCH AND THAT WAS 
AT A MEETING  CELEBRATING OTHER 
ANTICORRUPTION FIGHTERS, 
INCLUDING A WOMAN WHO HAD 
ASSAYED FOR ANOTHER BASED ON 
THE DAY THAT SHE WAS TOLD TO 
GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO 
WASHINGTON. 
YOU PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR 
THE FIRST CONVERSATION WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
IS SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT 
ROUTINE OF CORRUPTION. 
OF THIS PRESIDENT HAD SUCH A 
DEEP  INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SURELY 
HE WOULD'VE BROUGHT IT UP ON 
THE CALL BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT 
HE DID NOT. 
WE THEN SEE RUDY GIULIANI NOT 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION BUT ASKING 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS AND MY COLLEAGUES SAY 
MAYBE HE WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN. 
BUT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI WANTED COME UP IN 
THE MEETING TO PARTICIPATE IN 
ON JULY 10 AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
THE UKRAINIANS YOU HAVE GOT TO 
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.  
NOW THEY WOULD SAY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND  WAS ACTING ON HIS 
OWN, BUT THAT DOESN'T WORK 
EITHER BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CALL 
RECORD FROM JULY 25, WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO 
RELEASE, IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT 
DOESN'T BRING UP CORRUPTION. 
OF COURSE NOT. 
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY? 
I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS AND THIS THEORY PUSHED 
BY VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT ALSO 
HELPS ME IN MY REELECTION. 
SO MUCH FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
. THE REAL MESSAGE TO UKRAINE 
IS DO NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. DO 
ENGAGE IN POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS AND DO IT FOR MY 
REELECTION. 
IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT THEY 
WANT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
AND IF THEY WANT 400 MILLION IN 
USAID, THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE 
TO DO. 
THE ONLY LAMENT I HEAR FROM MY 
COLLEAGUES IS IT WASN'T 
SUCCESSFUL. 
THEY GOT CAUGHT. 
THEY DIDN'T GET THE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATION AND THEY STILL 
HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY. 
BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER BLEW 
THE WHISTLE PICK THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS TO PUNISH AND BECAUSE 
CONGRESS ANNOUNCED IT WAS DOING 
INVESTIGATIONS AND THE 
PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO LIFT 
THE HOLD ON THE AIDE. 
THEY ARGUE THIS MAKES IT OKAY 
THAT IT WAS A FAILED EFFORT TO 
BRIBE UKRAINE AND EXTORT UKRAINE
. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT BETTER. 
IT IS NO LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT 
WAS DISCOVERED AND STOMPED AND 
WE HAVE COURAGEOUS PEOPLE LIKE 
YOURSELF WHO COME FORWARD AND 
REPORT THINGS WHO DO WHAT THEY 
SHOULD DO AND TO HAVE A SENSE 
OF DUTY. NOT TO THE PERSON OF 
THE PRESIDENT, BUT TO THE 
PRESIDENCY AND TO THE COUNTRY, 
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK 
THIS ALL COMES BACK TO 
SOMETHING WE HEARD FROM ANOTHER 
CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER 
JUST LAST FRIDAY IN A 
CONVERSATION HE OVERHEARD WITH 
THE PRESIDENT IN A RESTAURANT 
IN UKRAINE IN WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT, NOT RUDY GIULIANI OR 
ANYONE ELSE. 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WANTED TO KNOW ARE THEY 
GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS? 
THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 
20 BUT CALL. 
AND HE IS ASSURED BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO 
DO IT. 
AND WHAT  DOES HE RELATE TO THE 
OFFICER AFTER HE HANGS UP THE 
CALL? 
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE 
ABOUT UKRAINE. 
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG 
THINGS THAT HELP HIS PERSONAL 
INTERESTS. THAT IS ALL YOU NEED 
TO KNOW. AND IT ISN'T JUST 
ABOUT UKRAINE OF COURSE. 
UKRAINE IS BITING HER FIGHT 
AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND THEIR 
EXPANSIONISM. THAT IS OUR FIGHT 
TOO. 
AT LEAST WE THOUGHT SO ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS. 
THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT UKRAINE 
WITH THE MILITARY AID THAT WE 
HAVE. 
THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT CARE 
ABOUT IT, BUT WE DO. 
WE CARE ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF 
OUR ALLIES, AND WE CARE ABOUT 
OUR CONSTITUTION WE ARE 
ADJOURNED. 
AND PLEASE ASK THE AUDIENCE TO 
ALLOW THE WITNESSES AND THE 
MEMBERS HAVE TO GO ABOUT TO 
LEAVE FIRST. 
>> AND THAT CONCLUDES ACT I FOR 
TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
I AM REENA NINAN. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
ERROR TWO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES 
THAT WILL TESTIFY IN ONE HOUR 
AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU 
AS WELL. 
IF YOU'RE JUST TUNING IN, 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN APPEARED BEFORE THE 
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
AND BOTH HEARD THE JULY 20 BUT 
CALL WITH THE LEADER OF UKRAINE 
AND VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON 
UKRAINE  AND HE HE FLED THE 
SOVIET UNION 40 YEARS AGO. 
TODAY HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE CALL BECAUSE HE DID 
NOT THINK THAT IT WAS PROPER. 
>> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF 
UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE 2016 ELECTION THAT IT 
WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A 
PARTISAN PLAY AND THIS WOULD 
RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, UNDERMINING 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE 
REGION. 
I WANT TO US AS TO THE 
COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORT. 
>> WILLIAMS IS AN ADVISOR ON 
EUROPE AND RUSSIA AND SAID SHE 
FOUND OUT ABOUT THE CALL 
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF WHAT 
WAS ABOUT. 
>> JULY 25 WITH SEVERAL OF MY 
COLLEAGUES LISTENED TO A CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE CONTENT 
OF WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN 
PUBLICLY REPORTED. 
PRIOR TO JULY 25 I PARTICIPATED 
IN A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL 
PHONE CALLS. 
DURING MY DEPOSITION MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMITTEE  ASKED ABOUT MY 
PERSONAL VIEWS ON WHETHER I HAD 
ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 
CALL. 
AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND 
THE PHONE CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE 
IN CONTRAST TO OTHER CALLS 
OBSERVED IT ABOUT DISCUSSION OF 
WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL MATTER. 
AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, 
PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE DAILY 
BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT 
DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM  
WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. 
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE 
FOR THE TRANSCRIPT. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED 
HIS ATTACKS EARLIER TODAY AT A 
CABINET MEETING PRAISING 
REPUBLICANS PERFORMANCE A 
SAYING HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE 
OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. 
>> I JUST GOT TO WATCH THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE ABSOLUTELY 
KILLING IT. 
THEY ARE DOING SO WELL BECAUSE 
IT IS A SCAM. 
IT IS A BIG SCAM. 
VINDMAN I WATCHED HIM FOR A 
LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING , AND 
I THINK I AM GOING TO LET 
PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN 
DETERMINATION. 
BUT I DO NOT KNOW VINDMAN. 
I HAD NEVER HEARD OF HIM. 
I DO NOT KNOW ANY OF THESE 
PEOPLE . 
>> LATER THIS AFTERNOON CALLED 
VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WHILE 
PUBLICLY TESTIFY BEFORE THE 
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
KURT VOLKER IS THE SPECIAL 
ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND WAS 
INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PRESSURE 
THE COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATE 
POLITICAL RIVALS AND MORRISON 
IS THE DEPARTING SENIOR 
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL WHO TOLD 
LAWMAKERS IN AN EARLIER 
TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS CONCERNED 
THAT DETAILS OF THE JULY CALL 
WOULD BECOME PUBLIC DID NOT 
THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS 
DISCUSSED IN THE CONVERSATION 
AND THIS ALL COMES ON THE HEELS 
OF NEW REVELATIONS SURROUNDING 
THE CALL AT THE CENTER OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
DAVID HOLMES SAID THAT HE HEARD 
THE PRESIDENT ASK GORDON 
SONDLAND ABOUT THE STATUS OF 
THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
POLITICAL RIVALS ONE DAY AFTER 
HIS CAL WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
LEADER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND  
TEST TOMORROW AND HOMELESS ON 
THURSDAY. 
I WANT TO BRING IN REPUBLICAN 
STRATEGIST LESLIE SANCHEZ AND 
MOLLY COOPER AND DEMOCRATIC 
STRATEGIST LINDA AND ALSO 
JOINING US IS NANCY CORDES ON 
CAPITOL HILL AND WHAT WERE THE 
MAIN TAKEAWAYS TODAY, NANCY? 
>> I THINK THE MAIN TAKE AWAY 
WAS THAT BOTH VINDMAN AND 
WILLIAMS REALLY CHIPPED AWAY  
AT WHAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE 
CENTRAL WHITE HOUSE LINES OF 
DEFENSE HERE. WHAT WE HAVE 
HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS GOING ALL OF THE WAY 
UP TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND 
CERTAINLY FROM THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF NICK MULVANEY IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT WITHHOLD 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF 
MILITARY AID UKRAINE BECAUSE HE 
WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE BIDENS BUT RATHER BECAUSE 
HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT LONG-
STANDING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE 
. OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS 
HEARING COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
WILLIAMS SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT  NEVER BROUGHT UP 
CORRUPTION IN HIS PHONE CALLS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
EVEN THOUGH VINDMAN HAD PUT IT 
IN  MR. TRUMP'S TALKING POINTS 
BUT ALSO THAT VINDMAN WITNESSED 
THE USE AMBASSADOR  TO THE EU 
GORDON SONDLAND AT A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING TELL A UKRAINIAN 
DELEGATION MORE THAN ONCE THAT 
WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER 
TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WAS TO PROMISE INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO BIDEN , THE 2016 ELECTION, 
AND BURISMA AND WE CAN SEE THE 
ARGUMENT  REALLY BEING UNDERCUT 
BY WITNESSES WHO WERE 
CHALLENGED TODAY TO EXPLAIN 
WHETHER THEY WERE INDEED IS THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ARGUED NEVER 
TRUMPERS. 
VINDMAN RESPONDED THAT HE  
CONSIDERS HIMSELF NEVER PARTISAN
. 
>> I WANT TO TURN OUT FOR A 
LEGAL ANALYSIS AS WELL AND 
NEVER PARTISAN IS SOMETHING WE 
HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
ALL OF THESE WITNESSES THAT WE 
HAVE HEARD FROM HAVE NOT USED 
THAT WORD WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL 
ANALYSIS ABOUT THE USE OF THAT? 
>> I DO NOT EXPECT THEM TO USE 
THAT WORD. 
IT WAS A POINT REPUBLICANS WERE 
TRYING TO MAKE AND MR. 
RATCLIFFE  TOOK DEPOSITIONS AND 
STACKED THEM SO THEY HAD 
HUNDREDS OF PAGES TO SAY 
BRIBERY HAS NEVER BEEN 
MENTIONED. 
OF COURSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN 
MENTIONED. 
WHEN SOMEONE DECIDES TO EXTORT 
OR BRIBE, THEY DO NOT SAY I 
WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A BRIBE
. I AM GOING TO EXTORT YOU. 
THOSE THINGS DO NOT OCCUR IN 
REAL LIFE. 
WHAT OCCURS IN REAL LIFE IS YOU 
GIVE A LITTLE HINT ABOUT WHAT 
YOU WANT, AND WHAT YOU ARE 
GOING TO DO IN EXCHANGE FOR IT, 
AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE 
DEMOCRATIC THESIS HERE. 
IT WAS ANSWERED HERE I THINK 
MOST ARTICULATELY BY 
REPRESENTATIVE WELCH WHEN HE 
HAD TO GET THE WIND OUT OF THE 
SAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN 
AND REPRESENTATIVE WELCH IN HIS 
VERY CALM MANNER SAYS THE 
QUESTION BEFORE US IS THIS. 
IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A UNITED STATES 
CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT? 
TO DATE I HAVE NOT HEARD THEM 
ADDRESS THE QUESTION BUT THAT 
IS THE QUESTION OF THE BRIBE. 
IT IS UP TO THE COMMITTEE AND 
ULTIMATELY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO DECIDE IF 
THERE IS BRIBERY HERE. IT IS 
ONLY AFTER A WITNESS TO SAY 
WHAT THEY SEE, WHAT THEY HEAR, 
WHAT THEY SMELL, OR WHAT THEY 
TASTE. 
IT IS THEIR SENTENCES THAT 
BECOME A FACT WITNESS. 
NOT THE LEGAL CONCLUSION. 
>> I ALSO WANT TO TURN TO WHITE 
HOUSE CORRESPONDENT WEIJIA JIANG
WHO JOINS US FROM THE NORTH ONE 
AND IT SEEMS THE PRESIDENT IS 
PLEASED WITH HOW REPUBLICANS 
ARE HANDLING THE TESTIMONY. 
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE? 
>> THE PRESIDENT IS EXPRESSING 
APPROVAL AND SO ARE SENIOR 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HERE 
WHO SAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
THOUGHT THIS WAS REALLY GOING 
TO BE THERE DAY BUT THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE OUTSHINING THEM 
IN MAKING THEIR CASE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG. 
OF COURSE FROM THE VERY 
BEGINNING THE PRESIDENT HAS 
USED THE SAME LINES OF DEFENSE. 
THEY ARE VERY SHORT AND 
MEMORABLE, AND HE CONTINUES TO 
SAY THE CALL WAS PERFECT AND 
THIS IS A SHAM INVESTIGATION 
AND ALSO THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT 
DOING ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE 
THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THIS. 
THE PRESIDENT ONLY SPOKE ABOUT 
THIS FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, BUT 
HE HIT ON ALL THREE POINTS. 
HE SAID NANCY PELOSI IS GROSSLY 
INCOMPETENT BECAUSE SHE IS NOT 
DOING ANYTHING TO ACCOMPLISH 
HER AGENDA AND IS NOT DOING 
ANYTHING FOR CONGRESS TO RATIFY 
THE U.S. McA. HE SAYS THAT THIS 
IS A DISGRACE TO THE COUNTRY 
WHAT IS GOING ON ON CAPITOL 
HILL, AND AGAIN HE SAYS 
REGARDLESS OF WHAT VINDMAN AND 
WILLIAMS MIGHT HAVE FELT EVEN 
VINDMAN  SAID THAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS ACCURATE. 
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE 
ALSO SEEN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. 
THEY ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT 
THESE TWO NATIONAL SECURITY 
OFFICIALS WHO ARE TRAINED TO 
DETECT WRONGDOING AND POSSIBLE 
THREATS HAVE THEIR OWN 
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAPPENED 
ON THE CALL BUT THEY ARE SAYING 
THAT ALL BOILS DOWN TO A 
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A 
DIFFERENCE OF WHAT U.S. POLICY 
SHOULD BE BECAUSE IT IS 
ULTIMATELY MR. TRUMP WHO SETS 
THAT U.S. POLICY. 
THEY ALSO POINTS TO THE FACT 
THAT WHEN YOU COMB THROUGH THE 
TRANSCRIPT, AND YOU HAVE HEARD 
THIS A LOT, THAT THERE IS NO 
VERY DIRECT DEALMAKING OF A 
QUID PRO QUO AND EVEN THOUGH WE 
HEARD LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN  DESCRIBED IT AS A 
DEMAND, OFFICIALS HERE POINT 
OUT THAT THAT IS JUST 
SUBJECTIVE AND ACTUALLY WASN'T 
A DEMAND AT ALL. 
EVEN IF IT WERE, THAT IS NOT 
RUN BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS SO 
OBSESSED WITH GETTING TO THE 
ROOT OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION. 
SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT IS 
WATCHING TODAY. 
HE SAYS HE IS HAPPY SO FAR, AND 
THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE 
AFTERNOON TESTIMONY EVEN MORE 
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT BOTH 
OF THE WITNESSES WILL ONLY ADD 
TO THEIR CASE AND PROVE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG
.  
>> MOLLY, I WANT TO TURN TO 
YOU. 
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS WITH 
THE TESTIMONY OF VINDMAN AND 
WILLIAMS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
TRYING TO ESTABLISH? 
>> NUMBER ONE  THEY WANT TO 
ESTABLISH THAT THESE TWO 
INDIVIDUALS WERE BOTH ON THE 
CALL. 
ONE OF THE FEW WITNESSES THAT 
ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THE CALL. 
BOTH OF THEM THOUGHT THAT THERE 
WAS SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE OR 
IMPROPER ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID. 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHO WAS AN 
AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
PENCE IS CURRENTLY A STATE 
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, BUT SHE 
WAS DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT. úSHE SAID I 
POLITICAL IN NATURE BECAUSE THE 
BIDENS WERE MENTIONED AND THAT 
IT WAS UNUSUAL THAT AN 
INDIVIDUAL  OR ENTITY WAS 
MENTIONED IN THE CALL AND 
SPECIFICALLY THE BIDENS AND OF 
COURSE VINDMAN  CALLED IN 
INAPPROPRIATE AND BASICALLY 
THAT ACROSS THE LINE. 
BUT STILL IT IS UP TO 
INTERPRETATION AS WE JUST SAID. 
THAT IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WERE 
SAYING. 
REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE 
WATCHING THIS THINK. 
>> REPUBLICANS HAD TO HAVE 
KNOWN GOING INTO THIS, LESLIE. 
YOU WILL HAVE A DECORATED WAR 
VETERAN SHOWING UP IN MILITARY 
UNIFORM TESTIFYING. 
MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, THAT IS A 
HIGH BAR TO TRY TO DISCREDIT IF 
THAT IS YOUR STRATEGY. 
>> YOU NEVER PUT IT PAST YOU 
FOR US NOT TO AGREE ON WHAT A 
STRATEGY SHOULD BE. 
LET'S JUST BE HONEST ABOUT 
THAT. 
I ALWAYS FEEL THAT WHEN WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT MILITARY OFFICERS 
AND MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE IN 
THE MILITARY, TO REMIND YOU 
THAT THEY ARE THERE TO DEFEND 
DEMOCRACY AND NOT EXERCISE IN 
IT. 
WHEN AN ORDER COMES, THERE IS A 
SENSE THAT THIS IS A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT 
THAT ORDER. 
FROM A SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT TO 
HER POINT, IT IS. 
HE INTERPRETED IT AS YOU DO 
THIS AND YOU GET THAT. 
IT WAS VERY MUCH ALONG THE 
LINES OF WHERE THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE TRYING TO TAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT. 
I THOUGHT CONGRESSMAN RADCLIFFE 
IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOT 
A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF 
TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE CALL 
THAT THEY CAN AGREE THAT THE 
CALL SEEMED IMPROPER AND WILL 
HAVE REPUBLICAN CITY DO. 
THEY WOULD THINK THAT THERE IS 
SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE BUT IT 
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE OR 
OVERWHELMING BECAUSE HE IS 
ADDRESSING THIS CORRUPTION 
ELEMENT SO AGAIN AS DIFFICULT 
AS THAT MAY BE, I DO SEE THAT 
AS A POSITIVE FOR THE PRESIDENT 
BECAUSE IT IS NOT A COMPELLING 
OVERWHELMING KIND OF AGREEMENT 
OF PREQUEL. 
>> LINDA, I WANT YOU TO WEIGH 
IN. 
WHAT REALLY WAS THE ANGLE FOR 
DEMOCRATS GOING INTO THIS? 
WE HAVE A WEEK OF PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY AND WHERE IS THIS ALL 
HEADED FOR THEM? 
>> I THINK TO THE POINT OF MOLLY
, HAVING PEOPLE WHO HAD 
LISTENED TO THE CALL ITSELF 
TAKES AWAY A TALKING POINT FROM 
THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE BEEN 
VERY FOCUSED ON PROCESS AND TO 
THINK ADAM SCHIFF SAID THIS 
VERY WELL AND THAT NONE OF THE 
REPUBLICANS TODAY OR OTHERWISE 
HAVE EVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION 
DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE 
FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO ASK A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE YOUR 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
NO ONE IS DEFENDING HIM ON 
THOSE FACTS. 
WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS TALK 
ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS. 
THE LANGUAGE THAT IS USED. 
DID THEY SAY BRIBERY? 
ALSO THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS 
CALL BECAUSE THEY COLLECT SOME 
OF THE OTHER FACTS OF THE 
MATTER WHICH WE HAVEN'T TALKED 
ABOUT AT ALL AT THIS TABLE IS 
THAT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THAT 
CALL. 
THE FUNDS WERE WITHHELD IN 
ADVANCE OF THE CALL. 
THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED AFTER 
THE WHITE HOUSE FIGURED OUT 
THAT THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER 
I WAS GOING TO BRING ALL OF 
THIS TO LIGHT. 
úTHE CALL ITSELF WAS HIDDEN ON  
SECRET SERVER. TO ME ANYTHING 
TO ANY LOGICAL AMERICAN 
LISTENING THERE IS NO QUESTION 
THAT THERE WAS SOME SIGNIFICANT 
WRONGDOING HERE AND IT ONLY 
WRONGDOING BUT THAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE DELIBERATELY TRIED TO 
HIDE THE BALL. 
>> ONE OF THE OTHER MOMENTS 
FROM TODAY'S HEARING WAS A 
ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS TO COLONEL 
VINDMAN ABOUT A POSITION THAT 
HE WAS OFFERED . COLONEL 
VINDMAN ADDRESSES BEING OFFERED 
A JOB TO BE DEFENSE MINISTER 
FOR UKRAINE . 
>> YOU WENT TO UKRAINE FOR THE 
INAUGURATION? 
>> DIRECT. 
>> AT ANY POINT WERE YOU 
OFFERED A DEFENSE MINISTER 
POSITION? 
>> HE DID. 
>> AND HOW MAY TIMES? 
ú>> PRETENDS. 
>> YOU HAVE ANY REASON WHY HE 
ASKED YOU TO DO THAT? 
>> I DO NOT KNOW. 
BUT EVERY SINGLE TIME I 
DISMISSED IT UPON RETURNING I 
NOTIFIED MY CHAIN OF COMMAND, 
AND THE APPROPRIATE 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FOLKS ABOUT 
THE OFFER. 
>> UKRAINE IS A COUNTRY THAT 
HAS EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH 
RUSSIA CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTRY 
OF DEFENSE IS A KEY POSITION 
FOR THE UKRAINIANS, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY  TO THE STILL THAT 
HONOR ON YOU. 
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT 
HONOR AND I'M AWARE OF SERVICE 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE LEFT SERVICE 
TO HELP NURTURE THE DEVELOPING 
DEMOCRACY IN THE PART OF THE 
WORLD. CERTAINLY IN THE BALTICS.
IT WAS IN THE FIRST OFFICER 
BECAME A MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 
BUT I AM AN AMERICAN I CAME 
HERE WHEN I WAS A TODDLER, AND 
I IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED THESE 
OFFERS AND DID NOT ENTERTAIN 
THEM. 
>> I WANT TO TURN TO NANCY 
CORDES OR CHIEF POLITICAL 
CORRESPONDENT. 
NANCY, IS IT RISKY FOR 
REPUBLICANS TO PAINT VINDMAN AS 
A COMBAT VETERAN WHO IS NOT 
LOYAL TO  HIS COUNTRY? 
>> IT IS AND IT WAS A STUNNING 
MOMENTS BECAUSE A FEW MOMENTS 
LATER JIM HINES SAID 
REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO 
SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW 
LOYAL TO UKRAINE HAVE SYMPATHY 
IS TO UKRAINE RATHER THAN TO 
YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND I WANT TO 
POINT OUT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, THAT YOU'RE SITTING 
THERE WITH A PURPLE HEART THAT 
YOU ACQUIRED  BECAUSE YOU WERE 
INJURED IN COMBAT IN FALLUJA IN 
IRAQ. 
HE SAID HE WANTED TO THANK 
VINDMAN  FOR HIS SERVICE. 
THIS IS INTERESTING NOT JUST 
BECAUSE IT WAS A DRAMATIC 
MOMENT BUT BECAUSE VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED  THAT THERE HAS BEEN 
SOMETHING OF A CONCERTED EFFORT 
TO GO AFTER HIM AND HIS 
PATRIOTISM SIMPLY BECAUSE HE 
WAS BORN IN UKRAINE AND MOVED 
HERE AS A YOUNG CHILD AND 
BECAUSE HE HAS HAD THE TEMERITY 
TO SERVE AS A WITNESS IN THIS 
CASE. 
HE SAID HE KNEW WHEN HE SPOKE 
OUT THAT HE MIGHT ANGER THE 
MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
BUT HE SAID THAT HE FELT DUTY-
BOUND TO DO IT ADDING 
INTERESTINGLY THAT HE WAS 
EXCLUDED FROM CERTAIN MEETINGS 
AND CERTAIN TRIPS AFTER HE WENT 
TO LAWYERS AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
TWICE TO EXPRESS HIS CONCERNS 
AND THE CLEAR IMPLICATION WAS 
THAT HE FELT THAT HE WAS CUT 
OUT OF SOME OF THESE SENSITIVE 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE COUNTRY 
THAT HE WORKS ON BECAUSE HE HAD 
EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT HE 
THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS 
SOMETHING DISTRESSING THAT HAD 
TAKEN PLACE.  
>> I WANT TO TURN TO WEIJIA 
JIANG AT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS 
THE U.S. ARMY IS PREPARED TO 
MOVE COLONEL VINDMAN AND HIS 
FAMILY ONTO A MILITARY BASE TO 
ENSURE THE SECURITY  IF IT IS 
DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE IN 
PHYSICAL DANGER. 
IN RECENT WEEKS THEY CONDUCTED 
A SECURITY ASSESSMENT AT THE 
REQUEST OF COLONEL VINDMAN 
REVIEWING HIS AND HIS FAMILY'S  
PHYSICAL SECURITY AND ALSO 
THEIR ONLINE SECURITY. 
OFFICIALS HAVE ALSO BEEN 
MONITORING COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
HIS FAMILY AROUND THE CLOCK AS 
WELL  JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE 
IS NOT ANY IMMINENT THREAT. 
A SEPARATE OFFICIAL TELLS CBS 
NEWS THAT THERE ARE NO KNOWN 
THREATS TO VINDMAN BY WEIJIA, 
THE WHITE HOUSE  HAS NOT 
SHIELDED FROM TRYING TO SMEAR 
VINDMAN. 
HAVE THEY WAITING ON SOME OF 
THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF 
THESE TESTIFYING?  
>> I ASKED THE PRESIDENT ONE 
TIME ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
SAFETY BECAUSE YOU WILL 
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT VERY 
EARLY ON WAS DEMANDING THAT 
THIS PERSON'S IDENTITY BE OUTED 
AND THAT HE TESTIFY IN PUBLIC 
HEARINGS THE WINDOW FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S ATTORNEY THAT 
HIS CLIENTS LIFE WAS BEING 
THREATENED AND THE PRESIDENT 
DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND HE 
TRIED TO SIDESTEP THAT WHEN I 
ASKED HIM WHAT DO YOU SAY TO 
PEOPLE WHO SO YOU ARE PUTTING 
THIS LIFE IN DANGER? 
HE JUST WENT ON AND ON ABOUT 
HOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER NEEDS TO 
COME OUT HERE AND EXPLAIN 
HIMSELF. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT 
SHIED AWAY FROM ATTACKING MANY 
OF THESE WITNESSES. 
AT ONE POINT HE EVEN SAID THAT 
ADAM SCHIFF GOT TOGETHER A LIST 
OF PEOPLE WHO HATED HIM AND PUT 
HIM
>> AFTER TODAY'S HEARING 
STARTED, HE WAS A LOT SOFTER. 
HE WAS ASKED IF VINDMAN IS A 
CREDIBLE WITNESS AND HE SAID, I 
DON'T KNOW HIM, BUT POINTED TO 
THE FACT THAT VINDMAN TESTIFIED 
TO THE FACT THAT THE CALL IN 
SUBSTANCE WAS ACCURATE AND HE'D 
LEAVE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WHAT TO MAKE THEMSELVES OF ALL 
THE WITNESSES. 
SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE HE'S 
COOLING OFF A LITTLE BIT. 
I ASKED SOURCES INSIDE IF 
THAT'S BECAUSE HE WAS ADVISED 
TO DO THAT, AND THE ANSWER WAS, 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ADVISED 
TO DO A LOT OF THINGS AND HE 
DOES NOT LISTEN. 
BUT HE UNDERSTANDS THE OPTICS 
WOULD NOT BE GOOD. 
HERE YOU HAVE VINDMAN 
TESTIFYING IN HIS ARMY DRESS 
BLUES, VINDMAN, WHO REALLY IS 
AN IDEAL IMMIGRANT IF YOU ASKED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO CAME HERE 
FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AND 
DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE LIFE HERE 
TO MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR OTHER 
AMERICANS. 
SO PERHAPS THAT'S WHY WE ARE 
SEEING HIM BACK OFF. 
BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER HE'S 
DOING THAT BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL 
THREATS TO VINDMAN, WE DO NOT 
KNOW. 
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT 
VINDMAN HIMSELF SEEMED TO 
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS PUTTING 
HIMSELF IN DANGER, IN HARM'S 
WAY WHEN HE TESTIFIED. 
IN THAT COMPELLING OPENING 
STATEMENT HE SAID TO HIS DAD, 
YOU KNOW, SITTING HERE TODAY, 
TALKING TO OUR ELECTED 
OFFICIALS IS PROOF THAT YOU 
MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 
YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET 
UNION AND COME HERE TO THE USA 
IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR 
OUR FAMILY. 
DO NOT WORRY, I WILL BE FINE 
FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. 
REASSURING HIS FATHER THAT EVEN 
THOUGH HE WAS GOING AGAINST THE 
MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE 
WORLD, THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE 
OKAY. 
>> WE OFTEN DON'T THINK ABOUT 
THE SACRIFICES THESE FOLKS THAT 
COME FORWARD HAVE TO FACE. 
MOLLY, A LOT WAS SAID AND WHAT 
DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNOW 
AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? 
WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT THAT? 
>> Reporter: THAT WAS AN 
INTERESTING THREAD TODAY 
BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE 
ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS 
PRIMARILY TO JENNIFER WILLIAMS, 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S AIDE, 
AND ESTABLISHING THE VICE 
PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE 
JULY 25th CALL IN WHICH BIDEN 
AND BURISMA WERE DISCUSSED. 
WHEN HE WAS GOING TO HIS 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
IN WARSAW, I BELIEVE IT WAS 
SEPTEMBER 1st, THAT REALLY HIS 
MAIN FOCUS WAS DEALING WITH 
THIS ISSUE OF GETTING AID TO 
UKRAINE AND FINDING OUT, YOU 
KNOW, WHEN THE U.S. WOULD 
ACTUALLY GET IT THERE, AND HE 
REALLY WASN'T AWARE OF A 
CONNECTION BETWEEN WITHHOLDING 
THE AID AND THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS DESIRING. 
THAT I THINK IS DESIGNED AGAIN 
BY REPUBLICANS TO SORT OF SET 
SOME DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE KNOWS AND WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING, 
BECAUSE AGAIN, IF SOMEHOW IT 
HAPPENED THAT ENOUGH 
REPUBLICANS SWITCHED SIDES, I 
MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE 
PRESIDENT IS REMOVED? 
THE VICE PRESIDENT STEPS IN. 
IF THE VICE PRESIDENT IS 
COMPLICIT IN ALL OF WHAT WAS 
GOING ON, REGARDING THESE 
ISSUES ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT 
WAS IMPEACHED, THEN YOU'RE WITH 
NANCY PELOSI. 
>> NIGHTMARE FOR REPUBLICANS. 
OVERALL, I THINK THERE'S A 
LITTLE POLITICAL DRIVE BY RUDY 
GIULIANI HERE IN THE BEGINNING, 
WHICH SHOULD NOT GO MISSED. 
I THINK IF YOU START PULLING 
THIS THREAD, I THINK THAT'S 
DEFINITELY SOMETHING. 
>> TALK ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND 
THE INVOLVEMENT HERE. 
WHERE DOES HE LAND IN ALL THIS 
AT THIS POINT? 
>> Reporter: AT THIS POINT I 
WOULD DEFER TO THE LEGAL 
ASPECT. 
>> Reporter: MAY OR  ASPECT. 
>> MAY OR MAY NOT BE INDICTED. 
THAT MAY TURN INTO NOTHING. 
BUT WE CAN'T NEGLECT THE FACT 
THAT, AS I CONTINUE TO SAY, 
RUDY GIULIANI IS THE ELEPHANT 
IN THIS ROOM. 
>> AND HE MAY BUTT DIAL HIS WAY 
INTO THE AGAIN. 
>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU MORE 
ABOUT TESTIMONY, RIKKI, PEOPLE 
WHO HAVE NOT COME FORWARD. 
WHO ARE WE WAITING FOR? 
>> WAITING FOR SONDLAND, AND 
TOMORROW IS THE DAY. 
>> TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY, 
YES. 
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THOSE 
WHO ARE SUBPOENAED? 
>> MULVANEY, BOLTON. 
>> THE WORLD AT LARGE. 
>> I THINK JOHN BOLTON AND 
CHARLES KUPPERMAN, BOLTON IS 
THE LYNCH PIN HERE BECAUSE IF 
HE WAS TO TESTIFY, I TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT IT WAS A BAD IDEA AND 
HE WANTED TO DO IT, I THINK YOU 
WOULD SEE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS 
CHANGING THEIR POSITION ON 
THIS. 
HE COULD BE THE SMOKING GUN. 
>> WHAT WOULD MAKE REPUBLICANS 
CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THIS? 
>> IF JOHN BOLTON SAID YES, I 
WENT TO THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY 
AND SAID, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU 
DOING, AND THE PRESIDENT TOLD 
ME THAT HE WAS EXPLICITLY 
WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE IN 
EXCHANGE FOR INVESTIGATIONS 
LAUNCHED INTO BIDEN. 
THAT WOULD CHANGE A LOT OF 
REPUBLICAN MINDS. 
>> SO I WANT TO REPEAT THIS 
AGAIN. 
IF JOHN BOLTON COMES UP AND 
SAYS, THIS IS A DRUG DEAL -- 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED 
ME. 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME DIRECTLY 
THAT WAS HIS INTENTION. 
>> AND DO YOU BELIEVE 
REPUBLICANS ARE WORRIED THAT 
MIGHT BE THE CASE IF BOLTON 
COMES FORWARD AND TESTIFIES? 
>> I THINK THEY DON'T WANT HIM 
UP THERE, I'LL SAY THAT MUCH. 
RIGHT NOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH 
CHARLES KUPPERMAN, BASICALLY HE 
AND BOLTON ARE ASKING A JUDGE 
TO SAY, WHAT DO WE DO? 
WE HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED ON ONE 
HAND, BUT OUR BOSS THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS OUR 
CONVERSATIONS AND DEALS WITH 
HIM ARE PROTECTED BY EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
SO TELL US WHAT WE DO, ABIDE 
THE SUBPOENA OR ABIDE BY 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? 
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR 
IN THE COURTS. 
I BELIEVE THERE'S A HEARING SET 
FOR DECEMBER 10th TO HAMMER 
THAT OUT. 
KEEP IN MIND, IF THIS ENDS UP 
GOING THE DISTANCE TO THE 
SENATE, MAY BE JANUARY AND 
THERE MAY BE A RULING ON THAT. 
>> WE SEE KURT VOLKER WALKING 
IN, NEXT PERSON TO TESTIFY. 
WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR AND 
WATCHING FOR IN THIS TESTIMONY 
COMING UP? 
>> I WANTED TO KIND OF TOUCH ON 
THE LEGAL ASPECT ON THE BOLTON 
THING. 
THAT WOULD BE THE DEMOCRATS' 
DREAM, THAT ALL THE PIECES COME 
TOGETHER IN THAT WAY. 
REPUBLICANS SAY, HE'S GOING TO 
GO THERE AND SAY IT WAS A 
PERFECT CONVERSATION, THIS IS 
THE WAY THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO 
EXECUTE THIS, AND HE'S WITHIN 
HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. 
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF 
CONJECTURE AND WE HAVE TO BE 
CAREFUL ABOUT THE MYSTICAL 
STATE OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE. 
>> NO ONE KNOWS. 
>> NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT 
JOHN BOLTON KNOWS EXPECT JOHN 
BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> AND JOHN BOLTON KEEPS 
HINTING THAT HE KNOWS SOMETHING 
EVERYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO 
HEAR, AND HE'S WILLING TO 
TESTIFY IF HE GETS CLEARED BY 
THE COURTS. 
>> WE ARE WATCHING AND WAITING. 
HOUSE NANCY CORDES, CAN YOU 
REMIND US AGAIN WHAT YOU'RE 
LOOKING FOR IN KURT VOLKER'S 
TESTIMONY AND WHY DEMOCRATS 
WANTED HIM HERE TODAY? 
>> SURE. 
KURT VOLKER IS A KEY FIGURE IN 
ALL OF THIS. 
HE'S ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE 
AMIGOS, THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO 
VERY QUICKLY AFTER THE FORMER 
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS RECALLED 
THIS SUMMER, KIND OF SWOOPED IN 
TO FILL THE POWER VACUUM THERE. 
IT WAS VOLKER AND U.S. ENERGY 
SECRETARY RICK PERRY AND U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION GORDON SONDLAND. 
ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED AT ONE 
POINT VOLKER SAID SOMETHING TO 
THE EFFECT OF, WE'RE IN CHARGE 
NOW. 
HE IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST 
WITNESS IN THESE PUBLIC 
HEARINGS TO GET CHALLENGED BY 
THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE IN HIS 
CLOSED-DOOR INTERVIEW, HE 
CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NEVER 
REALLY THAT AWARE OF THIS WHOLE 
MYSTERIOUS BURISMA-BIDEN 
CONNECTION. 
HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HE SAID 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT REALLY 
WANTED WAS AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE 
BIDEN. DOES HE STICK WITH HIS 
PREVIOUS DEPOSITION OR KIND OF 
HANG GORDON SONDLAND AND RICK 
PERRY OUT TO DRY, AND TRY TO 
SET HIMSELF APART FROM THE TWO 
OF THEM AND SAY THAT HE WAS 
ALWAYS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH 
THIS IDEA OF AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE BIDENS AND WHAT HE WAS 
TRYING TO DO FROM THE INSIDE 
WAS TO STEER EVERYBODY IN A 
DIFFERENT DIRECTION. 
>> WEIJIA JIANG AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO BE 
HEARING FROM VINDMAN'S BOSSES, 
TIM MORRISON LATER THIS 
AFTERNOON AND FIONA HILL 
TOMORROW. 
IS THERE ANY TESTIMONY THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS CONCERNED ABOUT 
THIS MOMENT? 
>> THEY ARE CLAIMING THEY ARE 
LOOKING FORWARD TO TIM 
MORRISON'S TESTIMONY BECAUSE 
THEY BELIEVE IN MANY WAYS HE 
COULD CONTRADICT WHAT WE JUST 
HEARD FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN. 
WE KNOW VINDMAN RAISED 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE 
CALL SUMMARY, THIS SO-CALLED 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS 
COMPLETE, BECAUSE HE TESTIFIED 
THAT HE BELIEVED THEY MENTIONED 
THE WORD BURISMA ON THE CALL, 
WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD 
FOR. HE ALREADY TESTIFIED, I 
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING ON THIS 
CALL WAS ILLEGAL. 
HE'S MAKING THAT DISTINCTION 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS IT'S 
IMPORTANT. 
ANOTHER REASON IS BECAUSE HE'S 
VINDMAN'S SUPERIOR, OR WAS WHEN 
HE WAS STILL PART OF THE NSC. 
WE KNOW THEY ARE CALLING IN 
SECOND AND THIRD-HAND WITNESSES 
AND THEY BELIEVE MORRISON WOULD 
HAVE HAD A MORE DIRECT LINE TO 
THE PRESIDENT, AND CERTAINLY TO 
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON. 
SPEAKING OF, THAT'S WHERE FIONA 
HILL'S TESTIMONY IS REALLY 
GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, 
BECAUSE SHE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE 
WAY BOLTON REACTED TO A 
MEETING, THE WAY HE DESCRIBED 
IT AS A DRUG DEAL AND SAID HE 
DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF IT. 
WE KNOW FROM BOLTON'S 
ATTORNEYS, WHO FILED SOMETHING 
ON HIS BEHALF ABOUT WHETHER OR 
NOT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO 
TESTIFY, THEY SAY BOLTON HAS 
EVEN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 
MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT 
HAVE YET TO SURFACE. 
SO THEY ARE GOING TO PRESS DR. 
HILL ABOUT THAT TO TRY AND 
UNDERSTAND WHY HIS LAWYERS 
WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. 
WHAT OTHER INFORMATION BOLTON 
COULD HAVE THAT COULD BE 
BOMBSHELLS. 
AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, HE 
COULD BE THE ONE WITNESS TO BE 
A HUGE GAME-CHANGER IF HE 
ACTUALLY TESTIFIES. 
OF COURSE I THINK WE'RE FAR 
FROM KNOWING WHETHER THAT WILL 
HAPPEN, SEVERAL WEEKS. 
BUT WE KNOW WE'RE ZOOMING IN, 
GETTING CLOSER TO PEOPLE THAT 
ARE CLOSER TO THE PRESIDENT. 
SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT ONLY 
TRACKING MORRISON AND HILL BUT 
OF COURSE, AS WE HAVE TALKED 
ABOUT AT LENGTH, TOMORROW THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, GORDON SONDLAND COULD 
TAKE A WRECKING BALL TO TRUMP'S 
ENTIRE DEFENSE IN ONE FELL 
SWOOP. 
>> THANK YOU WEIJIA JIANG, 
RIKKI KLIEMAN, MOLLY TUTTLE AND 
NANCY CORDES. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
PLEASE STANDBY. 
>> FOR CBSN VIEWERS, WE'LL TAKE 
A SHORT BREAK AND RETURN IN A 
MOMENT. 
FOR THE BROADCAST VIEWERS, úTHE 
LOCAL CBS STATION AND WE'LL 
CARRY THE SECOND PART OF 
TODAY'S HEARING WHEN IT BEGINS 
NEXT HOUR. 
YOU CAN ALSO DOWNLOAD THE CBS 
NEWS APP. 
I'M REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. 
IF 
>>> WE ARE AWAITING THE PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY OF KURT VOLKER, AND 
TIM MORRISON. 
VOLKER IS THE FORMER SPECIAL 
ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND MORRISON 
IS THE DEPARTING SENIOR 
DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIAN AND 
UKRAINE AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL. 
THIS COMES AFTER TESTIMONY THIS 
MORNING FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS. 
JOINING US NOW, CBSN LEGAL 
CONSTRICTOR AND FORMER ATTORNEY 
REBECCA, AND PART OF THIS 
TESTIMONY FOCUSED ON THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
ADAM SCHIFF CAME FORWARD SAYING 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD THE RIGHT 
TO ANONYMITY. 
IS THAT TRUE? 
>> IT IS NOT ENTIRELY FALSE. 
THE STATUTE, THERE'S SOME 
AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHICH STATUTE 
APPLIES. 
ASSUMING THE STATUTE DOES 
APPLY, IT SAYS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO THEN GOES TO 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE 
FIRST STEP, AND ONCE THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL MAKES A 
DETERMINAION THIS IS INDEED 
CREDIBLE, THAT THIS IS A 
CREDIBLE REPORT, THEN IT'S 
REPORTED TO CONGRESS. 
AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS 
THE DISCRETION, SHALL NOT 
REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER UNLESS IN HIS 
OPINION IT IS SOMEHOW NEEDED. 
SO IT'S A LIMITED RIGHT TO 
ANONYMITY. 
THE QUESTION IS, I THINK THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL SUPPOSEDLY 
DID NOT REVEAL THIS 
INFORMATION, BUT REPUBLICANS 
CONTINUE TO SAY ADAM SCHIFF 
KNOWS THE NAME OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
ONCE ADAM SCHIFF KNOWS THE NAME 
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, DOES THAT 
MEAN THE PROTECTION IS GONE? 
THAT I DON'T KNOW. 
DOES HE ACTUALLY KNOW THE NAME? 
THAT I DON'T KNOW. 
IT'S A LIMITED PROTECTION 
BECAUSE THE STATUTE IS AIMED AT 
RETALIATION, WHICH IN THIS 
SITUATION IS ALMOST BESIDE THE 
POINT. 
OF COURSE THIS PERSON I THINK 
COULD FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES 
BUT I DON'T THINK RETALIATION 
IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF HIS OR 
HER LAWYER'S MINDS RIGHT NOW. 
>> AT SOME POINT IN THE HOUSE 
OR IF THIS GOES TO THE SENATE, 
IF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE TO 
PUSH THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS 
TO COME FORWARD? 
>> RIGHT. 
I THINK WE'D BE BACK HERE. 
WE ARE LIKE, GO TO A COURT. 
THEN IT TAKES FOREVER. 
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'D 
GET AN ANSWER TO THAT. 
THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A WAR 
BETWEEN TWO PARTICULAR VIEWS 
ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S 
OBLIGATION, AND MAYBE HE'D GO 
TO COURT TO FIGURE THAT OUT. 
ONE MORE THING ON THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, THERE'S A 
QUESTION ABOUT RELEVANCE. 
I THINK THE REPUBLICANS' VIEW 
IS, WE THINK THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
OUGHT TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE 
THIS IS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
ACTION. 
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT 
MATTERS ANYMORE, BECAUSE WE NOW 
HAVE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY 
ON THE CALL QUESTIONED ABOUT 
THEIR MOTIVATION. 
YOU CAN ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY 
OF THOSE PEOPLE AND DECIDE, DO 
YOU THINK THEY'RE POLITICALLY 
MOTIVATED? 
IF SO, I DISCREDIT THEIR 
TESTIMONY. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS IRRELEVANT 
LIKE A 911 CALLER. 
IF YOU CALL 911 AND POLICE COME 
AND WITNESS WHAT HAPPENED, AND 
THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF 
EYEWITNESSES, THOSE PEOPLE ARE 
RELEVANT, NOT THE PERSON WHO 
INITIALLY CALLED IT OUT. 
AND IF THEY CALLED IT OUT FOR A 
CORRUPT REASON, WHO CARES. 
>> AGAIN TODAY BURISMA CAME UP 
BUT IT WAS OMITTED FROM THE 
CALL SUMMARY. 
>> THE FOLKS THAT PRODUCE THESE 
TRANSCRIPTS DO THE BEST THEY 
CAN AND JUST DIDN'T CATCH THE 
WORD, AND THAT WAS MY 
RESPONSIBILITY TO THEN MAKE 
SURE THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AS 
ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE, AND 
THAT'S WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO 
BY PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN. 
>> VINDMAN SAID HE OFFERED A 
REVISION THERE, TO REVISE A 
SUMMARY TO INCLUDE THE WORD, 
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO READ 
INTO THAT? 
>> YOU KNOW, WHAT'S INTERESTING 
IS, AND I THINK THE REPUBLICANS 
WILL BE FOCUSING ON, IS THAT 
WHEN THEY REALLY PRESSED
VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS AS TO THE 
NATURE OF MAKING THIS CALL MORE 
CLASSIFIED, NOT NECESSARILY THE 
BURISMA ADDITION, BUT REALLY 
ONE ASPECT OF THE WHOLE 
CONVERSATION THAT DEMOCRATS 
WERE FOCUSING ON WAS THE FACT 
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDED TO 
PUT THIS ON A, YOU KNOW, SUPER 
SECRET SERVER TO LIMIT ACCESS 
TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD 
SEE IT. 
AND DEMOCRATS ALLEGE THIS IS 
BECAUSE THERE'S A NEFARIOUS 
REASON FOR THAT. 
VINDMAN SAID POINT-BLANK I 
DON'T THINK THERE WAS A 
NEFARIOUS REASON BUT THIS WAS A 
SENSITIVE TRANSCRIPT AND IT 
NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED. 
AND IN ADDITION, VINDMAN, LIKE 
WE WERE SAYING, HE WAS 
CLARIFYING WHY HE MADE THAT, 
YOU KNOW, ADDITION TO THE 
TRANSCRIPT. 
BUT IT'S HARD TO SAY YOU KNOW, 
IF THERE'S SOME HORRIBLE REASON 
WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED. 
>> THE INTERESTING THING, AND 
WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT 
THEY TALKED ABOUT THE SECURITY, 
AND THIS ARMY. 
A LITTLE LINE IN THERE WAS 
LIKE, NOT CYBER, BUT 
CYBERSECURITY. 
THE BIGGEST MOST VULNERABLE 
AREA ANYBODY WILL TELL YOU 
ABOUT IS CYBERSECURITY AND 
CYBERTHREATS, TALKING ABOUT THE 
2016, THE HACKERS, ATTACKING 
FARMS EVERY DAY MOVING INTO 
THIS. 
THERE'S IDEA THAT IN THIS 
PARTICULAR AREA OF THE WORLD 
THERE'S HYPERSENSITIVITY AND AN 
URGENCY TO GET ACCESS TO 
INFORMATION. 
SO IT'S NOT SO FAR OFF THE 
PLANE TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD 
WANT TO SECURE THIS 
INFORMATION. 
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY 
FAIR POINT. 
>> LINDA, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 
LIKE SIX MONTHS AGO AT THIS 
POINT, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI DID NOT WANT THIS GOING 
FORWARD. 
THEN WE HAD THIS REVELATION OF 
THE UKRANIAN CALL AND IT 
CHANGED EVERYTHING. 
WHAT'S THE DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY 
AT THIS POINT GOING FORWARD? 
>> I WOULD QUALIFY TO SAY SHE 
DIDN'T WANT THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS 
THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND 
ENOUGH OF A FACT PATTERN TO 
MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WHY DEMOCRATS WOULD BE 
LEADING SUCH A CHARGE. 
WHEN THAT PHONE CALL HAPPENED 
AND WHEN THE INFORMATION CAME 
OUT, IT BECAME A PRETTY CLEAR 
STORY TO TELL THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
HERE IS A PRESIDENT WHO'S 
APPEALED TO A FOREIGN POWER TO 
HELP HIS POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS 
AND ESSENTIALLY BRIBING OR 
EXTORTING OR WHATEVER LANGUAGE 
YOU WANT TO USE TO ACHIEVE HIS 
PURPOSE. 
IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO 
DESCRIBE TO AN ORDINARY 
EVERYDAY PERSON LISTENING AT 
HOME WHO'S FOCUSED ON PAYING 
THEIR BILLS, WHY SUCH A 
PROCESS, SUCH A HISTORIC 
UNDERTAKING WOULD HAPPEN. 
NOW I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN 
IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE 
PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER YOU WANT 
TO DESCRIBE THEM, CONTINUE PAST 
POLITICAL SPECTER RISES AGAIN. 
IF THE HOUSE VOTED TO IMPEACH 
DONALD TRUMP, THEN THINGS GO ON 
TO THE SENATE. 
YOU HAVE ALL THESE SENATORS ON 
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL RIGHT NOW 
MAKING THEIR BID FOR THE OVAL 
OFFICE AND THEY WOULD BE LOCKED 
INTO SERVING AS JURORS IN THE 
SENATE PROCESS. 
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF POLITICAL 
DYNAMICS WRAPPED UP IN THE 
POLICY AND SUBSTANCE AS WELL. 
>> AND MITCH McCONNELL KNOWS 
THIS, THAT THERE ARE SIX 
DEMOCRATS, ONE OF WHOM IS DOING 
VERY WELL IN THE DEMOCRATIC 
PRIMARY, WHO WOULD BE REQUIRED 
TO SIT IN HIS OR HER SEAT SIX 
DAYS A WEEK. 
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. 
MITCH McCONNELL RECENTLY 
TEASED, SORT OF SERIOUSLY, I 
THINK THIS WILL TAKE LONGER 
THAN IT DID WITH BILL CLINTON. 
IT COULD SPREAD OUT OVER WEEKS, 
MAYBE EIGHT WEEKS. 
ALL THAT TIME, THOSE SIX 
SENATORS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, 
THEY'RE NOT ON THE CAMPAIGN 
TRAIL. 
>> AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER? 
MAYBE THEY CAN'T BE ON TV OR 
CAN'T GRAND STAND? 
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IOWA AND 
NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLACES WHERE YOU 
HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHAKE HANDS 
WITH PEOPLE. 
>> I WANT TO SORT OF WEIGH IN. 
>> THE HOUSE HAS A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE 
FACTS, APPLY THE LAW, BE GUIDED 
BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND 
PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN CONNECTION 
WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY 
SANCTIONED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
THE SPEAKER HAS MADE CLEAR 
SHE'S NOT GOING TO PUT A 
TIMETABLE ON THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN TERMS OF WHEN IT 
CONCLUDES, BECAUSE WE ARE 
SIMPLY GOING TO BE GUIDED BY 
THE TRUTH. 
AS IT RELATES TO THE SENATE, WE 
ARE A LONG WAY AWAY FROM THAT 
MOMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT 
EVEN DETERMINED HERE IN THE 
HOUSE WHETHER ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE GOING TO BE 
RECOMMENDED BY THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. 
THAT'S THE NEXT STEP. 
UNTIL THAT OCCURS, IT'S HARD TO 
GET ANY SENSE OF WHAT THE 
TIMELINE IS GOING TO BE MOVING 
FORWARD. 
>> THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF 
THE POLITICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING RIGHT 
NOW. 
THEY ARE SAYING ON ONE HAND, WE 
HAVE NO IDEA AND WE ARE JUST 
WAITING FOR THE WITNESSES TO 
DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION SO WE 
CAN OBJECTIVELY MADE A 
DETERMINATION, WHEN THEY HAVE 
ALREADY DECIDED THEY WANT TO 
MOVE FORWARD. 
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE POLITICAL 
CALENDAR AND HOW IT LINES UP 
WITH IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
AND THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
THE IMPEACHMENT, THEY ARE 
TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES LIKE 
POCKETBOOK ISSUES, HEALTH CARE 
AND SUCH. 
SO THAT'S THE FALSEHOOD OF 
THIS. 
THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS ARE 
SAYING, THAT IT'S ALL A 
MANIPULATED POLITICAL CIRCUS 
THAT'S -- YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT 
OF A CALL THAT LOOKS FINE. 
WAS IT IMPROPER -- AND THIS IS 
WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING -- 
SHOULD IT HAVE HAPPENED THAT 
WAY? 
NO, I THINK A LOT OF 
REPUBLICANS AGREE. 
BUT IS IT IMPEACHABLE? 
NO, AND IT'S A WASTE OF 
TAXPAYER MONEY AND SUCH AN 
EXPENSE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS TO 
GO UP THERE FOR ATTORNEYS THAT 
ARE $1,500 AN HOUR, TO SIT WITH 
THEM AND PUT DEFENSES TOGETHER 
WHEN THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB. 
IT'S NOT A CLEAR CASE, AND I 
THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. 
>> AND VINDMAN DID BRING HIS 
BROTHER. 
>> I THOUGHT HIS ATTORNEY -- I 
THINK HE HIRED AN ATTORNEY. 
I THINK HIS BROTHER WAS THERE, 
AND DEFINITELY PAYING FOR THAT 
ATTORNEY TO ASK FOR THOSE PAGE 
NUMBERS. 
>> STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES 
HAVE CIRCULATED THEIR UNION HAS 
COME TOGETHER TO RAISE FUNDS 
FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT 
TESTIFIED LAST WEEK. 
IT'S A COSTLY EXERCISE. 
IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE. 
AND I ALWAYS FEEL FOR THE 
PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THEIR JOB 
AND CHOOSE PUBLIC SERVICE, THEN 
PULLED THROUGH A POLITICAL 
PROCESS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR. 
>> THEY'RE NOT DOING IT FOR THE 
MONEY. 
>> NOT AT ALL. 
>> IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH 
THIS, IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL THIS 
GOES TO THE SENATE. 
WHEN IS THIS EXPECTED TO WRAP 
UP AND WHERE DOES IT GO FROM 
THERE? 
>> IDEALLY, IN A PERFECT WORLD, 
BARRING REVELATIONS OF 
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS 
BETWEEN POTENTIAL WITNESSES, 
THIS COULD BE THE LAST WEEK OF 
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
NEXT WEEK WHEN CONGRESS GOES 
HOME, MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE 
CAN ACTUALLY COME UP WITH THEIR 
REPORT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY 
WILL RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>>>  I HAVE A FEELING THEY 
COULD DISCUSS CENSURE, LIKE 
SAYING YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG, 
NOT IMPEACHABLE BUT YOU'RE ON 
WARNING, YOU CAN'T DO THIS 
AGAIN. 
>> IN DEGREES OF SEVERITY? 
>> EXACTLY, THEY'RE NOT GOING 
TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. 
BUT THE SENATE IS NOT GOING TO 
REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, BARRING 
JOHN BOLTON, LET'S SAY. 
ONCE THE REPORT GOES TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TAKES IT 
AND THEY HAVE THEIR PROCEEDINGS 
AND THEIR WITNESSES, AND THE 
PRESIDENT GETS TO HAVE HIS 
ATTORNEY THERE AND ASK 
QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES. 
THEN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
WILL VOTE ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY MAY SEND SOME TO THE HOUSE 
FLOOR AND MAY NOT BUT THE HOUSE 
WOULD VOTE ON THOSE INDIVIDUAL 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AND 
WHATEVER IS APPROVED BY THE 
HOUSE GOES OVER TO THE SENATE. 
>> THAT'S ONE MOMENT, I WANT 
THIS TO BE SAID, THEY ARE FACT 
WITNESSES. 
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO TESTIFY AS 
TO WHAT HAPPENED. 
THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A 
CRIME HAPPENED, THAT DECISION 
BELONGS TO CONGRESS. 
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING ANY FACT 
WITNESS SHOULD TESTIFY ABOUT. 
EVEN IF THEY WERE LAWYERS, IT'S 
NOT THE JOB OF A FACT WITNESS 
TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT A CRIME 
WAS COMMITTED. 
AND THIS IS A REPUBLICAN 
STRATEGY THAT I THINK IS PRETTY 
EFFECTIVE, WHICH IS TO SAY, 
THEY LOOK AT YOVANOVITCH AND 
SAY, SHE WASN'T EVEN THERE. 
WHAT IS HER RELEVANCE? 
SHE WASN'T THERE AND DIDN'T SEE 
ANYTHING. 
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. 
EACH WITNESS TESTIFIES TO A 
LITTLE PIECE, THEN ALTOGETHER, 
CONGRESS PUTS IT TOGETHER AND 
DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THIS 
AMOUNTS TO A CRIME. 
SO NO ONE PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO 
TESTIFY TO EVERYTHING. 
NO ONE PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO 
SAY BRIBERY. 
THEY ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO PUT 
TOGETHER THESE LITTLE PIECES OF 
A PUZZLE THAT EITHER DO OR DO 
NOT AMOUNT TO AN OFFENSE THAT 
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE. 
>> ABSOLUTELY, AND FROM A 
POLITICAL CONTEXT, I THINK 
THAT'S THE PART THAT GIVES US 
PAUSE, WHETHER YOU'RE 
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. 
IT'S SO HIGHLY POLITICIZED, 
THAT EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THIS 
WITH SUSPICION. 
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY, 
THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR 
MIND. 
SO EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMETHING 
THERE, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE 
-- UNLESS YOU HAD A BOLTON OR A 
FIGURE LIKE THAT MOVE FORWARD 
THAT'S SO COMPELLING THAT MAKES 
EVERYBODY STOP IN THEIR TRACKS 
AND SAY, NOW I NEED TO PAY 
ATTENTION, EVEN THOUGH WEEKS 
MAY BE GOING BY, BECAUSE THIS 
IS A POLITICAL REPORT. 
>> WE SEE TIM MORRISON HERE, 
ALSO EXPECTED TO TESTIFY. 
WE SAW KURT VOLKER A FEW 
MOMENTS AGO ARRIVIN READY TO 
TESTIFY ON CAPITOL HILL AS 
WELL. 
AS WE LOOK AT THIS, AT ONE 
POINT DURING THE TESTIMONY FROM 
EARLIER TODAY, COLONEL VINDMAN 
TALKED ABOUT BEING ICED OUT 
AFTER THE MEETINGS HE HAD AND 
REPORTED HIS CONCERNS. 
I'LL PLAY IT FOR YOU. 
>> IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS, 
SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN 
DEPOSITIONS, SINCE THOSE 
DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE 
PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE 
JOBS CHANGE OR HAVE YOU BEEN 
TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY? 
>> I HAVE NOT, NO. 
>> SINCE THE REPORT ON THE JULY 
25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE 
I WAS BEING EXCLUDED FROM 
SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY 
POSITION. 
>> SO IN SOME RESPECTS THEN, 
THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS? 
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN MAKE THAT 
JUDGMENT. 
I WOULD SAY IT'S OUT OF THE 
COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT 
HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF 
THESE EVENTS. 
>> SO REBECCA, WHAT DOES THAT 
SAY TO YOU? 
>> IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT LIKE 
RETALIATION. 
AGAIN, HE'S NOT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND THESE ARE NOT 
PROTECTIONS OFFICIALLY AFFORDED 
TO HIM, BUT I THINK THAT'S 
DISTURBING. 
THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE 
STATUTE, WHEN SOMEBODY 
WITNESSES CERTAIN FACTS AND ARE 
ASKED TO COME FORWARD AND 
TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS, THEY 
SHOULD DO IT TO THE BEST OF 
THEIR ABILITY AND TRUTHFULLY. 
THERE'S A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OUT 
THERE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE 
RETALIATED AGAINST FOR DOING 
THAT, AND SENDS A BAD MESSAGE 
TO OTHERS WHO MAY WANT TO 
TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE OR THINK 
IT'S THEIR OBLIGATION TO 
TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE. 
>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, IF 
YOU CAN STANDBY. 
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK 
BREAK. 
WHEN WE COME BACK, WHAT COLONEL 
VINDMAN SAYS HAPPENED TO HIM 
AFTER HIS TESTIMONY. 
YOU'RE STREAMING CBSN. 
>>> WE ARE AWAITING THE PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY OF KURT VOLKER AND 
TIM MORRISON, AND THEY HAVE 
JUST ENTERED THE ROOM. 
VOLKER IS FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY 
TO UKRAINE AND OF COURSE THIS 
TESTIMONY COMES AFTER THIS 
MORNING'S TESTIMONY FROM 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND ALSO 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. 
WHILE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
HEARINGS UNFOLDED, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SLAMMED REPORTS THAT HE 
HAD A HEALTH SCARE OVER THE 
WEEKEND THAT PROMPTED A VISIT 
TO WALTER REED MEDICAL CENTER. 
>> ONE OTHER THING, I THOUGHT 
I'D BRING IT UP WHILE WE'RE 
HERE, I WENT FOR A PHYSICAL ON 
SATURDAY. 
MY WIFE SAID, DARLING, THAT'S 
WONDERFUL, BECAUSE I HAD SOME 
EXTRA TIME, BECAUSE LOOKS LIKE 
JANUARY COULD BE A BUSY MONTH 
IF SHE'S ABLE TO GET THE VOTE, 
WHICH SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO. 
WOMAN IS HIGHLY OVERRATED, 
HIGHLY INCOMPETENT, SO MAYBE 
SHE'LL GET IT BY USING YOUR 
ASSOCIATE. 
BUT I WENT FOR A PHYSICAL AND 
CAME BACK. 
MY WIFE SAID DARLING, WHAT'S 
OKAY? 
THEY'RE REPORTING YOU MAY HAVE 
HAD A HEART ATTACK. 
WHY DID I HAVE A HEART ATTACK? 
BECAUSE YOU WENT TO WALTER REED 
MEDICAL CENTER. 
I SAID, I WAS ONLY THERE FOR A 
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WENT, DID 
A ROUTINE -- JUST A PIECE OF 
IT. 
THE REST OF IT TAKE PLACE IN 
JANUARY, DID A ROUTINE 
PHYSICAL, VISITED THE FAMILY 
AND A COUPLE OF GROUPS, BUT THE 
FAMILY OF A YOUNG SOLDIER WHO 
WAS BADLY INJURED IN THE 
OPERATING ROOM. 
I TOURED THE HOSPITAL FOR A 
LITTLE WHILE, OUT OF THERE 
QUICKLY AND GET BACK HOME AND 
GET GREETED WITH THE NEWS, WE 
UNDERSTAND YOU HAD A HEART 
ATTACK. 
I WAS CALLED BY THE PEOPLE IN 
PUBLIC RELATIONS, SIR, ARE YOU 
OKAY? 
ARE YOU OKAY FROM WHAT? 
CNN SAID YOU MAY HAVE HAD A 
HEART ATTACK AND HAD MASSIVE 
CHEST PAINS AND WENT TO THE 
HOSPITAL. 
THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK. 
THEY'RE SICK. 
AND THE PRESS REALLY IN THIS 
COUNTRY IS DANGEROUS. 
WE DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF THE 
PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY. 
WE HAVE THE OPPOSITE. 
WE HAVE A VERY CORRUPT MEDIA, 
AND I HOPE THEY CAN GET THEIR 
ACT STRAIGHTENED OUT, BECAUSE 
IT'S VERY, VERY BAD AND VERY, 
VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S BEEN VERY 
ACTIVE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AS 
WELL. 
LET'S BRING IN CBS CONTRIBUTOR 
LESLIE SANCHEZ AND LINDA TRAN. 
>> IMPEACHMENT IS GOING ON, 
RIGHT? 
BUT SO IS CONGRESS. 
THE HOUSE ACTUALLY HAS TO TAKE 
VOTES ON THE FLOOR. 
WHEN THEY TAKE VOTES ON THE 
FLOOR, IT'S NOT JUST A 15-
MINUTE VOTE OR 5-MINUTE VOTE. 
THESE THINGS CAN LAST FOR 
HOURS. 
THEY DON'T USUALLY LAST FOR 
HOURS. 
>> WHAT ARE THEY VOTING ON? 
>> IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES, THEY 
ARE VOTING ON THE CONTINUING 
RESOLUTION TO FUND THE 
GOVERNMENT THROUGH DECEMBER 
20th, AND THIS IS A BIG DEAL. 
>> NOT INSIGNIFICANT. 
>> NOT INSIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE 
WE DON'T NEED A SHUTDOWN. 
WE COULD HAVE IT COME DECEMBER 
20th, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT 
MATTER. 
THE HOUSE IS VOTING TO EXTEND 
THE CURRENT LEVELS OF 
GOVERNMENT FUNDING WITH THE 
EXCEPTION OF 3.1% FOR THE 
MILITARY. 
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN FOCUSED 
ON THE IMPEACHMENT TODAY. 
IS THERE A SENSE THIS WILL GO 
THROUGH? 
>> YES, THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL 
WITH THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN 
RIGHT NOW. 
IT'S THE LAST THING CONGRESS 
WANTS TO DEAL WITH, BOTH 
PARTIES. 
IT ALWAYS BECOMES A WRINKLE 
WITH THE SENATE BUT THIS SHOULD 
GO THROUGH. 
>> WE'LL EXPECT TOMORROW U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION GORDON SONDLAND TOMORROW. 
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR WITH 
HIS TESTIMONY? 
>> HE'S ALREADY CORRECTED HIS 
TESTIMONY ONCE IN RESPONSE TO 
THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO CAME, 
AND NOW THERE'S ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION THAT BILL TAYLOR 
GAVE ABOUT THE NEW CALL THAT 
DAVID HOLMES OVERHEARD IN THE 
RESTAURANT WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
HOLDING HIS CELL PHONE OUT. 
SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS 
SONDLAND GOING TO SAY WITH 
REGARD TO THAT CALL? 
DID HE REMEMBER IT, NOT 
REMEMBER IT, WILL HE PLEAD THE 
FIFTH? 
THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION THAT'S 
INTERESTING. 
HAS HE WAIVED THE PRIVILEGE BY 
ALREADY COMING TO SPEAK OR NOT? 
IT WOULD BE INVOKING HIS FIFTH 
AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IN REGARD 
TO PERJURY. 
>> IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN 
REMEMBERING SOMETHING YOU 
CHANGE IN YOUR TESTIMONY? 
>> NO, YOU CAN DO IT. 
BUT THERE'S A POINT AT WHICH 
CONGRESS ISN'T GOING TO BELIEVE 
YOU ANYMORE. 
>> CREDIBILITY, YES. 
>> YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF 
GIMMES, THEN IT'S LIKE, YOU'RE 
LYING. 
SO THAT'S A QUESTION, AT WHAT 
POINT DOES CONGRESS SAY, YOU'RE 
SICK OF THIS? 
YOU CAN'T GIVE US TESTIMONY IN 
DRIPS AND DROPS. 
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. 
>> THAT'S THE POINT DEMOCRATS 
WILL SAY, AND DID WE BELIEVE 
YOU THEN AND DO WE BELIEVE YOU 
NOW, AND THIS SIGNIFICANT 
CONVERSATION YOU HAD ON A CELL 
PHONE IN A RESTAURANT IN 
UKRAINE, IN WHICH BASICALLY YOU 
WERE HEARD TALKING TO THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS 
THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CONDUCT, 
AND YOU SAID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT, 
BECAUSE HE JUST WANTS YOU TO 
LIKE HIM ESSENTIALLY. 
>> CAN WE PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO 
TALK ABOUT THE SECURITY LEVEL, 
TALKING ON A CELL PHONE TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IN UKRAINE? 
>> AT A RESTAURANT, A PUBLIC 
RESTAURANT. 
>> WITH THE PHONE HELD APART 
FROM -- THAT WAS PART OF THE 
TESTIMONY, THAT APPARENTLY 
SONDLAND FOUND HIS VOICE VERY 
LOUD AND WAS HOLDING IT AWAY 
FROM HIS EAR, WHICH ADDS TO THE 
COMPROMISED SECURITY. 
>> SONDLAND'S GOT TO BE CAREFUL 
BECAUSE DAVID HOLMES DEPOSED 
THE AIDE SITTING THERE AT THE 
TABLE, THEN FOLLOWED UP BY 
ASKING ABOUT IT. 
DAVID HOLMES IS GOING TO BE 
TESTIFYING IN PUBLIC THURSDAY 
AFTERNOON. 
SO HE HAS TO REALLY MIND HIS Ps 
AND Qs. 
AND LOOK AT SOMEBODY LIKE ROGER 
STONE, MICHAEL COHEN, BOTH 
CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS. 
THOSE WERE CHARGES FILED 
AGAINST HEM AND THEY WERE 
FOUND GUILTY OF DOING THAT. 
YOU HAVE A FEELING GORDON 
SONDLAND IS ACUTELY AWARE OF 
THAT. 
>> AS WE TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC 
STRATEGY AT THIS POINT, WHAT 
ARE YOU HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS 
ON CAPITOL HILL? 
WHAT ARE THEY MOST CONCERNED 
ABOUT GOING INTO ELECTION 
SEASON? 
>> I THINK IT DEPENDS WHO YOU 
TALK TO ANY GIVEN DAY. 
THE VAST MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS 
ON CAPITOL HILL ARE FOCUSED ON 
THE FACTS, MAKING SURE THEY GET 
INTO THE PUBLIC SO IT'S CLEAR 
WHY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS 
PROCEEDING AS IT HAS BEEN. 
I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
DEMOCRATS ARE THINKING ABOUT 
THAT. 
IF YOU ASK A SECOND ROUND, WHAT 
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT, I THINK 
A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS ARE 
WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THERE WILL BE BACKLASH, IN 
PARTICULAR IN SOME OF THE MORE 
PURPLE STATES AS WE LOOK TO THE 
2020 PRESIDENTIAL, AND AS YOU 
GET FURTHER ON DOWN. 
DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE GAINS OVER 
THE LAST COUPLE ELECTIONS, SOME 
MAY SAY IN PART BECAUSE OF 
DISLIKE FOR DONALD TRUMP, BUT 
ALSO BECAUSE THOSE DEMOCRATS IN 
THOSE DISTRICTS REALLY WALK THE 
LINE. 
IF YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE 
THERE'S AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE, 
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF 
THESE PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT HOW 
TO HOLD ONTO THEIR SEATS. 
REPRESENTATIVES IN STATES LIKE 
TEXAS, WHO HELPED BUILD THE 
MAJORITY, BUT UNEXPECTEDLY SO. 
THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT NUMBER 
ONE, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT AND 
MAINTAINING DEMOCRACY, BUT ALSO 
MAINTAINING MAJORITY AND THINGS 
THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. 
>> WE HAD THE PRESIDENTIAL 
HISTORIAN WHO'S STUDIED 
IMPEACHMENT EXTENSIVELY, AND I 
WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR HER SAY, 
WHEN YOU LOOK AT NIXON, ONE 
THING THAT REALLY CHANGED HIS 
MIND FOR RESIGNING WAS THE 
TAPES, THERE'S EVIDENCE. 
SECOND WAS THE FACT THAT 
REPUBLICAN SUPPORT, 
PARTICULARLY IN THE SENATE, HAD 
FADED AWAY, AND IN PARTICULAR 
TO YOUR POINT, THERE WERE 
REPUBLICANS WORRIED ABOUT BEING 
PRIMARIED. 
ONCE THEY WERE PAST THE 
PRIMARY, THEY WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT A GENERAL ELECTION AND HE 
REALIZED HE DIDN'T HAVE THAT 
SUPPORT. 
A REMINDER FOR FOLKS WHO 
WEREN'T AROUND AT THAT TIME. 
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AT 
THIS POINT, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
WIDE RANGING SUPPORT FROM 
REPUBLICANS. 
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR THAT NOT 
TO LAST ANYMORE? 
>> IT WOULD TAKE A COLLAPSE OF 
THE ENTIRE PROCESS, ALL THE WAY 
DOWN THE LINE, FROM A BOLTON, A 
GIULIANI GO IN THERE, NUMEROUS 
KIND OF PARADE OF INDIVIDUALS 
INTIMATELY CLOSE TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND SAID HE DID 
EXACTLY THAT. 
BARRING THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE A 
PARTISAN PROCESS. 
THE THING WITH THOSE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY WERE DONE 
BY THIRD-PARTY, WHETHER IT WAS 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR A 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT A 
HYPERPOLITICIZED DEMOCRATIC 
HOUSE COMMITTEE. 
AND THAT GAVE IT MORE 
CREDIBILITY, AT LEAST WHEN IT 
GOT OVER TO THE SENATE. 
AND THEY SAW -- FOR THE 
POLITICAL PURPOSES, THEY SAW
THAT THEY COULD NOT WEATHER 
BEING REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE 
MOVING THROUGH THE ELECTION 
CYCLE WITH HIS NEGATIVES 
INCREASING BECAUSE OF THOSE 
TAPES. 
>> HAS ANYBODY HERE HEARD, IS 
THERE A NUMBER -- DO 
REPUBLICANS HAVE A NUMBER WHERE 
IF FAVORABILITY HITS 60%, WE'RE 
DONE? 
>> I WANT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE 
IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY FLAT. 
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN A HIGH 
LEVEL. 
>> IS THERE A POINT WHERE, WHEN 
THEY SEE PUBLIC SUPPORT WANING, 
THEY START TO BACK AWAY? 
>> YOU HAVE TO WONDER IF 
REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING A SECOND 
LOOK JUST BASED ON THE RECENT 
ELECTION RESULTS IN DEEPLY RED 
STATES. 
DONALD TRUMP THREW THE FULL 
FORCE OF HIS PERSONALITY, HELD 
MASSIVE RALLIES TRYING TO GET 
HIS TEAM OVER THE FINISH LINE 
AND IN DEEP RED STATES THEY 
LOST. 
SO IF I'M A REPUBLICAN 
STRATEGIST, I HAVE TO BE 
THINKING, HOW MUCH OF A RISK IS 
IT TO STANDBY MY MAN NO MATTER 
WHAT WHEN I'M ON THE BALLOT? 
>> THE BIG DIFFERENCE THEY SEE, 
TRUMP IS NOT ON THE TICKET. 
HE CAN RALLY AND SUPPORT BUT 
THERE'S A PHENOMENON THAT 
CANNOT BE EXPLAINED, AND IT'S 
GALVANIZING PEOPLE THAT DON'T 
PARTICIPATE IN SURVEYS 
TRADITIONALLY. 
SO REALLY CALIBRATING THAT IS 
MORE OF AN ART THAN A SCIENCE. 
IN THAT SENSE, I THINK WE HAVE 
TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE 
TREMENDOUS POWER. 
AND YOU HAVE HEARD REPUBLICANS 
SAY TODAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
ERASE THE POWER OF BEING 
ELECTED BY 63 MILLION PEOPLE, 
YOU BETTER COME WITH SUCH A 
CLEAR AND COMPELLING CASE. 
>> AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT AS WELL, 
THOUGH. 
WHILE HE MAY BE GALVANIZING ON 
THE RIGHT. 
HE'S WHIPPING UP DEMOCRATIC 
TURNOUT IN WAYS WE HAVEN'T SEEN 
IN MANY CYCLES. 
WHEN HE IS ON THE BALLOT, 
BELIEVE THAT IS TEN TIMES, 20 
TIMES. 
>> IT'S WHEN THOSE LAWMAKERS 
HEAR DIRECTLY FROM INFLUENTIAL 
REPUBLICANS IN THEIR DISTRICTS 
THAT THEY ARE HEARING FROM 
CONSTITUENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
IS NO LONGER IN FAVOR, THAT 
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS OF EVER SO 
EGREGIOUS  THAT THEY ARE NOT 
GOING TO SUPPORT HIM. 
UNTIL THEY HEAR FROM 
CONSTITUENTS IN SUCH A MASSIVE 
FLUX OF CALLS, AND NOT CALLS 
FROM ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO 
THAT. 
WHEN THEY HEAR FROM TRUSTED 
SOURCES IN THEIR DISTRICTS, I 
THINK WE COULD SEE SOME CHANGE. 
BUT UNTIL THEN, NO. 
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
POLITICAL RESPECTIVE, REBECCA. 
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AS 
DEMOCRATS ARE BUILDING THAT 
CASE LOOKING INTO THIS INQUIRY? 
OVER THE COMING DAYS, THE 
WITNESSES WE'LL ALSO BE HEARING 
FROM, AND THE ONES WE ALREADY 
HAVE, WHO DO YOU FEEL HAS MADE 
THE STRONGEST CASE WHEN IT 
COMES TO THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY, 
POTENTIAL CRIMES THE PRESIDENT 
MAY HAVE COMMITTED? 
>> I THINK BILL TAYLOR MADE THE 
STRONGEST CASE SO FAR. 
I THINK YOVANOVITCH DID A VERY 
GOOD JOB OF SETTING UP A 
MOTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT 
HAPPENED IN HER TESTIMONY WAS 
THAT, EVEN THOUGH SHE WASN'T 
THERE FOR THIS PART, WHY WOULD 
HE HAVE PUSHED HER OUT? 
THAT REMAINS DANGLING, THAT 
QUESTION. 
THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK HE 
WOULD HAVE DONE IT, IS BECAUSE 
HE WANTED TO PUT HIS PEOPLE IN 
WITH A DIFFERENTLY AND 
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED AGENDA. 
THAT GIVES YOU THE CORRUPT 
MOTIVE YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH 
THIS HAPPENED. 
I THINK THE TWO OF THEM SO FAR 
HAVE ESTABLISHED A PRETTY GOOD 
CASE. 
>> REPUBLICANS TODAY BROUGHT UP 
THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY, WHICH 
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN USING IN 
RECENT DAYS. 
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. 
OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE IT. 
AT THIS POINT, COUNTERING THE 
DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE, HOW DO 
YOU FEEL REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN 
SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT? 
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO 
KNOW THAT FOR A WHILE. 
THIS IS A LONG MARATHON IN 
TERMS OF THAT. 
>> I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU 
AND PLAY THAT BYTE WE WERE 
REFERENCING TO GET YOUR TAKE ON 
THAT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE NEVER 
USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE 
TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT, CORRECT? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN'T 
EITHER? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> BRIBERY, LESLIE. 
>> I WANT TO TOUCH ON WHETHER 
OR NOT THE AMBASSADOR WAS MOVED 
OUT. 
I THINK THE PART YOU HAVE TO 
ADD TO THAT IS THAT THEY WANT 
TO EXECUTE A PLAN THAT WAS 
PERHAPS ILLEGAL. 
IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S 
PREROGATIVE, THEY SERVE AT THE 
PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. 
IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR CLEAR 
POLITICIANS TO BE REPLACED, 
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND CAREER FOREIGN 
SERVICE OFFICERS MAY ENJOY, 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH 
THESE PEOPLE ON THE POLITICAL 
STAGE. 
BUT IT'S WITHIN REASON HE CAN 
DO THAT. 
>> YES, BUT WHAT SHE SAID SO 
POWERFULLY, WHY DID HE HAVE TO 
SMEAR HER? 
YOU CAN TAKE ANYBODY OUT FOR 
ANY REASON. 
WHAT'S THE POINT OF SMEARING 
HER? 
>> SMEARING HER WITH THE CALL 
FOR ZELENSKY? 
>> WHY DID HE HAVE TO UNDERMINE 
HER AS A PUBLIC SERVANT? 
AND SHE CAME ACROSS SO WELL, 
THAT I WAS LEFT THINKING RIGHT, 
WHY? 
JUST FIRE HER AND PUT IN YOUR 
PERSON IF IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
CHANGE IN WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE 
ACCOMPLISHED. 
IF YOU'RE OUT THERE HAVING A 
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOUR OWN 
AMBASSADOR, THERE MUST BE SOME 
MOTIVE FOR THAT. 
THAT WAS LEFT UNANSWERED TO ME. 
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SAY THERE'S 
A MOTIVE FOR THAT AND DONALD 
TRUMP, BUT THE ONLY PATTERN 
RECOGNITION YOU SEE HER IS HE 
SMEARS WHOEVER IS IN HIS WAY. 
>> WHY WAS SHE IN HIS WAY? 
>> IN WHAT WAY WAS SHE IN HIS 
WAY? 
>> LET'S BRING IN CBS NEWS 
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ED 
O'KEEFE FROM THE HILL NOW. 
CAN YOU RUN US THROUGH WHAT WE 
CAN EXPECT FROM THE TESTIMONY 
OF VOLKER AND MORRISON? 
REFRESH OUR MEMORIES TO WHAT TO 
WATCH FOR. 
>> Reporter: KURT VOLKER IS 
FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY TO 
UKRAINE, LONG-TIME DIPLOMAT, 
WHO OF COURSE WAS ONE OF THE 
FIRST -- ACTUALLY WAS THE FIRST 
WITNESS TO TESTIFY BEHIND 
CLOSED DOORS AFTER ALL THAT, 
RESIGNED A POSITION WITH THE 
McCAIN INSTITUTE HERE IN 
WASHINGTON TO TAKE UP THE 
ISSUE. 
TIM MORRISON IS THE FORMER 
DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA 
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
IT'S TO HIM THAT LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN 
REPORTED WHEN THEY WORKED 
TOGETHER THERE, AND YOU HEARD 
THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL SPEAK 
EARLIER ABOUT HOW THEY WERE 
STILL DEVELOPING A WORKING 
RELATIONSHIP. 
VINDMAN IN HIS TESTIMONY RAISED 
SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S WORK. 
REPUBLICANS SEE HIM AS A 
POTENTIALLY STRONG WITNESS ON 
THEIR BEHALF TO NOT ONLY 
DISCREDIT OR RAISE QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHAT VINDMAN SAID, BUT 
ALSO TO PLAY UP THIS THEORY THE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE AND THE 
ARGUMENT THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING 
THAT WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT 
DID, NO MATTER WHAT DEMOCRATS 
THINK ABOUT IT, IT ISN'T 
NECESSARILY IMPEACHABLE. 
SO THAT'S THE AFTERNOON 
SESSION. 
WHEN IT BEGINS DEPENDS ON A FEW 
THINGS. 
TODAY THE HOUSE AT LEAST IS 
PASSING A ONE-MONTH EXTENSION 
OF ITS SPENDING LEVELS, 
AGREEING TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON 
FOR ONE MORE MONTH ACROSS THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE 
TOMORROW IS THE DEADLINE AND 
THE SENATE WILL TAKE THAT UP 
LATERREN OF. 
THIS WILL RUN THROUGH DECEMBER 
20th. 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20th IS 
ESSENTIALLY THE LAST DAY BEFORE 
CHRISTMAS CONGRESS COULD, YOU 
KNOW, UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, 
AT LEAST, BE IN SESSION. 
YOU FACE NOW A CRUNCH BETWEEN 
THE HEARINGS THAT ARE 
CONTINUING THIS WEEK, THAT WILL 
HAVE TO BREAK NEXT WEEK FOR 
THANKSGIVING AND THEN RESUME 
THE WEEK AFTER, EITHER IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR 
PERHAPS IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AS THEY BEGIN 
THINKING ABOUT ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEN YOU HAVE TO FIND TIME, 
ONCE THE JUDICIAR COMMITTEE 
DOES THAT, TO HAVE THE ENTIRE 
HOUSE DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT HE 
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, THEN KICK 
IT OVER BEFORE CHRISTMAS TO THE 
SENATE SO THEY CAN PICK IT UP. 
MEANTIME, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE 
LIGHTS ON AND THERE'S A DEBATE 
GOING ON BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND 
THE SENATE, DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE 
BILL. 
THINGS LIKE, IS THERE MONEY FOR 
THE BORDER WALL THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTS, FULL FUNDING 
FOR THE 2020 CENSUS THAT HAS TO 
BE CONDUCTED NEXT YEAR? 
THAT WILL HAPPEN THIS AFTERNOON 
AS WELL. 
THAT LAYERED ON IMPEACHMENT 
SPEAKS AGAIN TO THE TRICKY 
NATURE OF THINGS UP HERE. 
IT'S PART OF WHY WE'RE SEEING 
THE DELAY THIS AFTERNOON AS 
THEY TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHEN 
THAT VOTE WILL BE SO THEY CAN 
RESUME THE HEARING. 
>> THANK YOU, ED O'KEEFE FOR 
THAT UPDATE. 
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, AS ED 
PUT IT. 
WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME 
TIME ON CAPITOL HILL. 
THE CONCERN THIS WEEK AS THE 
TESTIMONIES UNFOLD, IS THERE 
MORE OF THE VOTING AND 
CONDUCTING REGULAR BUSINESS? 
AS AMERICANS LOOK AT, WHAT HAS 
MY CONGRESSMAN DONE, IT'S WALL 
TO WALL IMPEACHMENT. 
AT SOME POINT ARE THEY 
CONCERNED THAT HEALTH CARE, THE 
ISSUES THAT ARE INCOME AND 
EQUALITY, THINGS THAT AFFECT 
THEIR POCKETBOOKS AND HOMES, 
ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED WHEN 
YOU COME TO THE BALLOT BOX NEXT 
YEAR? 
>> SURE. 
YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATIC 
LAWMAKERS AND THAT'S ONE OF THE 
CONCERNS MOVING FORWARD WITH 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE SUPPOSED 
TO TALK ABOUT A GUN CONTROL 
MEASURE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WORKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE AND HOUSE ON, IN WHICH 
SHE BROUGHT UP THIS TRANSCRIPT 
AND HE CALLED IT A PERFECT 
CALL, AND SHE SAID NO, THAT 
CALL WAS NOT PERFECT, MR. 
PRESIDENT. 
THEN THE NEXT DAY OR LATER THAT 
DAY, WENT ONTO ESSENTIALLY SAY, 
WE ARE LAUNCHING A FORMAL 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT GUN 
CONTROL SINCE. 
THEY HAVE THE USMCA -- 
>> AND WE HAVE HAD SHOOTINGS. 
>> WE HAVE HAD SHOOTINGS. 
BUT IN TERMS OF LEGISLATION 
THAT COULD PASS BOTH CHAMBERS, 
THAT'S BEEN STOPPED UP. 
WE STILL HAVE THE TRADE 
AGREEMENT TO PASS, THE USMCA, 
U.S.-MEXICO-CANADA AGREEMENT 
THAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD REPLACE 
NAFTA. 
THAT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD. 
NANCY PELOSI SEEMS TO THINK 
THERE'S NO END IN SIGHT.  
WHEN IT COMES TO PRESCRIPTION 
DRUGS, AN ISSUE THE SENATE AND 
HOUSE HAVE BEEN KIND OF WORKING 
TOGETHER ON, NOT SURE WHEN 
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. 
THAT'S A RISK DEMOCRATS TAKE 
AND THAT'S WHY NANCY PELOSI 
WANTED TO PUT IMPEACHMENT OFF 
FOR SO LONG, BECAUSE ONCE THIS 
STARTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT 
PRESIDENT CLINTON. 
PRESIDENT CLINTON MADE A POINT 
OF TRYING TO DO HIS NORMAL JOB 
AND JUST NOT FOCUS ON 
IMPEACHMENT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS LIKE TUNED 
IN. 
HE'S BEEN WATCHING THESE 
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, TWEETING 
AND RETWEETING ABOUT IT. 
AND DEMOCRATS DON'T THINK THAT 
HE CAN GET OVER IT AND ACTUALLY 
MOVE WITH THE CONGRESS TO GET 
LEGISLATION PASSED. 
>> DAYS AFTER MONICA LEWINSKY, 
PRESIDENT CLINTON MADE A 
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND SPOKE 
ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US VERY 
MUCH. 
WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE 
AND WE ARE STANDING BY FOR THE 
LIVE TESTIMONY ON CAPITOL HILL. 
STAY WITH US. 
>>> WHEREVER WE HAVE TO GO, 
WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO, EVERY 
EVENING WE ARE FOCUSED ON 
FINDING AND TELLING THE TRUTH 
AND EARNING YOUR TRUST. 
THE CBS EVENING NEWS. 
WHAT REALLY MATTERS IN 
JOURNALISM. THE TRUTH MATTERS. 
FACTS MATTER. 
GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE 
STORY MATTERS. 
IT IS WHAT WE DO AT CBS NEWS, 
AND IT IS OUR PROMISE TO YOU. 
THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH NORAH 
O'DONNELL. 
>> I AM REENA NINAN. THANK YOU 
FOR JOINING US. 
WE ARE WAITING FOR PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY FROM TIMBER WITNESSES 
INTO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON 
WILL SOON APPEAR AND VOLKER WAS 
INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PRESSURE 
THE COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATING 
THE POLITICAL RIVALS OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND MORRISON IS THE 
SENIOR DIRECTOR  OF EUROPEAN 
AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS AND HE TOLD 
LAWMAKERS IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY 
THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THE 
DETAILS OF THE PRESENCE JULY 
CALL WOULD BECOME PUBLIC BUT 
DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL 
WAS DISCUSSED. 
WE ALREADY HEARD FROM TWO OTHER 
WITNESSES EARLIER TODAY. 
GALLETTI SEE JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
AND ON THE RIGHT IT IS 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN WHO WERE BOTH PRESENT 
ON THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH 
UKRAINIAN LEADER. 
VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON 
UKRAINE, AND HIS FAMILY  FLED 
THE SOVIET UNION 40 YEARS AGO. 
DURING HIS TESTIMONY COME HE 
SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
CALL BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK 
IT WAS PROPER. 
>> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF 
UKRAINE PURSUED AN 
INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO 
CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, IT WOULD BE 
INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY 
AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN 
UKRAINE LOSING SUPPORT, 
UNDERMINING U.S. NATIONAL 
SECURITY, AND ADVANCING THE 
OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION. 
>> WILLIAMS IS AN ADVISOR ON 
EUROPE AND RUSSIA TO VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. 
SHE SAID SHE FOUND THE CALL 
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF WHAT 
IT WAS ABOUT. 
>> JULY 25 ALONG WITH SEVERAL 
OF MY COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO 
A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE 
CONTENT OF WHICH HAS BEEN 
PUBLICLY REPORTED. 
PRIOR TO JULY 25 I PARTICIPATED 
IN A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL 
PHONE CALLS. 
DURING MY CLOSED-DOOR 
DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY 
PERSONAL VIEWS  ON WHETHER I 
HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 
25 CALL IT AS I TESTIFIED THEN, 
I FOUND THE PHONE CALL UNUSUAL 
BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I OBSERVED 
INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT 
APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL MATTER. 
AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, I 
PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE 
BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT 
DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELINSKI AS 
A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM 
WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. 
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR 
THE TRANSCRIPT. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED 
HIS ATTACK ON THE IMPINGEMENT. 
WORRY TODAY PRAISING THE 
PERFORMANCE OF REPUBLICANS AND 
SAYS IS NOT EVEN KNOW THE 
OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. 
>> I JUST GOT TO WATCH. 
THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING SO 
WELL. IT IS A SCAM. 
IT IS A BIG SCAM. 
VINDMAN I WATCHED HIM FOR A 
LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING . I 
AM GOING TO LET PEOPLE MAKE 
THEIR OWN DETERMINATION, BUT I 
DO NOT KNOW VINDMAN. 
I NEVER HEARD OF HIM . I DO NOT 
KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE. 
>> THIS ALL COMES SURROUNDING 
THE CALL AT THE CENTER OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
DAVID HOLMES SAYS THAT HE HEARD 
THE PRESIDENT ASK EU AMBASSADOR 
GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT THE 
STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND 
ONE DAY AFTER HIS CALL WITH 
UKRAINIAN LEADER AND SONDLAND 
TESTIFIES TOMORROW. 
CBS NEWS INTELLIGENCE  REPORTER 
OLIVIA JOINS US NOW TO SET THE 
STAGE. 
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE 
TESTIMONY OF MORRISON AND 
VOLKER? 
>> Reporter: SURE. 
THEY ARE BOTH WAITING 
DOWNSTAIRS  AND A LOT OF THEIR 
TESTIMONY WAS PRETTY 
EFFECTIVELY TEED UP IN THE 
HEARING THIS AFTERNOON AS IT 
INVOLVES TIM MORRISON THE 
FORMER SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL
WHO WAS ALEXANDER VINDMAN'S 
DIRECT SUPERIOR. REPUBLICANS 
SPEND A LOT OF TIME EXAMINING 
WHY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
DID NOT NOTIFY TIM MORRISON 
FIRST OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
JULY 25 CALL AND INSTEAD WENT 
TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. 
YOU HEARD OF THE VERY END 
CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF RESPONSE 
SUMMARILY TO THIS CRITICISM 
SAYING TIM MORRISON DID THE 
EXACT SAME THING. 
HE DID NOT INFORM JOHN BOLTON. 
HE ALSO WENT TO WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL TO VOICE SOME OF THOSE 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF 
THE CALL BUT I SPOKE WITH A 
COUPLE OF DEMOCRATS WHOSE 
TAKEAWAYS WERE THAT THE 
WITNESSES CAME ACROSS AS 
PROFESSIONAL AND RESILIENT IN 
THE FACE OF SOME OF THESE 
ATTACKS. 
ESPECIALLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND ESPECIALLY ON LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN.. 
>> OF THAT TO CONTINUE BY MR. 
MORRISON  THIS AFTERNOON. 
THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE NEW 
AVENUES TO PROBE AND TIM 
MORRISON WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN 
THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO 
SEQUESTER THAT CALL TO THE MORE 
SECURE SERVER. SHE TESTIFIED IN 
THE TESTIMONY THAT IS ALREADY 
BEEN RELEASED SAYING THAT HE 
HAD REAL CONCERNS THAT A LEAK 
OF THAT TRANSCRIPT WOULD BE 
DAMAGING, AND HE WAS ALSO IN 
DISCUSSIONS WITH WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL ABOUT WHY IT SHOULD BE 
LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE 
DISTRIBUTION. 
THE SPECIAL ENVOY KURT VOLKER 
IS ALSO EXPECTED TO BE A MENTOR 
WHEN IS. 
REPUBLICANS TESTED BOTH TIM 
MORRISON AND QUOTE BROKER TO 
APPEAR AND I THINK THAT THEY 
HAVE SOME AVENUES TO EXPLOIT 
AND KURT VOLKER HAS ALREADY 
TESTIFIED IN HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT AND IN HIS RELEASE 
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONCERNS HE 
HAD ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI 
FREELANCING. 
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A 
SINKING FEELING ABOUT A LOT OF 
WHAT HE WAS WITNESSING AND HE 
WAS OF COURSE PART OF THE THREE 
AMIGOS GROUP THAT WAS IN THAT 
LESS OFFICIAL OR COMPLETELY 
UNOFFICIAL CHANNEL DOING WITH 
UKRAINIAN'S THOSE ARE A FEW OF 
THE THINGS I THINK YOU CAN 
EXPECT BOTH SIDES TO TRY TO MINE
THIS AFTERNOON IN WHAT IS THE 
SECOND OF TODAY'S PUBLIC 
HEARINGS. 
>> THANK YOU, OLIVIA. 
BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, THE 
TESTIMONY FROM THIS MORNING, 
WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM 
DEMOCRATS ABOUT THE REMARKS 
THAT WERE MADE FROM VINDMAN AND 
FROM WILLIAMS? 
>> Reporter: RIGHT.  
DEMOCRATS AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT 
TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT 
THIS IS AN IMMIGRANT AND A 
SOLDIER THAT REPUBLICANS ARE 
UNFAIRLY ATTACKING AND 
IMPUGNING HIS RECORD. 
I THINK YOU ALSO SAW SOME OF 
THE MORE EFFECTIVE LINES OF 
QUESTIONING COMING FROM 
REPUBLICANS LIKE WILL HURD WHO 
WAS EXPOSING THE DISTANCE THAT 
THOSE WITNESSES HAD FROM THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES AT HAND AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER MET 
THE PRESIDENT BEFORE AND HIS 
TALKING POINTS DO NOT 
NECESSARILY INFORM WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS IN THESE CALLS  
WITH LEADERS. 
HE ASKED IF IT WAS ODD FOR THE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO HAVE USED SOME 
OF THOSE TALKING POINTS THAT 
WERE PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL IN THAT CALL 
AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN  
SAID NO IT IS NOT. 
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EXACTLY 
ONE KNOWN TO FOLLOW A SET 
SCRIPT. 
SO NONE THE LESS THEY THOUGHT 
THAT THE DEMOCRAT THAT I SPOKE 
TO AT LEAST PARTS THAT THEY 
WERE EFFECTIVE. 
THEY RESISTED ANY SORT OF 
QUESTIONS THAT TRIED TO EXPOSE 
A PARTISAN SLANT AND TESTIFIED 
OF COURSE TO THEIR EXPERIENCE 
ACROSS DEMOCRATIC AND 
REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS THAT 
HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS. 
>> OLIVIA, CHAIRMANSHIP 
MENTIONED HOMES AND HOW 
IMPORTANT WILL TESTIMONY TO BE 
AND I AM ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT 
FIONA HILL. 
>> Reporter: ABSOLUTELY.  IN 
TODAY'S OPENING STATEMENT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF  INVOKED THOSE 
IMMORTAL WORDS THAT DAVID 
HOLMES WITNESSED EXCHANGE 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE  
PRESIDENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT 
UKRAINE AND DAVID HOLMES 
TESTIMONY IN HIS CLOSED-DOOR 
TESTIMONY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THAT WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY. 
HE OFFERED SOME MORE DETAIL 
ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT, WHICH HE 
ACTUALLY TOLD TO A NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE. 
ALMOST ANYBODY WHO WOULD 
LISTEN. 
HE TOLD HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR 
ABOUT HOW DISTINCTIVE IT WAS TO 
BE A WITNESS TO THIS CALL WITH 
THE LEVEL OF CANDOR AND 
COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED 
FOR GOOD IS PROBABLY NOT 
SURPRISING THAT HE IS SAVED FOR 
SOME OF THE LAST PUBLIC 
HEARINGS THIS WEEK ALONGSIDE 
FIONA HILL WHO HERSELF WAS VERY 
FORCEFUL IN HER CLOSED-DOOR 
TESTIMONY AND PUSHED BACK A LOT 
ON SOME LINES OF QUESTIONING 
THAT WE HAVE SEEN ABOUT THIS 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE 
WAS IN FACT BEHIND THE 2016 
INTERFERENCE AND NOT RUSSIA. 
SHE SAID I'M NOT HERE TO 
INDULGE ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF 
RUMORS THAT I THINK THAT THOSE 
TWO ARE MEANT TO BE SORT OF THE 
TAKE AWAY THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
HOPING AT LEAST THAT REMAIN IN 
PEOPLE'S MINDS AS THEY CONCLUDE 
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE 
INQUIRY.  
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OLIVIA 
GAZIS, FOR JOINING US. 
WE'RE STANDING BY  AWAITING THE 
TESTIMONY OF TWO FOLKS KURT 
VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON AS WE 
SPOKE WITH OLIVIA GAZIS. 
WE'RE STANDING BY  IS THERE IS 
ABOUT TAKING PLACE WHEN I WHICH 
IS DELAYING THE EXPECTED 
TESTIMONY AND I WANT TO BRING 
IN OUR CONTRIBUTORS HERE WITH 
REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST LESLIE 
SANCHEZ AND MOLLY HOOPER. 
WE HAVE CBSN  LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR 
REBECCA RAPHE AND ALSO LYNDA 
TRAN. 
IT IS BEEN QUITE A DAY THESE 
DAYS. IF YOU COULD SORT OF SET 
THE STAGE FOR US. 
WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL IN YOUR 
PERSONAL OPINION WAS THE LEGAL 
MOMENT OF THE DAY? 
>> I THINK THE BIG LEGAL MOMENT 
WAS VINDMAN SAYING THAT THIS IS 
A DEMAND.  
WE REALLY ACTUALLY LOOKING AT 
BRIBERY IN TERMS OF THE 
CRIMINAL STATUTE BRIBERY THAT 
THERE IS THIS QUESTION WAS THIS 
TOTALLY LEGAL WHAT HE WAS DOING 
OR WAS THE SOLICITATION OF A 
BRIBE? 
TO SAY WAS A DEMAND IS EXACTLY 
WHAT YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT 
THIS WAS A QUICK QUID PRO QUO 
WHICH IS WHAT BRIBERY IS. 
>> IT WAS THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDING THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
DO SOMETHING FOR HIM PERSONALLY 
IN ORDER TO GET THIS OFFICIAL 
ACT OF A MEETING OR THE RELEASE 
OF THESE FUNDS? 
THAT SEEMS VINDMAN SAID IT MOST 
DIRECTLY BUT WILLIAMS ALSO 
WITNESSED THE CALL AND FELT 
SIMILARLY  THAT THERE WAS A 
SIMILAR MEANING. 
I THINK YOU CANNOT READ A 
TRANSCRIPT AND QUIET NOW. YOU 
NEED A WIN IS TO SAY WHAT 
HAPPENED? 
WHAT DID IT MEAN? 
WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE 
IN BRIBERY AND EXTORTION WHO 
SAY BY THE WAY I HEREBY EXTORT 
YOU TO GET MY INVESTIGATION. 
IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY. 
SO THE QUESTION IS IS THIS 
CODED LANGUAGE, IN THIS CALL? 
IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE A QUID PRO 
QUO. 
YOU HAD TO WITNESSES RIGHT 
THERE AT THE CALL UNLIKE THE 
OTHER WITNESSES WHO THE 
REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING WEREN'T 
THERE  AND DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING 
ACTUALLY INTERPRETED IT QUIET 
WHILE THEY DIDN'T SAY DIRECTLY, 
DEMAND WAS THE CLOSEST WERE 
USED. 
I THINK THAT IS VERY POWERFUL 
AND USEFUL FROM A LEGAL 
PERSPECTIVE. 
>> WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT DOES ANY OF THIS 
INDICATE THE PRESIDENT? 
IS THERE A SMOKING GUN THAT CAN 
REALLY BRING THE PRESIDENCY 
DOWN FOR DONALD TRUMP? 
>> WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THEY 
ARE A MIX OF LEGAL AND 
POLITICAL. 
THAT IS KIND OF WHY YOU NEED 
ALL OF US HERE BECAUSE I'M NOT 
AN EXPERT. 
I CAN TELL YOU FROM A LEGAL 
PERSPECTIVE AND I CAN ALSO TELL 
YOU FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 
SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO 
CONVINCE A JURY BEFORE. 
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WORKS FROM 
A PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVE AND 
WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC AND HARD IS 
WHEN THINGS GET COMPLICATED. 
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TRY TO MAKE 
THINGS COMPLICATED WHEN THEY 
TRY TO DISTRACT. 
REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THAT WHEN 
THE FACTS ARE NOT WORKING FOR 
THEM THEY ARE THROWING THINGS 
OUT LIKE WHERE IS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT IS GOING ON 
WITH THE PROCEDURE HERE? 
AND THERE IS A LOT OF THAT 
GOING ON HERE THAT CAN BE VERY 
EFFECTIVE FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
. IT REALLY IS. 
AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS 
PRESENT THIS IN A WAY THAT WILL 
BE CONVINCING BECAUSE IT IS 
SIMPLE THAT HERE IS WHAT 
HAPPENED AND KEEP IT SIMPLE? 
OF OUR THEY HAVE BEEN DOING A 
GOOD JOB OF THAT, I RETURN TO 
OTHERS TO SEE WHAT THEY THINK 
YOU CAN MY MIND WOULD HAVE TO 
DO IS SAY IT IS SIMPLE. 
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AND 
NOBODY IS CONTESTING WHAT 
HAPPENED. 
AND THAT IS CRIMINAL HERE. 
>> EXACTLY, BUT IT IS ALL UP TO 
INTERPRETATION. 
THE PRESIDENT STILL BELIEVES 
THIS IS A PERFECT CALL. 
A PERFECT CALL. 
I DO NOT THINK YOU WILL HEAR A 
LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAYING IT IS 
A PERFECT CALL BECAUSE 
TRADITIONALLY THEY HAVE BEEN 
SUPPORTING UKRAINE. 
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE 
REALLY PUSHING THE OBAMA 
úADMINISTRATION TO INCREASE THE 
AID TO UKRAINE TO FEND OFF 
RUSSIAN ADVANCES. 
AT THE SAME TIME, REPUBLICANS 
WILL ARGUE IS IT IMPEACHABLE? 
PROBABLY NOT. 
AGAIN IT IS A MATTER OF HOW YOU 
INTERPRET THIS PHONE CALL. 
AND IT IS UP TO WHAT THEY HEAR 
FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 
>> IT IS EXACTLY THOSE TWO 
POINTS. 
WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THESE 
ARE COUPLED TOGETHER THE TWO 
QUESTION COMPONENTS. 
ONE, WAS IT WRONG? DID HE DO 
IT? 
ON THIS IT IS A LITTLE BIT 
SUBJECTIVE LIKE THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS IT WAS A FINE CALL AND 
REPUBLICAN SAY I FEEL IT IS 
UNUSUAL, BUT IT GOES TO THE 
SECOND PART IS IT IMPEACHABLE? 
IS THERE MERIT TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE? 
AND THAT IS THE REALLY 
DIFFICULT HURDLE. 
RIGHT NOW IT  LIKE A ROWBOAT. 
IT IS JUST NOT THERE. 
BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY 
FLIP AROUND IN TERMS OF ITS 
GRAVITY FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
TO REALLY LIFT THAT ORDER. 
>> WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF 
THIS WILL MOVE ON TO THE 
SENATE. 
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS 
MENTIONED WAS BURISMA. 
IT CAME UP IN THE TESTIMONY OF 
VINDMAN.  
I WILL ASK YOU WHAT IT COULD 
MEAN FOR JOE BIDEN POTENTIALLY. 
>> TURNING OUR ATTENTION 
SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY OF 
BURISMA.  
THE COFOUNDER OF BURISMA IS ONE 
OF THE UKRAINE LARGEST  NATURAL 
GAS PRODUCERS CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS MADE STANDING. 
YES. 
>> AND HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO 
NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS OVER 
THE YEARS. 
>> I AM NOT AWARE THAT I GUESS 
I CAN POINT TO A SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION BUT THERE IS WHAT 
I WOULD CALL A PATTERN OF 
QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS, AND 
RUSSIANS ABOUT CORRUPTION. 
>> QUESTION WILL DEALINGS AND 
QUESTIONS OF CORRUPTION. 
IS THE CAMP OF JOE BIDEN 
CONCERNED IF THIS MOVES TO THE 
SENATE WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR 
HIS CANDIDACY? 
BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY 
ANYTHING ABOUT JOE BIDEN BEING 
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. 
TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. 
I THINK HE IS WATCHING THE POLL 
NUMBERS MOVE ACROSS THE FIELD, 
AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS WORRIED 
ABOUT WE ALL KNOW THAT HE DID 
NOT BRING IN THE FUNDRAISING AS 
ONE WHAT IS EXPECTED FOR THE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT IS THE 
THINGS THEY ARE FOCUSED ON. 
>> LESLIE, WE WERE TALKING 
ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS AT THIS 
POINT. WHEN LOOK AT HOW THEY 
HAVE APPROACH THIS, WHERE DO WE 
GO FROM HERE? BUT THERE IS ONE 
LINE OF THINKING THAT SAYS 
LET'S DISCREDIT ANYBODY 
REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE 
SERVICE, WHICH I DO NOT AGREE 
WITH. 
I THINK THAT IS A DIFFICULT 
THING TO GET THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC BEHIND BUT THE OTHER 
AREAS THIS QUESTION BUT WHO WAS 
IN THE ROOM, WHAT WAS THE 
INTERPRETATION AND IS SOMEBODY 
SO SENIOR THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS 
IS WHAT HIS INTENT WAS? 
BECAUSE UNLESS YOU FIND THAT 
COMIC IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO 
SIFT THROUGH ALL OF THESE 
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS 
BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE REPUBLICANS 
ARE BREAKING IT DOWN IS THERE A 
POLITICAL MOTIVE AND HAVE THEY 
DONATED TO THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE THAT ALL OF 
THESE THINGS THAT CLOUD THE 
ISSUE BUT IT WILL TAKE SOMEONE 
WITH MORE SENIORITY TO SAY THEY 
WERE IN THE ROOM. 
>> AND I DID HEAR FROM ONE OR 
TWO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WERE 
NOT VERY PLEASED WITH THE 
TESTIMONY OF DAVID HOLMES WHO 
WAS DEPOSED LAST FRIDAY AND 
BASICALLY SAID THAT HE SPOKE 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
DIRECTLY AFTER THIS CALL AND 
ASKED  DOES A PRESIDENT CARE 
ABOUT UKRAINE TO WHICH SONDLAND 
SAID HE DOESN'T.  
AND THE BIGGER ISSUES INVOLVED 
LOOKING INTO BIDEN AND THAT 
MADE MEMBERS OF THE  CONFERENCE 
UNCOMFORTABLE. 
>> I DID NOT MEAN TO INTERRUPT 
BUT WHO ARE THEY GOING TO 
BELIEVE? 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 
TESTIMONY. 
BE FUNDAMENTALLY BECAUSE OF THE 
CHANGE IN TESTIMONY, I WOULD 
LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE 
HEARSAY WHEN YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT WHEN HIS CHARACTER. 
>> CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS AND 
TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM, WHAT 
DO YOU SEE IN THAT? 
BUT FIRST I WANT TO SAY ABOUT 
THE BIDEN ISSUE FROM A LEGAL 
STANDPOINT WHETHER BIDEN  
HUNTER BIDEN WAS ENGAGED IN 
CORRUPTION OR THERE IS A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NONE OF 
THAT HAS ANY IMPORT. 
IF THIS WAS A COURT OF LAW THAT 
WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE. 
IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. 
>> SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT. 
IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY, THIS 
HEARSAY THING I WOULD ALSO LIKE 
TO ADDRESS. 
THERE IS 1 MILLION EXCEPTIONS 
TO HEARSAY AND ONE IS CO-
CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS. 
AT THIS POINT SONDLAND LOOKS 
LIKE A CO-CONSPIRATOR. 
THOSE ARE SIGNS OF CREDIBILITY .
THE HEARSAY RULES ARE WAY OF 
THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS CREDIBLE 
AND WHAT IS NOT. 
THE QUESTION IS THEIR VIEW OF 
WHAT IS HEARSAY IS COMPLETELY 
NOT WHAT IS ACCURATE. 
SONDLAND'S STATEMENT HERE WOULD 
NOT BE HEARSAY. 
>>  I BET REPUBLICANS ARE 
NERVOUS FOR SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY WHEN HE IS ASKED 
ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. 
>> I WANT TO TURN OUT TO  THE 
REPORTER OLIVIA GAZIS WHO JOINS 
US FROM CAPITOL HILL. 
CAN YOU GIVE US A PREVIEW? 
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT COULD 
BE DRAMATIC AND MAYBE CHANGE 
THE NARRATIVE . 
>> Reporter: IT IS CERTAINLY 
THE CENTRAL QUESTION AND IT IS 
INTRIGUING A LOT OF PEOPLE 
BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CAME INTO 
DEVICES TESTAMENT HE WANTS TO 
SAY THAT HIS RECOLLECTION HAD 
BEEN REFRESHED BY THE LIKES OF 
TIM MORRISON AND BILL TAYLOR 
AND THAT HE IN FACT REMEMBERED 
DELIVERING THE TERMS OF THE 
QUID PRO QUO  TO UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL  YANUKOVYCH AND THE 
CALL IS ALSO NOW  CENTERSTAGE 
IN THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID 
HOLMES THAT WAS DELIVERED 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WAS 
RELEASED YESTERDAY DELIVERING 
IN EXPLICIT DETAIL EXACTLY 
WHERE HE WAS AND HOW THEY WERE 
SITTING AT THE FACT THAT THEY 
HAD A BOTTLE OF WINE AND THE 
FACT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS RELAXED TALKING ABOUT HIS 
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND THEN 
DECIDED TO CALL THE PRESIDENT 
AND OFFER AN UPDATE ON HIS 
MEETINGS FROM KYIV . AND HE 
TESTIFIES ABOUT HOW HE GOES 
THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF 
SECRETARIAL INTERVENTION AND 
THEN FINALLY GETS CONNECTED TO 
THE PRESIDENT AND HOW HE IS 
WINCING AS HE IS HOLDING AWAY 
THE PHONE BECAUSE THE VOICE OF 
THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED. 
HE SAID AT ONE POINT HE TOOK 
OUT HIS PHONE TO TAKE NOTES. 
HE TOOK IT OUT TO BE LATE TO 
DOCUMENT SOME OF THE UKRAINE 
DETAILS BUT MANAGED TO GRAB 
SOME AS THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MOVES TO A SEPARATE 
ROCKY WHICH WAS A NEWS 
DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME. 
SO WHAT WILL BE AT ISSUE 
TOMORROW IS WHETHER AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAYS I RECALL ALL OF 
THOSE DETAILS AS DAVID HOLMES 
DESCRIBED THEM OR I DO NOT 
RECALL THAT AT ALL OR I RECALL 
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERSION 
OF EVENTS BECAUSE HOUSE WAS 
JUST LAID OUT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAS THE MOST PROXIMITY 
TO THE PRESENT OF ANY WITNESS 
THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THUS 
FAR. 
A LOT OF THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK 
LINES HAVE BEEN THIS PERSON HAS 
NO DIRECT INTERACTION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THIS PERSON NEVER SPEAKS TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND DOESN'T ADVISE 
THE PRESIDENT. 
WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
WAS GOING AROUND TELLING PEOPLE 
THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
UKRAINE POLICY AND THAT HE HAD 
A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT. 
WE KNOW THAT TIM MORRISON 
TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT TO THE 
EXTENT OF CHECKING THAT HE HAD 
ACTUALLY DONE SO AND WE KNOW 
THAT THE ONLY HILL HAD ASKED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO PUT YOU 
IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY AND 
SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT. 
IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT. 
MULTIPLE WITNESSES ARE SAYING I 
HAVE A DIRECT LINE TO THE 
PRESIDENT IN THE HEARING ROOM 
TOMORROW, AND YOU CAN EXPECT 
THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE 
DYNAMIC CROSS-EXAMINATION BY 
THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS 
AS TO WHAT HE RECALLS AND HOW 
FAR HE IS WILLING TO GO TO 
IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT IN THIS 
ENTIRE AFFAIR. 
>> WE ARE STANDING BY AND IT 
DOES A LIVE LOOK AT CAPITOL 
HILL WHERE WE ARE STANDING BY 
FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY ANY 
MOMENT NOW FROM A FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
OFFICIAL AND ALSO FORM UKRAINE 
SPECIAL ENVOY AS WELL. 
WE ARE WAITING FOR A VOTE ON 
CAPITOL HILL. 
DO HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE TIMING 
OF WHERE WE ARE? 
>> WE ARE WAITING ON THE HOUSE 
JUST VOTED ON THE CONTINUING 
RESOLUTION AND I BELIEVE THAT 
IT PASSED THAT DO NOT QUOTE ME 
ON THAT. 
>> IT IS EXPECTED TO. 
>> THAT MEANS THAT THESE 
WITNESSES CAN MOVE THEIR 
TESTIMONY THROUGH UNTIL THIS 
EVENING BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE 
MEMBERS THEY LIKE THEIR FIVE 
MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND 
AGAIN THE WAY THAT THIS PROCESS 
HAS BEEN WORKING THE DEMOCRATS 
TAKE 45 MINUTES TO ASK 
QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS TAKE THE 
45 MINUTES AND THEN IT IS UP TO 
THE PANEL. 
ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN TRICKY 
ABOUT THESE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS FROM THE HOUSE 
SCHEDULING PERSPECTIVE IS THAT 
IT IS HARD TO SCHEDULE VOTES IN 
A MANNER. 
>> IT DID PASS IN THE HOUSE. 
>> THERE YOU GO. 
>> BUT HAS BEEN TRICKY FOR 
SENATE STENY HOYER BECAUSE 
THERE IS THIS BLOCKBUSTER 
TESTIMONY. 
>> WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A 
SHORT BREAK , BUT I SEE 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SITTING DOWN SO 
LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK BEFORE 
WE ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE 
START AGAIN ANY MOMENT NOW. 
STICK WITH US. 
YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. 
>>> WE WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK 
LIVE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING 
RESUMES ON CAPITOL HILL HAVE 
FORM YOUR SPECIAL ENVOY TO 
UKRAINE KURT VOLKER AND ALSO 
OUTGOING CHIEF OF EUROPEAN AND 
RUSSIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL  TIM 
MORRISON. 
THERE IS ADAM SCHIFF THE 
CHAIRMAN. 
LET'S LISTEN IN.  
>> AND TIM MORRISON, THE SENIOR 
DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS 
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
I APPRECIATE THE REQUEST FOR 
THESE IMPORTANT WITNESSES AS 
WELL AS UNDERSECRETARY ESTATE 
DAVID HALE FROM WHOM WE WILL 
HEAR TOMORROW. 
AS WE HAS ARE FROM OTHERS WHEN 
JOE BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING 
WHETHER TO ENTER THE RACE FOR 
THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020, RUDY 
GIULIANI BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO WE 
CAN WE CAN HIS CANDIDACY BY 
PUSHING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
HIM AND HIS SON. 
TO CLEAR AWAY ANY OBSTACLE TO 
THE SCHEME DAYS AFTER THE NEW 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS 
ELECTED, TRUMP ORDERED A RECALL 
OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH  IN KYIV. 
TRUMP ALSO CANCELED VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE'S 
PARTICIPATION  IN THE 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND SENT  GORDON 
SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER. 
THESE THREE RETURNED  FROM KYIV 
AND BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
THEIR INTERACTIONS  WITH THE 
NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION. 
HOPES THAT TRUMP WOULD AGREE TO 
AN EARLY MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT WERE SOON DIMINISHED 
WHEN TRUMP PUSHED BACK. 
ACCORDING TO KURT VOLKER COME 
HE JUST DIDN'T BELIEVE IT. 
HE WAS SKEPTICAL AND HE SAID 
THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEAR. 
I HEAR HE HAS SOME TERRIBLE 
PEOPLE AROUND HIM. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO TOLD HIM 
HE BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE TRIED 
TO TAKE HIM DOWN. 
HE TOLD THE THREE AMIGOS  TALK 
TO RUDY AND THEY DID.  
ONE OF THOSE INTERACTIONS TOOK 
PLACE A WEEK BEFORE THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN TRUMP AND 
ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR  KURT 
VOLKER  HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI AND HE TESTIFIED THAT 
HE PUSHED BACK ON THE 
ACCUSATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN 
AND ON JULY 22 DAYS BEFORE HE 
WOULD SPEAK WITH ZELENSKY  
AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A 
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE  WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI AND ON JULY 25 BEFORE 
IT TOOK PLACE THEY SENT A TEXT 
MESSAGE TO ANDRIY YERMAK HEARD 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE  ASSUMING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  SAYS HE 
WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT 
HAPPENED IN 2016 WE WILL NAIL 
DOWN A DATE FOR A VISIT TO 
WASHINGTON. 
GOOD LUCK. 
LATER THAT DAY DONALD TRUMP 
WOULD HAVE THE INFAMOUS PHONE 
CALL WITH ZELENSKY IN WHICH HE 
RESPONDED  TO THE UKRAINE 
APPRECIATION FOR HE WAS DEFENSE 
SUPPORT THE REQUEST BY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  TO BUY MORE 
JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES BY 
SAYING I WILL LIKE YOU TO DO US 
A FAVOR, THOUGH. AND THE FAVOR 
INVOLVED THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT
RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN PUSHING 
FOR INTO THE BIDENS. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS NOT ON 
THE CALL BUT TESTIFIED NO 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO 
INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION. 
AMONG THOSE  LISTENING IN WAS 
TIM MORRISON WERE TAKEN OVER AS 
THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR 
EUROPEAN AFFAIRS DAYS BEFORE 
BUT HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY FIONA 
HILL  ABOUT THE REGULAR SECOND 
CHANNEL THAT WAS OPERATING IN 
PARALLEL TO THE OFFICIAL ONE. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN  AND 
MS. WILLIAMS  AND LIKE THEM TIM 
MORRISON WAS CONCERNED ENOUGH 
ABOUT WHAT HE HEARD ON THE CALL 
THAT HE WENT TO SEE  THE LEGAL 
ADVISOR SOON AFTER IT AND IT. 
THE FEAR OF COLONEL VINDMAN WAS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BROKEN 
THE LAW BUT  MORRISON SAID THAT 
HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE CALL 
COULD BE DAMAGING IF IT 
RELEASED. 
SOON AFTER THIS DISCUSSION WITH 
LAWYERS, THE CALL RECORD WAS 
HIDDEN AWAY ON A SECURE SERVER 
USED IT TO STORE HIGHLY 
CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE AND 
THERE IT REMAINED UNTIL 
SEPTEMBER WHEN THE CALL RECORD 
WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. 
FOLLOWING THE JULY 20 FISCAL, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORK WITH  
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON A 
STATEMENT THAT WOULD SATISFY 
RUDY GIULIANI AND WHEN HE DID 
NOT INCLUDE THE WORDS BURISMA 
AND 2016 HE SAID IT WOULD LACK 
CREDIBILITY . AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
ADDED BURISMA AND 2016 TO THE 
STATEMENT AND BOTH VOLKER AND 
MORRISON WERE AWARE THAT THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN 
CUT UP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT  AND MICK MULVANEY AS 
THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF 
THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY 
SYSTEMS BETWEEN TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DRAGGED ON 
AND THE PRESSURE INCREASED WITH 
ANY  PRETENSE DROPPING AWAY. 
MORRISON ACCOMPANIED VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO WARSAW 
WHERE THEY MET AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY RAISED THE SUSPENDED 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
FOLLOWING THAT MEETING  
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID WHAT 
COULD HELP MOVE THE AID WAS IF 
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO 
TO THE MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCED 
THAT HE WAS OPENING THE BURISMA 
INVESTIGATION. 
ON SEPTEMBER 7 AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD A TELEPHONE CALL 
WITH TRUMP AND ASKED HIM WHAT 
HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE. 
ACCORDING TO MORRISON  WHO 
SPOKE WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HE INSISTED THAT THERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MUST PERSONALLY 
ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND HE SHOULD 
WANT TO DO IT.  
HE ALSO SAID IF HE DIDN'T AGREE 
TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THE 
U.S. AND UKRAINE WOULD BE AT A 
STALEMATE MEANING IT WILL NOT 
RECEIVE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
MORRISON HAD A SINKING FEELING 
AFTER THE CALL AS HE REALIZED 
IT WAS BEING DIRECTED AT 
ZELENSKY  HIMSELF AND NOT THE 
PERSECUTOR GENERAL AS SONDLAND 
HAD SHARED IN WARSAW ON 
SEPTEMBER 1. PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CLAIMED THERE WAS NO  QUID PRO 
QUO BUT HIS INSISTENCE THAT 
ZELENSKY HIMSELF WAS PUBLICLY 
ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS WHERE 
THEY WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE  
MADE CLEAR AT LEAST TWO OFFICIAL
ACTS WITH A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
AND 400 MILLION MILITARY AID 
FOR CONDITIONS ON RECEIPT OF 
WHAT TRUMP WANTED, 
INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS 
CAMPAIGN. 
THE EFFORT TO SECURE THE 
INVESTIGATION WOULD CONTINUE 
FOR SEVERAL MORE DAYS BUT 
APPEARED TO HAVE ABRUPTLY ENDED 
SOON AFTER THE COMMITTEES 
ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE TRUMP AND UKRAINE SCHEME 
AND ONLY THEN WITH THE AID BE 
RELEASED AND I NOW RECOGNIZE 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES. 
>> WELCOME BACK TO THE SECOND 
ACT OF TODAY'S CIRCUS, LADIES 
AND GENTLEMEN. 
WE ARE HERE TO CONTINUE WITH 
THE DEMOCRATS TELL US IS A 
SERIOUS  PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING 
TO OVERTHROW A DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT. 
IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL, THE END 
RESULT WOULD BE TO 
DISENFRANCHISE TENS OF MILLIONS 
OF AMERICANS WHO THOUGHT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CHOSEN BY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT BY 13 
DEMOCRAT PARTISANS ON A 
COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO 
BE OVERSEEING THE GOVERNMENT 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. 
ISN'T IT STRANGE HOW WE HAVE 
MORPHED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT 
COMMITTEE? 
PRESIDING OVER A MATTER THAT 
HAS NO INTELLIGENT COMPONENT 
WHATSOEVER. IMPEACHMENT OF 
COURSE IS THE JURISDICTION OF 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, NOT 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
BY PUTTING THIS FARCE IN OUR 
COURT DIVIDES TWO MAIN 
ADVANTAGES TO THE DEMOCRATS. 
IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO 
SHROUD THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN 
SECRECY. 
IT ALLOWED THEM TO AVOID GIVING 
TOO BIG OF A ROLE IN THE 
SPECTACLE TO ANOTHER DEMOCRAT 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND HIM THE 
DEMOCRAT LEADERS OBVIOUSLY HAVE 
NO CONFIDENCE. YOU CAN POSSIBLY 
VIEW THESE PROCEEDINGS AS FAIR 
AND IMPARTIAL? 
THEY ARE BEING CONDUCTED BY 
DEMOCRATS WHO SPENT THREE YEARS 
SATURATING THE AIRWAVES WITH 
DIRE WARNINGS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND 
THESE OUTLANDISH ATTACKS 
CONTINUE TO THIS VERY DAY. JUST 
THIS WEEKEND IN FRONT OF A 
CROWD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
ACTIVIST THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS 
COMMITTEE DENOUNCED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS A PROFOUND THREAT TO 
OUR DEMOCRACY AND VALID THAT WE 
WILL SEND THAT CHARLATAN IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE TO THE GOLDEN 
THRONE HE CAME FROM. HOW CAN 
ANYONE BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WHO 
WOULD ENTER SUCH ABSURDITIES 
ARE CONDUCTING A FEAR 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND ARE 
ONLY TRYING TO DISCOVER THE 
TRUTH? 
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO TOPPLE THE PRESIDENT 
SOLELY BECAUSE THEY DESPISE 
THEM BECAUSE THEY PROMISED ON 
ELECTION DAY TO IMPEACH HIM AND 
BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL 
WIN REELECTION NEXT YEAR. 
NO WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED 
ANY CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT, BUT THAT DOESN'T 
MATTER. 
LAST WEEK THE DEMOCRATS TOLD US 
HIS INFECTION WAS ASKING FOR A 
QUID PRO QUO. 
THIS WEEK IT IS BRIBERY. 
WHO KNOWS WHAT RIDICULOUS CRIME 
THEY WILL BE ACCUSING HIM OF 
NEXT WEEK. 
AS WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE CALLED A PARADE OF 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO DO NOT 
LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE 
POLICY EVEN THOUGH THEY 
ACKNOWLEDGE HE PROVIDED UKRAINE 
WITH LETHAL MILITARY AID AFTER 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
REFUSED TO DO SO. 
THEY ALSO RESENT HIS CONDUCT 
AND POLICY THROUGH CHANNELS 
OUTSIDE THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND 
CONTROL THESE ACTIONS THEY 
ARGUE CONTRADICT THE SO-CALLED 
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. 
THEY DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ALONE IS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED WITH 
THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE POLICY 
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ELECTED PRESIDENT NOT AN 
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. 
AND OF COURSE OUR PREVIOUS 
WITNESSES HAD VERY LITTLE NEW 
INFORMATION TO SHARE IN THESE 
HEARINGS AND THAT IS BECAUSE 
THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED 
TO UNCOVER NEW INFORMATION. 
THEY ARE MEANT TO SHOWCASE A 
HAND-PICKED GROUP OF WITNESSES 
WHO THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUED 
THROUGH THEIR SECRET ADDITION 
PROCESS WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY 
THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO 
ACCUSATIONS. 
IN FACT, BY THE TIME ANY 
WITNESS SAYS ANYTHING HERE, 
PEOPLE ACTUALLY HEARING IT FOR 
THE THIRD TIME THAT THEY HEARD 
IT FIRST THROUGH THE LEAKS TO 
THE MEDIA SYMPATHIZERS DURING 
THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS. 
SEOND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS 
PUBLISHED THOSE DEPOSITION 
TRANSCRIPTS IN A HIGHLY STAGED 
MANNER. OF COURSE THERE ARE NO 
TRANSCRIPTS FROM CRUCIAL 
WITNESSES LIKE HUNTER BIDEN, 
WHO COULD TESTIFY ABOUT HIS 
WELL-PAYING JOB ON THE BOARD OF 
A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY OR 
ALEXANDRA CHALUPA WHO WORKED ON 
AN ELECTION MEDDLING SCHEME 
WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON 
BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN PICKED THAT IS 
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED 
TO LET US HEAR FROM THEM. 
AS FOR EVIDENCE, WE ARE LEFT 
WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
PHONE CALL WHICH THE PRESIDENT 
MADE PUBLIC. 
THAT MEANS AMERICANS CAN READ 
FOR THEMSELVES  AN UNREMARKABLE 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WHO REPEATEDLY 
EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE 
CALL AFTERWARD.  
THE DEMOCRATS HOWEVER CLAIM 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS BEING 
BRIBED AND THEREFORE HE MUST BE 
LYING  WHEN HE SAYS THE CALL 
WAS FRIENDLY AND IMPOSED NO 
PROBLEMS. 
THERE IS SOME IRONY HERE. FOR 
MANY WEEKS WE HAVE FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS BEMOAN THE DAMAGE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY 
CAUSED TO THE U.S. UKRAINIAN 
RELATIONS. BUT WHEN THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT CONTRADICTS 
THEIR ACCUSATIONS, THEY 
PUBLICLY DISMISSED HIM AS A 
LIAR. 
I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I'M FAIRLY 
SURE CALLING A FRIENDLY BOARD 
PRESIDENT NEWLY ELECTED A LIAR 
VIOLATES THEIR SO-CALLED 
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. SO 
OVERALL THE DEMOCRATS WOULD 
HAVE YOU BELIEVE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS BEING BLACKMAILED  
WITH A PAUSE ON LETHAL MILITARY 
AID THAT HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW 
ABOUT AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID NOT MENTION TO HIM AND THAT 
DIPLOMATS HAVE TESTIFIED THEY 
ALWAYS ASSUMED WOULD BE LIFTED. 
WHICH IT WAS. 
WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS 
UNDERTAKING ANY OF THE ACTIONS 
THEY WERE BEING COERCED INTO 
DOING. THIS PROCESS IS NOT 
SERIOUS. 
IT IS NOT SOBER. 
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT PRAYERFUL. 
IT IS IN A VICIOUS ATTACK TO 
DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF 
THEIR RIGHT TO ELECT A 
PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS DON'T 
LIKE. 
AS I MENTIONED, THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THIS COMMITTEE CLAIMS THAT 
DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT. 
IF THAT IS TRUE, IT IS NOT THE 
PRESIDENT WHO POSES THE DANGER. 
YIELD BACK. 
>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN.  WE 
ARE JOINED THIS AFTERNOON BY 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER AND 
AMBASSADOR TIM MORRISON.  
AMBASSADOR COLTON WELKER SERVED 
FOR FOUR YEARS WORKING ON 
EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND SECURITY 
ISSUES UNDER FIVE DIFFERENT 
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS 
PICTURE IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH 
DEMONSTRATION HE SERVED AS THE 
ACTING DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS AND LATER 
AS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
OF STATE FOR THE EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS. 
IN 2008 PRESIDENT BUSH 
APPOINTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER A 
PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO 
NATO WHERE HE SERVED UNTIL 
2009. 
IN JULY 2017 AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
WAS APPOINTED TO BE THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE 
NEGOTIATIONS SERVING UNTIL HE 
RESIGNED IN SEPTEMBER. 
IT IS A PLEASURE TO WELCOME MR. 
MORRISON BACK TO THE 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHERE HE 
SERVED FOR ALMOST 2 DECADES AS 
A REPUBLICAN STAFFER THAT HE 
WAS A PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER 
FOR REPRESENTATIVE MARK KENNEDY 
FROM MINNESOTA AND SENATOR JON 
KYL FROM ARIZONA SERVING AS THE 
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE 
REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE HOUSE 
SERVICES COMMITTEE. 
IN JULY 2018 MR. MORRISON 
JOINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL FOR COUNTERING WEAPONS 
OF MASS DESTRUCTION: THE 
DEPARTURE OF DR. FIONA HILL IN 
JULY 2019 MR. MORRISON ASSUMED 
THE POSITION OF SENIOR DIRECTOR 
FOR RUSSIA AND EUROPE. 
TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE THE 
WITNESSES ARE SWORN. 
THE FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITION AS 
PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE 
UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL 
OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD 
AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. 
AND INFORMATION MAY TOUCH 
UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND 
WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. 
SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT 
TOLERATE ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE 
AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL TESTIFIED BEFORE 
CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY 
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. 
IF YOU'LL BOTH PLEASE RAISE AND 
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I WILL 
SWEAR YOU AND IN. 
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE 
TEST LIKE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO 
HELP YOU GOD? 
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE. 
THANK YOU. 
PLEASE BE SEATED. 
THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE 
SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO 
THEM WITHOUT OBJECTIVE YOUR 
WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL ALSO BE 
MADE PART OF THE RECORD. 
WITH THAT, MR. MORRISON YOU ARE 
RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT AND IMMEDIATELY 
THEREAFTER AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, AND MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMITTEE, I. BEFORE YOU 
TODAY UNDER SUBPOENA TO ANSWER 
YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT MY TIME AS 
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE  AND 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
IS RELATED TO UKRAINE AND U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THAT 
COUNTRY. 
I WILL PROVIDE YOU THE MOST 
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE 
INFORMATION THAT I CAN 
CONSISTENT WITH MY OBLIGATION 
TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION. 
WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT IS THE 
SUBJECT OF THIS INQUIRY MERITS 
IMPEACHMENT IS A QUESTION FOR 
THE U.S. HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
I APPEAR HERE TODAY ONLY TO 
PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION 
BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE AND 
RECOLLECTION OF EVENTS. 
I WILL NOT WASTE TIME RESTATING 
THE DETAILS OF MY OPENING 
STATEMENT FOR MY DEPOSITION ON 
OCTOBER 31, 2019, WHICH HAS 
RECENTLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC; 
HOWEVER, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE 
FOLLOWING KEY POINTS. 
úFIRST, AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, 
I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS NOR DO I 
INTEND TO SPECULATE AS TO WHO 
THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE. 
SECOND, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT 
FOR MY FORMER COLLEAGUES AND 
THE REST OF THE INTERAGENCY. 
I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO QUESTION 
THEIR CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY. 
MY RECOLLECTIONS ARE MY OWN. 
ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES 
RECOLLECTIONS THEY DIFFER FROM 
MINE BUT I DO NOT VIEW THOSE 
DIFFERENCES AS THE RESULT OF AN 
UNTOWARD PURPOSE. 
THIRD, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE 
UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINES 
OF A STRATEGIC COMPETITION úBET 
PUTIN'S RUSSIA. 
RUSSIA IS A FEELING POWER, BUT 
IT IS STILL A DANGEROUS ONE. 
THE UNITED STATES AIDS UKRAINE 
AT HER PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN 
FIGHT RUSSIA OVER THERE AND WE 
DO NOT HAVE TO FIGHT RUSSIA 
HERE. 
SUPPORT FOR THE TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN 
OBJECTIVE SINCE RUSSIA'S 
MILITARY INVASION IN 2014. 
IT MUST CONTINUE TO BE. AS I 
STATED DURING MY DEPOSITION, I 
FEARED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL 
ON JULY 25 HOW THIS DISCLOSURE 
WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLITICAL CLIMATE. 
MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED. 
UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, BUT I BEG YOU NOT 
TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE MILITARY 
CONFLICT UNDERWAY IN EASTERN 
UKRAINE TODAY. 
THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF 
CRIMEA. 
EVERY DAY THAT THE FOCUS OF 
DISCUSSION INVOLVING UKRAINE IS 
CENTERED ON THESE PROCEEDINGS 
IS OF THOSE MATTERS IS A DAY 
WHEN WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON THE 
INTEREST OF UKRAINE, UNITED 
STATES, AND WHAT WE SHARE. 
FINALLY, I CONCLUDED MY ACTIVE 
SERVICE AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL THE DAY AFTER 
HE LAST APPEARED BEFORE YOU AND 
I LEFT THE NFC COMPANY OF MY 
OWN VOLITION. 
I FELT NO PRESSURE TO RESIGN 
NOR HAVE A FEARED RETALIATION. 
I MADE THIS CAREER CHOICE 
SOMETIME BEFORE I DECIDED TO 
TESTIFY OCTOBER 31 AND AM 
PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY 
ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER? 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS 
TESTIMONY TODAY. 
AS YOU KNOW, I WAS THE FIRST 
PERSON TO COME FORWARD TO 
TESTIFY AS PART OF THIS 
INQUIRY. 
I DID SO VOLUNTARILY. LIKEWISE 
VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED RELEVANT 
DOCUMENTATION TO BE AS 
COOPERATIVE, CLEAR, AND 
COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE. 
I AM HERE TODAY VOLUNTARILY AND 
I REMAIN COMMITTED TO 
COOPERATING TRUTHFULLY WITH 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
ALL I CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE 
FACTS AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM AT 
THE TIME. 
I DID THIS ON OCTOBER 3 IN 
PRIVATE, AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN 
TODAY. 
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHO TESTIFIED 
IN THIS INQUIRY, I AM A CAREER 
FOREIGN-POLICY PROFESSIONAL. 
I BEGAN MY CAREER AS AN 
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST FOR 
NORTHERN EUROPE FOR THE CENTRAL 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN 1986 
BEFORE JOINING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN 1988. 
I SERVED IN DIPLOMATIC POSTINGS 
PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN 
POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES 
FOR OVER 20 YEARS UNDER 
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, GEORGE 
W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE 
W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA. MY 
LAST THREE POSITIONS BEFORE 
LEAVING THE SENIOR FOREIGN 
SERVICE IN 2009 AS DIRECTOR FOR 
NATO AND WESTERN EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, SECRETARY OF 
STATE FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND 
FINALLY AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 
NATO. 
IN THE SPRING OF 2017 THEN 
SECRETARY OF STATE TO US AND 
ASKED IF I WOULD COME BACK TO 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE AS U.S. 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS. 
I DID THIS ON A PART-TIME 
VOLUNTARY BASIS WITH NO SALARY 
PAID BY THE U.S. TAXPAYER 
SIMPLY BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT 
WAS IMPORTANT TO SERVE OUR 
COUNTRY IN THIS WAY. I BELIEVE 
I WOULD HAVE STEERED U.S. 
POLICY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
FOR OVER TWO YEARS AS A SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEGOTIATIONS 
MY SINGULAR FOCUS WAS ADVANCING 
THE FOREIGN-POLICY AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
IN PARTICULAR THAT MEANT 
PUSHING BACK ON RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION AND SUPPORTING THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG, 
RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND 
PROSPEROUS UKRAINE. 
ONE THAT OVERCOMES A LEGACY OF 
CORRUPTION AND BECOMES 
INTEGRATED INTO A TRANSATLANTIC 
COMMUNITY. 
IF WE COULD STOP AND REVERSE 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE 
WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT 
ELSEWHERE. 
IF UKRAINE THE CRADLE OF SLAVIC 
CIVILIZATION PREDATING MOSCOW 
SUCCEEDS AS A SECURE DEMOCRACY, 
IT GIVES US A ENORMOUS HOPE 
THAT RUSSIA MAY ONE DAY CHANGE 
PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR 
RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND OVERCOMING 
ITS PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION AND 
THREATS TO NATO AND THE UNITED 
STATES . THE STEAKS AND A 
SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE COULD NOT BE 
HIGHER. AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE 
OF OR TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT TO 
URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN. 
AS YOU KNOW FROM THE 
DOCUMENTATION I PROVIDED, VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WAS ON THE 
TOPIC OF OUR DISCUSSIONS. 
I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF 
REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN  UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THAT CALL WAS REALLY SEPTEMBER 
25, 2019. 
FROM 2017 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 
2019 I WAS THE LEAD U.S. 
DIPLOMAT DEALING WITH THE WAR 
ON UKRAINE. 
MY ROLE IS NOT SOME IRREGULAR 
CHANNEL FOR THE OFFICIAL 
CHANNEL. 
I REPORTED DIRECTLY TO SECTOR 
IS TAKE TILSON AND POMPEO AND 
KEPT THEM WELL INFORMED OF MY 
EFFORTS AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND RUSS 
MITCHELL  AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, LAURA 
COOPER, AND ALEX BENJAMIN AND 
MANY OTHERS. 
I HAVE KNOWN MANY OF THEM FOR 
SEVERAL YEARS. ONE AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH  LEFT KYIV A 
RECOMMENDED  BILL TAYLOR SO WE 
WILL STILL HAVE A STRONG 
PROFESSIONAL ON THE GROUND. 
FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THE EVENTS 
AT THE HEART OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE I WAS 
THE MOST SENIOR U.S. DIPLOMAT 
VISITING THE CONFLICT THEM, 
MEETING WITH VICTIMS OF 
RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION, URGING 
INCREASED SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
WORKING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT
AND WORKING WITH FRANCE AND 
GERMANY IN THE NORMANDY PROCESS
, PRESSING FOR SUPPORT FROM 
NATO, THE EU, AND SUPPORTING 
THE SPECIAL MONITORING MISSION 
AND ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS 
AND OTHER CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN 
OFFICIALS. 
AT THE TIME I TOOK THE POSITION 
IN DECEMBER 2017 THERE WERE 
MAJOR COMPLICATED QUESTIONS 
SWIRLING ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF 
U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE. 
WITH A LIFT SANCTIONS AGAINST 
RUSSIA? 
WOULDN'T MAKE A GRAND BARGAIN 
AND TRADE RECOGNITION OF THE 
SEIZURE OF TERRITORY OR 
ELSEWHERE? 
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION 
RECOGNIZING THE CLAIMED 
ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA? 
WILL THIS JUST BECOME ANOTHER 
FROZEN CONFLICT? 
THERE IS A VAST NUMBER OF 
VACANCIES IN KEY DIPLOMATIC 
POSITIONS. 
DURING OVER TWO YEARS OF MY 
TENURE WE FUNDAMENTALLY TURNED 
U.S. POLICY AROUND.
'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE WAS 
STRONG, CONSISTENT, AND ENJOYED 
SUPPORT ACROSS THE 
ADMINISTRATION BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT IN CONGRESS AND SUPPORT 
AMONG OUR ALLIES AND UKRAINE. 
WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE 
COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE 
RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION. 
I WAS THE MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC 
FIGURE HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA'S 
INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF 
PARTS OF UKRAINE CALLING OUT 
RUSSIA'S RESPONSIBILITY TO END 
THE WAR. I VISITED THE WAR ZONE 
THREE TIMES, MEETING WITH 
SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS ALIKE 
ALWAYS BRINGING MEDIA WITH ME 
TO RAISE THE PUBLIC VISIBILITY 
OF RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION AND THE 
HUMANITARIAN IMPACT ON THE 
LIVES OF THE CITIZENS. WE 
COORDINATED CLOSELY WITH OUR 
EUROPEAN ALLIES IN CANADA TO 
MAINTAIN A UNITED FRONT AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND FOR 
UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY WE FORMED 
SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY. 
UKRAINE POLICY IS PERHAPS THE 
ONE AREA WHERE THE U.S. AND ITS 
ALLIES HAD BEEN IN LOCKSTEP. 
THIS COORDINATION HELPED TO 
STRENGTHEN U.S. SANCTIONS 
AGAINST RUSSIA AND TO MAINTAIN 
EU SANCTIONS AS WELL. ALONG 
WITH OTHERS IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION I STRONGLY 
ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING THE BAN 
ON THE SALE OF LETHAL DEFENSIVE 
ARMS TO UKRAINE AND ADVOCATED 
FOR INCREASING SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND URGED 
OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT. 
MY TEAM AND I DRAFTED THE 
POMPEO DECLARATION OF JULY 25, 
20 18th, IN WHICH THE SECRETARY 
CLEARLY LAID OUT THE U.S. 
POLICY OF NONRECOGNITION OF 
RUSSIA'S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF 
CRIMEA. 
I ENGAGE WITH OUR ALLIES WITH 
UKRAINE AND WITH RUSSIA 
NEGOTIATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE 
AGREEMENTS HOLDING A WITHDRAWAL 
OF RUSSIAN FORCES AND RESTORING 
UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND 
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. 
TOGETHER WITH OTHERS WE KEPT 
U.S. POLICY STUDY THROUGH 
PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE AND WORKED 
HARD TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S. 
UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE 
NEW PRESIDENT AND GOVERNMENT 
HELPING TO SHEPHERD IN A 
PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER. 
IN SHORT, WHEREAS TWO YEARS AGO 
MOST OBSERVERS WOULD'VE SAID 
TIME IS ON THE SIDE OF RUSSIA, 
BY 2019 I DEPARTED WE HAD 
TURNED THE TABLES AND TIME IS 
NOW ON THE SIDE OF UKRAINE. IS 
A TRAGEDY FOR THE UNITED STATES 
AND FOR UKRAINE THAT OUR 
EFFORTS IN THIS AREA WHICH WERE 
BEARING FRUIT HAVE NOW BEEN 
THROWN INTO DISARRAY. 
ONE OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF 
MY ROLE AS U.S. SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT AS THE 
MOST SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL 
APPOINTED WORKS ONLY ON THE 
UKRAINE FOR POLIO, I NEEDED TO 
STEP FORWARD TO PROVIDE 
LEADERSHIP. 
IF WE NEEDED TO ADOPT A POLICY 
POSITION, HE MADE THE CASE FOR 
IT. 
IF ANYONE NEEDED TO SPEAK OUT 
PUBLICLY, I WOULD DO IT. 
WHEN WE FAILED TO GET A TIMELY 
STATEMENT ABOUT THE RUSSIA 
LEGAL ATTACK ON THE UKRAINE 
NAVY AND THE SEIZURE OF UKRAINE 
SAILORS I TWEETED ABOUT IT IN 
ORDER TO CONDEMN THE ACT. 
IF A PROBLEM AROSE, I KNEW THAT 
IT WAS MY JOB TO TRY TO FIX IT. 
THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE WHEN I 
LEARNED IN MAY 2019 THAT WE HAD 
A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IMPEDING 
OUR ABILITY TO STRENGTHEN OUR 
SUPPORT FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE IN HIS EFFORT TO 
RAMP UP UKRAINE'S FIGHT AGAINST 
CORRUPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
OF NEEDED REFORMS. 
I FOUND MYSELF FACED WITH A 
CHOICE TO BE AWARE OF A PROBLEM 
IS TO IGNORE IT OR TO ACCEPT 
THAT IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY 
TO TRY TO FIX IT. 
I TRIED TO FIX IT. 
THE PROBLEM IS THAT DESPITE THE 
UNANIMOUS POSITIVE ASSESSMENT 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE OF 
US WHO ARE PART OF THE U.S. 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION THAT 
ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS RECEIVING A DIFFERENT 
NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT 
UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
THAT NARRATIVE WAS FUELED BY 
ACCUSATION  FROM THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL AND CONVEYED TO THE 
PRESIDENT BY FORMER MAYOR RUDY 
GIULIANI. AS I PREVIOUSLY TOLD 
THIS COMMITTEE, I BECAME AWARE 
OF THE IMPACT THIS WAS HAVING 
ON OUR POLICY EFFORTS WHEN FOUR 
OF US WHO ARE PART OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE 
EGGNOG RATION MET AS A GROUP 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23. 
WE STRESSED OUR FINDING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPRESENTED 
THE BEST CHANCE FOR GETTING 
UKRAINE OUT OF CORRUPTION IT 
HAD BEEN IN FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
WE URGED HIM TO INVITE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE  THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY 
SKEPTICAL. 
GIVEN UKRAINE'S HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION, THAT IS 
UNDERSTANDABLE. 
HE SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS A 
CORRUPT COUNTRY FULL OF 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE. 
HE SAID THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME 
DOWN. 
IN THE COURSE OF THE 
CONVERSATION, HE REFERENCED 
CONVERSATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI
BOOK IT WAS CLEAR TO ME DESPITE 
THE POSITIVE NEWS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS BEING CONVEYED 
BY THIS OFFICIAL DELEGATION 
ABOUT THE NEW PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE 
VIEW ON UKRAINE ROOTED IN THE 
PAST. 
HE WAS RECEIVING OTHER 
INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES, 
INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI THAT 
WAS MORE NEGATIVE, CAUSING HIM 
TO RETAIN THIS NEGATIVE VIEW.  
WITHIN A FEW DAYS ON MAY 29, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED THE 
CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHICH 
INCLUDED AN INVITATION TO THE 
PRESIDENT TO VISIT HIM AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE . MORE THAN FOUR 
WEEKS PAST, AND WE CANNOT NAIL 
DOWN A DATE FOR THE MEETING. 
I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S LONG-HELD NEGATIVE 
VIEW TOWARD UKRAINE WAS CAUSING 
HESITATION AND ACTUALLY 
SCHEDULING THE MEETING. 
AS MUCH AS WE HAVE SEEN IN OUR 
OVAL OFFICE DISCUSSION. 
AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT WAS JUST A 
SCHEDULING ISSUE, DECIDED TO 
TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE 
HAD A PROBLEM WITH INFORMATION 
REACHING MR. TRUMP AND I DID SO 
IN TORONTO ON JULY 2, 2019  
WHERE I LEAD THE U.S. 
DELEGATION. 
I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY IN 
ORDER TO RENEW THEIR PERSONAL 
RELATIONSHIP AND TO ENSURE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS 
COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATING AND 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
THINGS ON WHICH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD BASED HIS 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN . I WAS 
CONVINCED GETTING THEM TO TALK 
WITH EACH OTHER WOULD OVERCOME 
THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF 
UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
STILL HARBORED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY 'S SENIOR AIDE ANDRIY 
YERMAK APPROACHED ME AND I 
AGREED TO MAKE THIS CONNECTION. 
I DID SO BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD 
THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
LEADERSHIP WANTED TO CONVINCE 
THOSE  LIKE RUDY GIULIANI WHO 
BELIEVED SUCH A NEGATIVE 
NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE THAT 
TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT 
UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  
UKRAINE IS WORTHY OF YOUR 
SUPPORT. 
UKRAINIANS BELIEVED THAT IF 
THEY COULD GET THEIR OWN 
NARRATIVE ACROSS IN A WAY THAT 
CONVINCED RUDY GIULIANI THAT 
THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT 
ADVANCING REFORM, MAYOR 
GIULIANI WOULD CONVEY THAT TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CORRECT A 
PREVIOUSLY NEGATIVE NARRATIVE. 
IT MADE SENSE TO ME, AND I HAVE 
TRIED TO BE HELPFUL. 
I MADE CLEAR TO UKRAINE THAT  
MAYOR GIULIANI  WAS A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN AND NOT REPRESENTING 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. 
LIKEWISE IN MY CONVERSATIONS I 
NEVER CONSIDERED HIM TO BE 
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE 
PRESIDENT WERE GIVEN 
INSTRUCTIONS. 
RATHER THE INFORMATION FLOW WAS 
THE OTHER WAY FROM UKRAINE TO 
MAYOR GIULIANI IN HOPES THIS 
WILL CLEAR UP THE INFORMATION 
REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP.  
ON JULY 10 AFTER HEARING FROM 
ANDRIY YERMAK I WROTE TO MAYOR 
GIULIANI AND ON JULY 19 WE MET 
FOR BREAKFAST AT  A LONGER 
DISCUSSION. 
AT THAT MEETING I TOLD MR. 
GIULIANI THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL 
WITH WHOM HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING 
WAS NOT CREDIBLE AND IS ACTING 
IN A SELF-SERVING CAPACITY. 
TO MY SURPRISE MAYOR GIULIANI 
SAID HE'D ALREADY COME TO THE 
SAME CONCLUSION AND HE ALSO 
MENTIONED THAT THE ACCUSATIONS 
ABOUT  
IN ANY WAY BY FINANCIAL OR 
PERSONAL MOTIVES IN CARRYING 
OUT HIS DUTIES AS VICE 
PRESIDENT. 
A DIFFERENT ISSUE IS WHERE SOME 
INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE 
ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 
ELECTION OR THOUGHT THEY COULD 
BUY INFLUENCE. 
THAT IS PLAUSIBLE GIVEN 
UKRAINE'S REPUTATION FOR 
CORRUPTION. 
THEY MET IN PERSON ON AUGUST 2, 
2019. 
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ME 
FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, WHICH I 
DID NOT ATTEND. 
MR. RUDY GILUIANI THAT HE TOLD 
HIM IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S 
PROGRAM THEY WOULD BE 
CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS. 
S. 
THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE, IT WAS CLEAR HE 
WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER 
ANY UKRAINIANS ACTED 
INAPPROPRIATELY. 
AT THIS TIME, I WAS FOCUSED ON 
OUR GOAL OF GETTING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
MEET WITH EACH OTHER. 
I BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING SO 
WOULD OVERCOME THE CHRONICALLY 
NEGATIVE VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD TOWARDS UKRAINE. 
I WAS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE 
PROBLEM I SAW WHEN WE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE ON MAY 23rd. 
I WAS COMFORTABLE EXPLORING IF 
THERE WAS A STATEMENT UKRAINE 
COULD MAKE ABOUT ITS OWN 
INTENTIONS TO INVESTIGATE 
POSSIBLE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD 
BE HELPFUL THIS CONVINCING MR. 
GILUIANI TO CONVEY A MORE 
POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW 
LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE. 
ON AUGUST 16, HE SHARED A DRAFT 
WITH ME THAT I THOUGHT LOOKED 
REASONABLE. 
IT DID NOT MENTION 2016 
ELECTIONS. 
IT WAS GENERIC. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A 
FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. 
GILUIANI SAID THE STATEMENT 
SHOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
REFERENCE TO 2016 AND 
MY LAST CONTACT WITH MR. 
GILUIANI WAS AUGUST 13th UNTIL 
HE TRIED TO REACH ME SEPTEMBER 
20th  AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY WAS LAUNCHED. 
AT THIS TIME, THAT IS THE SAY 
IN THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST, I 
THOUGHT THE IDEA OF ISSUING 
THIS STATEMENT HAD BEEN 
SCRAPPED. 
IN SEPTEMBER, I WAS SURPRISED 
TO LEARN THAT THERE HAD BEEN 
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH 
UKRAINIANS ABOUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY POSSIBLY MAKING A 
STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH 
U.S. MEDIA SIMILAR TO WHAT WE 
HAD DISCUSSED IN AUGUST. 
SINCE THESE EVENTS AND SINCE I 
GAVE MY TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 
3rd, A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION HAVE COME TO LIGHT. 
I LEARNED MANY THINGS I DID NOT 
KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS 
IN QUESTION. 
FIRST, AT THE TIME I WAS 
CONNECTING THE TWO AND 
DISCUSSING WITH HIM AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO 
POSSIBILITY STATEMENT MADE BY 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT I DID 
NOT KNOW OF ANY LINKAGE OF A 
HOLD OF ASSISTANCE. 
NO ONE EVER SAID THAT TO ME. 
I OPPOSED TO HOLD ON U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS SOONS A 
I LEARNED ABOUT IT ON JULY 
18th. 
I THOUGHT WE COULD TURN IT 
AROUND BEFORE UKRAINIANS EVER 
KNEW ABOUT IT IT. 
I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME 
AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AUGUST 
29th  AND NOT BEFORE. 
THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY 
OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUT THE HOLD 
BY AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 
POLITICO. 
WHEN I SPOKE TO UKRAINIANS 
AUGUST 29th, INSTEAD OF TELLING 
THEM THEY NEEDED TO DO 
SOMETHING TO GET THE HOLD 
RELEASED. 
I TOLD THEM THE OPPOSITE. 
IT WAS A U.S. PROBLEM. 
WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT 
FIXED. 
I DID NOT KNOW OTHERS WERE 
CONVEYING A DIFFERENT MESSAGE 
AT THE SAME TIME. 
I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE STRONG 
CONCERNS EXPECTED BY JOHN 
BOLTON TO MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF 
REGARDING THE DISCUSSION OF 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th 
MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON AND 
UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. 
THE MEETING WAS OVER WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE A 
GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT 
WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
THE CONVERSATION DID NOT 
CONTINUE. 
THE MEETING CONCLUDED. 
LATER ON IN THE WARD ROOM I MAY 
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SIDE 
CONVERSATION OR ALREADY LEFT 
THE COMPLEX BECAUSE I DO NOT 
REMEMBER FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS 
ABOUT BURISMA. 
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND OTHERS 
BELIEVED ANY INVESTIGATION IN 
THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA 
WAS AMOUNT TO INVESTIGATING 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
IT HAS LONG BEEN U.S. POLICY 
UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS 
TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
AND FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION. 
I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH UKRAINE 
MAKING ITS OWN STATEMENT ABOUT 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION AT HOME. 
MAYOR GILUIANI AND I REJECTED 
THE CONSPIRACY THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN 
INFLUENCED BY HIS DUTIED AS 
VICE PRESIDENT BY MONEY MADE TO 
HIS SON. 
I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN FOR 24 YEARS. 
HE IS AN HONORABLE MAN. 
I HOLD HIM IN THE HIGHEST 
REGARD. 
AT NO TIME WAS AWAY OF OR 
KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN AN 
EFFORT TO URGE UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
AS YOU KNOW, VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN WAS A NOT TOPIC OF 
DISCUSSION. 
I WAS NOT ON THE  JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
I WAS NOT MADE AWARE TO A 
REFERENCE OF VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN AND HIS SON UNTIL THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS 
RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. 
I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS A 
DISTINCTION. 
I DID NOT KNOW THEY CONFLATED 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
IN RETROSPECT, IT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN CONFUSING. 
IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND 
OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF 
INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING BURISMA AS 
EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
I SAW THEM AS DIFFERENT. 
THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE. 
IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE 
SEEN THE CONNECTION 
DIFFERENTLY. 
HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE 
RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS. 
MUCH AS BEEN MADE OF THE TERM 
THREE AMIGOS. 
I NEVER USED THAT TERM AND 
FRANKLY GRIN. 
í WHEN I HEAR IT BECAUSE IT 
WILL ALWAYS REFER TO SENATOR 
McCAIN, LIEBERMAN AND GRAHAM IN 
REFERENCE TO THEIR WORK IN 
IRAQ. 
I WAS NEVER AWARE OF 
DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
OR ANYONE ELSE PUTTING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALL THREE 
OF US IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE 
POLICY. 
WE CONTINUED TO WORK TOGETHER 
AFTER OUR ATTENDANCE OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION. 
LEADING DIPLOMACY. 
I WELCOMED THE INFLUENCE OF A 
CABINET MEMBER AND EU 
AMBASSADOR. 
FIFTH, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26th. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I WERE 
VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, ALLOW ME TO THANK 
YOU AGAIN FOR PROVIDING THIS 
TESTIMONY. 
I BELIEVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
AND NATIONAL INTEREST IN 
UKRAINE. 
I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. 
>> WE'LL MOVE TO THE FIRST 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS. 
IT WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE 
CHAIRMAN. 
FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES FOR THE 
MINORITY COUNCIL. 
FOLLOWING THAT WE'LL PROCEED 
UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. 
EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE 
TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR COUNCIL 
FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER I WAS GOING 
TO YIELD TO THE COUNCIL. 
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS 
YOU MADE IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENTS I WANTED TO ASK 
ABOUT FIRST. 
FIRST, YOU SAID THAT NOW FORMER 
ATTORNEY SENKO WAS NOT 
CREDIBLE, HE IS THE AUTHOR OF A 
NUMBER OF
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH. 
A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS SHARED 
WITH THE HILL. 
A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS 
REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP BY MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. 
WHY IS IT THAT YOU FOUND HIM 
NOT CREDIBLE AND TOLD MR. 
GILUIANI SO? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
FIRST OFF, THE ALLEGATIONS 
THEMSELVES, INCLUDING THOSE 
AGAINST AMBASSADOR MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH DID NOT APPEAR TO 
BE CREDIBLE AT ALL. 
I KNOW HER TO BE AN INCREDIBLY 
COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL. 
SOMEONE I WORKED WITH MANY, 
MANY YEARS. 
SUGGESTIONS SHE WAS ACTING IN 
SOME INAPPROPRIATE MANNER WERE 
NOT CREDIBLE TO ME. 
I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME. 
THOSE ACCUSATIONS WERE NOT 
CREDIBLE. 
SEPARATE FROM THAT, I WAS AWARE 
OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN 
UKRAINE. 
WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT APPEARED TO NOT BE IN 
A FAVORABLE POSITION GOING INTO 
THE ELECTIONS WHERE 
INCREASINGLY APPARENT THEN 
CANDIDATES ZELENSKY WAS GOING 
TO WIN. 
AS IS OFTEN THE CASE IN 
UKRAINE, A CHANGE IN POWER 
MEANS A CHANGE IN PROSECUTORIAL 
EFFORTS. 
HE WAS INTERESTED IN PRESERVING 
HIS OWN POSITION. 
HE WANTED TO AVOID BEING FIRED 
BY A NEW GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO 
PREVENT POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF 
HIMSELF. 
THIS IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE WELCOMED, AS WELL, 
HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE AVOIDED 
ANY EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE AS 
WELL. 
BY MAKING ALLEGATIONS AND 
MAKING SURE THEY WERE REACHING 
U.S. MEDIA, I THINK HE WAS 
TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF APPEAR 
TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND 
INFLUENTIAL PLAYER IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN. 
THAT HAS BEEN A CONTINUING 
REFRAIN FROM SOME OF MY 
COLLEAGUES, AS WELL. 
WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN 
RELATED TO HIS SON OR BURISMA 
NOT TO BE BELIEVED? 
>> SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE KNOWN 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR 
A LONG TIME. 
I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS 
DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE. 
IT IS JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME 
THAT A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DO 
ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACT AS HOW 
HE SEES BEST FOR THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
>> FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, BEFORE 
I TURN IT OVER, I WAS STRUCK BY 
SOMETHING YOU SAID ON PAGE 8 OF 
YOUR STATEMENT. 
IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND 
OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF 
INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE 
UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA 
EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
IN RETROSPECT YOU SAID I SHOULD 
HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION 
DIFFERENTLY. 
HAD I DONE SO, I WOULD HAVE 
RAISED MY ON OBJECTIONS. 
WHAT IS IT NOW, AMBASSADOR, IN 
RIGHT ROW EXPECT THAT YOU 
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU DIDN'T AT 
THAT TIME THAT LEADS YOU TO 
CONCLUDE THAT YOU WOULD OR 
SHOULD HAVE RAISED THESE 
OBJECTIONS? 
>> OTHERS DID NOT SEE THE 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE 
THINGS AS I SAW IT. 
AS I SAID, THERE IS A HISTORY 
OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
THERE IS A HISTORY OF THE 
COMPANY OF BURISMA. 
IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED. 
THAT IS WELL-KNOWN. 
THERE IS A SEPARATE ALLEGATION 
ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ACTING 
INAPPROPRIATELY. 
HIS SON WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF 
THIS COMPANY. 
THESE THINGS I SAW AS DISTINCT. 
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN 
WORKING WITH UKRAINIANS WAS TO 
THREAD A NEEDLE TO SEE WHETHER 
THINGS THEY CAN DO THAT ARE 
APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE WAS 
PART OF UKRAINE'S OWN POLICY OF 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION THAT HELPED 
CLARIFY FOR OUR PRESIDENT THAT 
THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THAT VERY 
EFFORT. 
IF THERE IS A WAY TO THREAD 
THAT NEEDLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS 
WORTH THE EFFORT TO TRY TO 
SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. 
AS IT TURNS OUT, I NOW 
UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE 
OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T SEE OR 
DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS 
DISTINCTION. 
FOR THEM IT WAS IS I ANONYMOUS. 
>> ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAW 
IT 
HAD THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO 
GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDEN'S, YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD 
HIM SO. 
>> I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO 
THAT, YES, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
ONE FOLLOW UP ON THAT 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHEN YOU SAY 
THREAD THE NEEDLE, YOU MEAN 
THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON AND 
BURISMA BUT YOU WERE TRYING TO 
SEPARATE THE TWO OF THEM IN 
YOUR MINE. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE THEY WERE 
SEPARATE. 
THIS REFERENCES THE 
CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. 
GILUIANI, AS WELL WHERE I THINK 
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE SELF-
SERVING AND NOT CREDIBLE. 
SEPARATE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT 
IS APPROPRIATE FOR UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION 
OF UKRAINIANS THAT MAY HAVE 
TRIED TO CORRUPT THINGS OR BUY 
INFLUENCE. 
TO ME THERE ARE DIFFERENCE 
THINGS. 
AS I SAID I THINK THE FORMER IS 
ACCEPTABLE. 
>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUNT BIDEN 
AND BURISMA? 
>> I KNEW HE HAD BEEN A BOARD 
MEMBER, YES. 
>> LET'S FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL FOR A MOMENT. 
MR. MORRISON,  JULY 25th  WAS 
DAY NUMBER WHAT FOR YOU AS THE 
SENIOR DIRECTOR OVER SEEING 
UKRAINE? 
>> 15th, VERY FEW DAYS IN THE 
OFFICE. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT YOU RECEIVED AN 
E-MAIL ON THE MORNING OF  JULY 
25th  FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SHORTLY BEFORE THE CALL. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> I BELIEVE IN THAT E-MAIL, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE 
HAD BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 
ADVANCE OF THE CALL. 
YOU ALSO TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD YOU ON ANOTHER 
OCCASION THAT HE COULD CALL THE 
PRESIDENT WHEN EVER HE WANTED. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> ON JULY 25th, DID YOU, IN 
FACT, MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONFIRM 
WHETHER OR NOT THE PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY 
OCCURRED? 
>> I DID. 
>> DID IT HAPPEN? 
>> YES. 
>> ON OTHER OCCASIONS WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE 
SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, DID 
YOU SEEK CONFIRMATION OF THAT 
FACT? 
>> YES. 
>> ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU 
DID SEEK TO CONFIRM THAT THEY 
HAD SPOKEN, WHAT DID YOU FIND? 
>> THEY HASN'T. 
>> I WANT TO PULL UP A TEXT 
MESSAGE ON THE MORNING OF JULY 
25th  BETWEEN -- WELL IT SHOULD 
BE ANOTHER ONE. 
SORRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
WITH YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER. 
AT 7:54 IN THE MORNING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS CALL 
ASAP. 
THEN AT 9:35 AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
YOU RESPOND. 
IS THE SCREEN WORKING IN FRONT 
OF YOU OR JUST TO THE SIDE? 
IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU SAID 
AT 935. 
>> I SAID HI GORDON GOT YOUR 
MESSAGE. 
HAD A GREAT LUNCH AND PASSED 
YOUR MESSAGE TO HIM. 
HE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW. 
I THINK EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE. 
>> AND WHO IS THAT? 
>> ANDRE IS THE SENIOR ADVISOR 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
UKRAINE. 
>> WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE YOU HAD 
RECEIVED? 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE 
CLEAR, CONVINCING, FORT RIGHT 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HIS 
COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION, INVESTIGATING WHAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, GET TO 
THE BOTTOM OF THINGS, WHATEVER 
THERE IS. 
IF HE DOES THAT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS PREPARED TO BE 
REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY 
YES, LET'S GET THIS DATE FOR 
THIS VISIT SCHEDULED. 
>> DID YOU UNDERSTAND FROM THAT 
MESSAGE THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD SPOKEN TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> I WASN'T SURE WHETHER HE HAD 
OR NOT. 
HE DOES SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT. 
I KNEW HE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN 
GENERAL. 
I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY 
ABOUT ONE. 
>> ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF 
YOU IS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE 
FROM YOU THAT SAME MORNING AT 
8:36 IN THE MORNING TO ANDRE. 
>> YES. 
I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE TIME 
DIFFERENCE, THIS IS IN THE 
AFTERNOON IN UKRAINE. 
>> THIS IS EAST COAST TIME? 
>> YES. 
>> THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 
HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE. 
>> JUST AFTER THE LUNCH I HAD 
WITH ANDRE, GOOD LUCK. 
THANKS. 
HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, 
ASSUMING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
CONVINCES TRUMP INVESTIGATE AND 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT 
HAPPENED WE'LL NAIL DOWN DATE 
FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON. 
GOOD LUCK. 
SEE YOU TOMORROW. 
KURT. 
>> DOES THIS RELAY THE MESSAGE 
YOU RECEIVED FROM AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND? 
>> YES. 
>> DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL PREPARE TALKING POINTS 
FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THIS 
CALL? 
>> THE STAFF DID, YES. 
>> PER USUAL CUSTOM, WERE THESE 
TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE 
OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY 
OBJECTIVES? 
>> THEY WERE. 
>> SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A 
LITTLE BIT OF DISPUTE ABOUT 
WHAT THAT MEANS, CAN YOU 
EXPLAIN HOW OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY IS DETERMINED THROUGH 
THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS. 
>> IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE 
INTERNET. 
THAT LAYS OUT HOW THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS TO BE PROVIDED OPTIONS 
FOR HIS DECISION. 
>> THERE IS EXTENSIVE PROCESS 
TO FINALIZE ANY POLICY, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> SOMETIMES. 
>> YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL 
RIGHT? 
>> I DID. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THE CALL WAS 
NOT WHAT YOU WERE HOPING TO 
HEAR? 
>> I WAS HOPING FOR A MORE FULL-
THROATED STATEMENT OF SUPPORT 
FROM THE PRESIDENT CONCERNING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S REFORM 
AGENDA GIVEN WHERE WE WERE AT 
THE TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE 
OVERWHELMING MANDATE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SERVANT OF THE PARTY 
PEOPLE RECEIVED IN WASHINGTON. 
>> THAT IS THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT, THAT ELECTION 
OCCURRED FOUR DAYS EARLIER? 
>> SOUNDS RIGHT. 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY 
WON IN A LANDSLIDE? 
>> THEY RECEIVED MORE THAN A 
MAJORITY. 
>> AT LEAST IN UKRAINE THERE 
WAS TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR 
ZELENSKY'S ANTICORRUPTION 
AGENDA, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> AT THE TIME. 
>> WITHIN THE INNER AGENCIES 
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS 
THERE BROAD SUPPORT FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
>> THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR 
GIVING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A 
CHANCE. 
>> TO THAT POINT HE HAD SHOWN 
HE HAD AT LEAST PUT HIS MONEY 
WITH HIS MOUTH WAS FOR THE 
THREE MONTHS HE HAD BEEN IN 
OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, 
YES. 
>> I WANT TO SHOW A COUPLE 
EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL RECORD 
TO EACH OF YOU. 
THE FIRST IS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RESPONDING TO A COMMENT BY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELATED TO 
DEFENSE SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED 
STATES AND THE PURCHASE OF 
JAVELINS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
THOUGH. 
OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A 
LOT. 
UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. 
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. 
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. 
I GET YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 
WEALTHY PEOPLE. 
THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. 
THE NEXT EXEMPT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAYS THERE IS A LOT OF TALK 
ABOUT BIDEN'S SON. 
THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE 
PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE 
WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. 
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE 
GREAT. 
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE 
STOPPED THE PROSES CUSHION. 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF MUCH OF 
THIS AT THE TIME. 
>> IN FACT, SUBSEQUENT DO THIS 
CALL YOU DID NOTHING TO 
IMPLEMENT THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR, 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANY 
INSTRUCTION TO DO SO. 
>> YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE 
ELSE WITHIN -- YOU COORDINATE 
THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS. 
YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE 
ELSE DOING THAT EITHER, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OF 
DEPOSITION THAT HEARING THIS 
CALL CONFIRMED WHAT YOU CALLED 
THE PARALLEL PROCESS THAT YOUR 
PREDECESSOR, FIONA HILL WARNED 
YOU ABOUT. 
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? 
>> DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH 
DR. HILL AND I WERE CONDUCTING 
HANDOFF MEETINGS SO I COULD BE 
UP TO SPEED OF THE PORTFOLIO AT 
THE TIME, SHE MENTIONED THE 
TRADITIONAL PROCESS AND THE 
PARALLEL PROCESS. 
SHE MENTIONED ISSUES LIKE 
BURISMA, WHICH WERE NOT WORTHY 
TO ME AT THE TIME BECAUSE I HAD 
NEVER HEARD OF THEM BEFORE. 
UPON HEARING THEM IN THE CALL, 
I WOUND ALL CONFIRMING THERE IS 
SOMETHING HERE. 
>> WHO DID SHE INFORM YOU WAS 
INVOLVED IN THIS PARALLEL 
PROCESS? 
>> AS I RECALL IT WAS 
DEFINITELY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND MR. GILUIANI. 
>> AFTER SHE INFORMED YOU OF 
THIS COMPANY, BURISMA, WHAT, IF 
ANYTHING, DID YOU DO TO 
DETERMINE WHAT THAT WAS? 
>> AFTER THAT PARTICULAR 
HANDOFF MEETING I PROCEEDED TO 
LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET. 
I GOOGLED IT. 
>> DID YOU FIND IT HAD 
ASSOCIATION WITH HUNTER BIDEN? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED 
AND TROUBLED AFTER YOU READ THE 
CALL RECORD AFTER IT WAS 
RELEASED  SEPTEMBER 25th. 
YOU SAID AFTER READING THE CALL 
RECORD IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU THAT 
THE BIDEN BURISMA PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE CALL. 
WERE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTEREST, 
NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST. 
WHAT DID YOU MEAN? 
>> IS THAT LANGUAGE FROM MY 
OCTOBER 3rd TESTIMONY? 
>> YES, IT WAS. 
WHAT I DO MEAN BY THAT AND I 
WOULD LIKE TO PHRASE IT IN MY 
OWN WORDS NOW. 
I DON'T THINK RAISING 2016 
ELECTIONS OR VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN OR THESE THINGS I 
CONSIDER TO BE CONSPIRACIES 
THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY 
THE UKRAINIANS, PARTICULARLY 
THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL, 
ARE -- THEY ARE NOT THINGS WE 
SHOULD BE PURSUING AS PART OF 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY 
WITH UKRAINE. 
WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING 
UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY, REFORMS. 
IT IS OWN FIGHT AGAINST 
CORRUPTION, ITS STRUGGLE 
AGAINST RUSSIA ITS DEFENSE 
CAPABILITIES. 
THESE ARE THE HEART OF WHAT WE 
SHOULD BE PURSUING. 
I DON'T THINK PURSUING THESE 
THINGS SERVED A NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
>> MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER 
YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, 
YOU TESTIFIED YOU ALERTED THE 
LEGAL ADVISOR PRETTY MUCH RIGHT 
AWAY. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU INDICATED IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WENT 
TO HIM OVER THE CONCERN OF THE 
POTENTIAL POLITICAL FALLOUT IF 
THE CALL RECORD BECAME PUBLIC. 
NOT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT WAS 
LEGAL. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, THAT 
ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL RIVAL IS 
INAPPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU NOT? 
>> IT IS NOT WHAT WE 
RECOMMENDED THE PRESIDENT 
DISCUSS. 
>> NOW, IN A SECOND MEETING 
WITH HIM, WHAT DID YOU 
RECOMMEND THAT HE DO TO PREVENT 
THE CALL RECORD FROM LEAKING? 
>> I RECOMMENDED WE RESTRICT 
ACCESS. 
>> HAVE YOU EVER DONE THAT 
BEFORE? 
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR 
SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU WENT TO 
SPEAK? 
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY LEARN 
THE CALL RECORD HAD BEEN PUT IN 
A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. 
WHAT REASON DID HE GIVE YOU FOR 
WHY THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT IN 
THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. 
>> IT WAS A MISTAKE. 
>> HE SAID IT WAS A MISTAKE. 
>> IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE 
ERROR. 
>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU HAD 
AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS ON 
THE REGULAR SYSTEM IF YOU 
WANTED TO? 
>> I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE 
INSTRUCTED THE APPROPRIATE 
STAFF TO DO SO, YES. 
>> WHY DID YOU GO TO THE LEGAL 
ADVISOR TO RECOMMEND THAT? 
>> I WAS CONCERNED THAT, BASED 
ON THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE 
LISTENING ROOM, I DID NOT THEN 
AND I DO NOT NOW RECALL ANY 
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LEGAL 
ADVISOR'S OFFICE AS THEY WERE 
OFTEN OR HEAD OF STATE CALLSER 
BUT NOT ALWAYS. 
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT JOHN 
AND HIS DEPUTY WERE AWARE TO 
REVIEW THIS PARTICULAR 
TRANSCRIPT. 
>> YOU WANTED THEM TO REVIEW IT 
BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IF POTENTIAL POLITICAL 
CONSEQUENCES? 
NOT BECAUSE ANYTHING WAS WRONG? 
>> CORRECT. 
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES WAS AN 
UMBRELLA TERM I USED TO 
DESCRIBE A SERIES OF EFFECTS I 
FEARED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN 
IF AND WHEN THE CONTENT OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT OR THE CONTENT 
LEAKED. 
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I 
UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, YOU 
HEARD THE CALL, YOU RECOGNIZED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT 
DISCUSSING THE TALKING POINTS 
THAT THE NSC PREPARED AND WAS 
INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT FIONA HILL 
HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT. 
THEN YOU REPORTED IT 
IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL 
ADVISOR? 
IS THAT THE CORRECT CHAIN OF 
EVENTS? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN THE 
JULY 25th  CALL, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY VOLUNTEERS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT RUDY 
GILUIANI HAD ALREADY SPOKEN THE 
ONE OF HIS ASSOCIATES. 
AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HOPES GILUIANI WILL COME TO 
UKRAINE. 
IN RESPONSE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PROCEEDS TO MENTION MR. 
GILUIANI ON THREE SEPARATE 
OCCASIONS DURING THIS CALL. 
YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A MAY 23rd 
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT SPOKE QUITE 
NEGATIVELY ABOUT UKRAINE AND 
HOW IT WOULD TRY TO TAKE HIM 
DOWN. 
AND THAT HE ALSO REPEATED SOME 
OF THE ALLEGATIONS MR. GILUIANI 
WAS MAKING. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE IN 
THE MEDIA, WERE THEY NOT? 
>> YES. 
>> DURING THAT MEETING, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
SECRETARY TERRY TO TALK TO 
GILUIANI, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN 
INSTRUCTION. 
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
HE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT I 
HEAR. 
WHEN WE WERE GIVING HIM OUR 
ASSESSMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND WHERE UKRAINE WAS 
HEADED. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEAR. 
I HEAR HE HAS TERRIBLE THINGS. 
HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND 
HIM. 
TALK TO RUDY. 
I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN 
INSTRUCTION. 
>> WHEN HE SAID TALK TO RUDY, 
YOU DIDN'T TAKE HIM TO MEAN FOR 
YOU TO TALK TO RUDY? 
>> I DIDN'T TAKE IT THAT WAY. 
I TOOK IT AS THAT JUST PART OF 
THE DIALOG THAT I HEAR OTHER 
THINGS -- I HEAR THEM FROM RUDY 
GILUIANI AND OTHER PEOPLE. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON. 
HE IS SURROUNDED BY AN MATERIAL 
PEOPLE. 
TALK TO RUDY. 
IT SEEMED LIKE PART OF THE 
DIALOG. 
>> AFTER THAT MEETING, DID YOU 
IN FACT, TALK TO RUDY? 
>> AFTER THAT MEETING, NOT 
IMMEDIATELY, NO. 
REMEMBER, THIS WAS MAY 23rd. 
WE CONTINUED TO PROCEED WITH 
OUR EFFORT TO GET THE WHITE 
HOUSE VISIT OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SCHEDULED AND TO WRAP 
UP OUR SUPPORT FOR THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND 
GOVERNMENT. 
I DID, HOWEVER ON JULY 2nd, AS 
I WAS BECOMING CONCERNED THAT 
WE WERE NOT SUCCEEDING, TELL 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY I THINK WE 
HAVE A PROBLEM. 
THAT PROBLEM BEING NEGATIVE 
FEED OF INFORMATION FROM MR. 
GILUIANI. 
>> ULTIMATELY, I THINK AS YOU 
TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT, YOU OF INTRODUCED 
HIM TO MR. GILUIANI AND THEY 
EVENTUALLY MET, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
DURING THIS WHOLE TIME IN JULY 
AND AFTER THE CALL IN AUGUST 
WHEN THEY MET, UKRAINE STILL 
DESPERATELY WANTED THAT OVAL 
OFFICE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU ALSO WANTED THAT FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WHY WAS THE OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING SO IMPORTANT TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> THINK HE FELT HE WAS NOT 
UNDERSTOOD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
HE IS A CHARISMATIC LEADER WHO 
RAN A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN IN 
UKRAINE AGAINST CORRUPTION. 
HE HAD A MASSIVE SHOWING IN THE 
PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION, 73% 
SUPPORT. 
HE BELIEVED HE WAS LEADING A 
MOVEMENT OF MAJOR CHANGE IN 
UKRAINE. 
AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
NOT SEE THAT OR DIDN'T 
APPRECIATE THAT. 
IF HE HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN 
AND SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
FACE-TO-FACE, HE BELIEVED THAT 
HE COULD BE VERY CONVINCING 
ABOUT THAT AND I AGREE WITH 
HIM. 
>> THAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT? 
>> YES. 
AND ALSO WHAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY BELIEVED. 
>> YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN UKRAINE THERE 
WOULD BE A BOOST FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IF THERE WERE PHOTOED 
OF HIM IN OVAL OFFICE, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED MR. GILUIANI 
AND ZELENSKY'S AID MEET ON 
AUGUST THE END. 
WHERE DID THEY MEET? 
>> THEY MET IN MADRID. 
>> DID YOU LEARN THIS MR. 
GILUIANI REQUESTED ANYTHING OF 
THE UKRAINIANS IN THE MEETING. 
>> MR. GILUIANI SAID HE THOUGHT 
UKRAINE SHOULD ISSUE A 
STATEMENT. 
WE WERE PREPARED TO MAKE A 
STATEMENT. 
THAT KICKED OFF THE SERIES OF 
DISCUSSIONS THAT I SAID IN MY 
TESTIMONY. 
>> WE'LL GET OF INTO THAT IN A 
SECOND. 
MR. GILUIANI DID NOT EXPLAIN TO 
YOU WHAT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED 
IN THAT STATEMENT? 
>> HE SAID SOMETHING MORE 
GENERAL, AS I RECALL. 
I RECALL HIM SAYING FIGHT 
CORRUPTION, THEIR COMMITMENT TO 
BEING DIFFERENT. 
THE STATEMENT WOULD INCLUDE 
SPECIFIC MENTION OF BURISMA AND 
2016. 
>> LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE 
TEXT MESSAGES SO WE KNOW 
EXACTLY WHO SAID WHAT. 
FIRST, LET'S START ON AUGUST 
9th. 
THIS IS A TEXT EXCHANGE BETWEEN 
YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WRITES AT 
THE TOP, MORRISON, READY TO GET 
DATES AS SOON AS CONFIRMS. 
WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? 
>> I SAID EXCELLENT WITH TWO 
EXCLAMATION POINTS. 
HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM? 
WITH A SMILE AFTERWARDS. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
RESPONDED NOT SURE I DID. 
I THINK POTUS WANTS THE 
DELIVERABLE. 
>> HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? 
>> CLEARLY LOTS OF 
CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. 
HAD YOU DISCUSSED CONFIRMING A 
DATE FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AROUND THIS 
TIME. 
>> LIKELY WOULD HAVE. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
WITH HIM ABOUT A STATEMENT THAT 
UKRAINE WAS -- THEY WERE TRYING 
TO GET UKRAINE TO MAKE? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE -- DO YOU 
YOURSELF KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MEANT BY THE 
DELIVERABLE? 
>> I DID NOT AT THE TIME. 
I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING 
NOW. 
>> WHAT JUST A FEW MINUTES 
LATER WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAYS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING, 
MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK ANDRE 
FOR A DRAFT STATEMENT SO WE CAN 
SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY PROPOSE 
TO COVER. 
EVEN THOUGH ZELENSKY DOES A 
LIVE PRESSER THEY CAN STILL 
SUMMARIZE IN A BRIEF STATEMENT 
THOUGHTS? 
>> HOW DID YOU RESPOND? 
>> AGREE. 
>> THIS RELATES TO THE 
STATEMENT MR. GILUIANI WANTED? 
>> IT RELATES TO THE STATEMENT 
THEY DISCUSSED. 
>> TO THE NEXT DAY ON AUGUST 
10th , THERE IS ANOTHER TEXT IS 
CHANGE BETWEEN YOU. 
I WROTE I AGREE WITH YOUR 
APPROACH. 
LET'S IRON OUT A STATEMENT. 
THEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CAN GO 
FORWARD. 
>> HE RESPONDS, ONCE WE HAVE A 
DATE WE'LL CALL FOR A PRESS 
BRIEFING, ANNOUNCING UPCOMING 
VISIT AND OUTLINING VISION FOR 
THE REBOOT OF U.S. UKRAINE 
RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING AMONG 
OTHER THINGS, BURISMA AND 
ELECTION MEDDLING IN 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? 
>> SOUNDS GREAT. 
>> THE DATE HE IS REFERRING TO 
WAS THE DATE FOR THE WHITE 
HOUSE VISIT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> TWO DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 
12th  YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER TEXT 
MESSAGE WHICH READS SPECIAL 
ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE 
PROBLEM OF INTERFERENCE IN THE 
POLITICAL PROCESSES OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ESPECIALLY WITH 
THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF SOME 
UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS. 
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. 
WE INTEND TO INITIATE AND 
COMPLETE A TRANSPARENT AND 
UNBIAS INVESTIGATION OF ALL 
AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES 
WHICH WILL PREVENT THE 
OCCURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM IN 
THE FUTURE. 
THIS WAS A DRAFT OF THE 
STATEMENT THAT YOU AND MR. 
GILUIANI AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD BEEN DISCUSSING? 
>> THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT FROM 
HIM AFTER THE CONVERSATION WE 
HAD. 
>> IT DOES NOT MENTION BURISMA 
AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE, 
CORRECT? 
>> IT DOES NOT. 
YOU TESTIFIED YOU AND MAYOR 
GILUIANI HAD A CONVERSATION 
ABOUT THE DRAFT AFTER YOU 
RECEIVED IT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MR. GILUIANI SAID IF THE 
STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE 
BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTION, IT 
WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THIS WAS THE SAME RUDY 
GILUIANI THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS DISCUSSING IN THAT MAY 23rd 
MEETING AND ASKED YOU AND 
OTHERS TO TALK TO, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS THE SAME MR. 
GILUIANI. 
>> AT THIS POINT, MAY 23rd, YOU 
WERE AWARE OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS 
PUBLICLY PROMOTING, CORRECT? 
>> I KNEW THAT HE HAD ADOPTED 
OR WAS INTERESTED IN ALL OF 
THOSE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. 
>> BACK IN MAY? 
>> BACK IN MAY. 
>> HE WAS INVESTING ON A PUBLIC 
COMMITMENT FROM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? 
>> WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
>> BURISMA AND 2016, YES. 
>> AT THE TIME YOU WERE ENGAGED 
IN COORDINATING FOR THIS 
STATEMENT, DID YOU FIND IT 
UNUSUAL THERE WAS SUCH AN 
EMPHASIS ON A PUBLIC STATEMENT 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
CARRY OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING? 
>> I DIDN'T FIND IT THAT 
UNUSUAL. 
I THINK WHEN YOU ARE DEALING 
WITH A SITUATION WHERE I 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
HIGHLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEING 
COMMITTED TO REALLY CHANGING 
UKRAINE AFTER HIS ENTIRELY 
NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE COUNTRY, 
HE WOULD WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING 
MORE FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
BE CONVINCED TO GIVE THIS GUY A 
CHANCE. 
>> PERHAPS, HE ALSO WANTED A 
PUBLIC STATEMENT BECAUSE IT 
WOULD LOCK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
IN TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT HE THOUGHT MIGHT BENEFIT 
HIM? 
>> AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, WHAT I 
UNDERSTOOD US TO BE TALKING 
ABOUT WHAT UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION. 
>> WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS 
BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION. 
WE CAN AGREE ON THAT. 
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, ISN'T IT CLEAR 
THAT A PUBLIC STATEMENT WOULD 
BE IMPORTANT TO MR. GILUIANI 
BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY 
USEFUL TO THE PRESIDENT? 
>> THE WAY I SAW IT IS THAT IT 
WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
IT WOULD BE A WAY OF BEING 
CONVINCING TO MAYOR GILUIANI 
AND ALSO THE PRESIDENT THAT 
THIS TEAM IN UKRAINE IS SERIOUS 
ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
REFORM. 
THEY ARE DIFFERENT. 
IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN 
GETTING A MORE POSITIVE 
ATTITUDE AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING SCHEDULED, THEN THAT 
WOULD BE USEFUL. 
>> THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IT WAS A NECESSARY 
CONDITION, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD. 
>> I WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED IT A 
NECESSARY CONDITION. 
IN FACT, WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR 
LATER THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO 
AGREE ON AN AGREEMENT THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN WERE COMFORTABLE 
WITH, I AGREED TO DROP IT, IT 
IS NOT WORTH IT. 
>> IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT 
BASED ON THE TEXT THAT YOU 
WROTE, LINKING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND THE 2016 
ELECTION ON JULY 25th TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, YOU ARE 
SAYING IN AUGUST WITH THIS BACK 
AND FORTH YOU WERE UNAWARE THIS 
PUBLIC STATEMENT WAS A 
CONDITION FOR A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING? 
>> I WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED IT A 
CONDITION. 
I VIEWED AS VERY HELPFUL. 
IF WE COULD GET THIS DONE IT 
IMPROVE THE PERCEPTION 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHERS HAD. 
WE WOULD GET THE DATE FOR A 
MEETING. 
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A STATEMENT, 
I WASN'T GIVING UP AND THINKING 
THEN WE'LL NEVER GET A MEETING. 
>> LET'S GO TO THE NEXT DAY 
WHERE THERE IS ANOTHER TEXT 
EXCHANGE. 
AT THE TOP, WOULD YOU READ THE 
FIRST TEXT. 
>> IT SAYS HI, ANDRE, GOOD 
TALKING. 
FOLLOWING TEXT WITH INSERT AT 
THE END. 
WITH SEE WE'LL SEE THE REQUEST. 
>> THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL. 
IT JUST ADD INVOLVE BURISMA IN 
THE I HAVE ELECTIONS IS THAT 
RIGHT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS WHAT MR. GILUIANI 
ADDED TO THE STATEMENT. 
>> TO BE CREDIBLE. 
>> UKRAINIANS DID NOT ISSUE 
THIS STATEMENT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT 
GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING 
YET, DID HE? 
>> NOT YET. 
>> I WANT TO MOVE TO SEPTEMBER. 
MR. MORRISON YOU ACCOMPANIED 
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO 
WARSAW WHEN HE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RIGHT? 
>> I WAS IN WARSAW WHEN THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED 
AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REPRESENTATIVE. 
I WAS ACCOMPANYING MR. BOLTON. 
>> IN THAT MEETING, WERE THE 
UKRAINIANS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE? 
>> YES. 
>> WHAT DID THEY SAY? 
>> IT WAS THE FIRST ISSUE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. 
THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED. 
THEY TALKED ABOUT IT IMPORTANCE 
TO UKRAINE. 
ITS IMPORTANCE TO ITS 
RELATIONSHIP. 
WHAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S 
RESPONSE? 
>> VICE PRESIDENT REPRESENTED 
IT WAS A PRIORITY FOR HIM. 
AND THAT WE WERE WORKING TO 
ADDRESS ANY CHARACTERIZED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS 
ABOUT THE STATE OF CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE. 
AND THE PRESIDENT'S OF GETTING 
EUROPEAN TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO 
SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. 
>> DID HE DIRECTLY EXPLAIN TO 
THE UKRAINIANS THAT THOSE WERE 
THE ACTUAL REASONS FOR THE 
HOLD? 
OR WAS HE COMMENTING ON GENERAL 
CONCERNS OF THE PRESIDENT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT HE 
NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED A 
HOLD. 
HE MENTIONED WE WERE REVIEWING 
THE ASSISTANCE. 
THAT IS THE WAY I HEARD IT. 
THAT IS THE WAY I WOULD 
CHARACTERIZE IT. 
THOSE ARE THE POINTS HE RAISED 
TO HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WERE IN OUR 
PROCESS. 
>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE 
STAFF LEVEL AS THE COORDINATOR 
OF INNER AGENCY PROCESS, YOU 
WERE NOT AWARE OF A REVIEW OF 
THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
MONEY WERE YOU? 
>> WE HAD BEEN RUNNING A 
REVIEW. 
WE RAN A PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE 
PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION THAT 
I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO GENERATE 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONSIDERATION AS TO THE STATE 
OF INNER AGENCY SUPPORT FOR 
CONTINUING UKRAINE'S SECURITY 
SECTOR ASSISTANCE. 
>> THE INTIRE INNER AGENCY 
SUPPORTED THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AFTER THIS LARGER MEETING 
WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAW 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY 
GO OVER AND PULL ANDRE ASIDE 
AND HAVE A CONVERSATION S THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEFT THE 
ROOM. 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE LEFT THE 
ROOM. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR HAD THIS 
DISCUSSION, YES. 
>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TELL YOU THAT HE? 
>> THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL MAKE A STATEMENT WITH 
RESPECT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS 
AS A CONDITION OF HAVING THE 
AID LIFTED. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE NOT 
COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU. 
WHY NOT? 
>> WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
WHAT I SAW AS AN ADDITIONAL 
HURDLE TO ACCOMPLISHING WHAT I 
HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO HELP 
ACCOMPLISH. 
WHICH WAS GIVING THE PRESIDENT 
THE INFORMATION HE NEEDED TO 
DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY 
SECTOR ASSISTANCE COULD GO 
FORWARD. 
>> NOW THERE IS A WHOLE OTHER 
WRINKLE TO IT? 
>> THERE WAS THE APPEARANCE OF 
ONE BASED ON AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND REPRESENTED. 
>> YOU TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? 
>> I PROMPTED REACH OUT TO 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SCHEDULE A 
SECURE PHONE CALL. 
>> YOU TESTIFY ONE SMALL 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND THE GENERAL WAS 
ACCURATE? 
>> QUESTION. 
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU 
CONFIRMED EVERYTHING AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR TOLD YOU EXCEPT FOR THAT 
ONE THING RELATING TO THE 
LOCATION OF A MEETING, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? 
>> REACHED OUT TO HIM AND 
REQUESTED HIS AVAILABILITY FOR 
A SECURE PHONE CALL. 
>> WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE WHEN 
YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID? 
>> DELL THE LAWYERS. 
>> DID YOU GO TELL THE LAWYERS? 
>> WHEN I RETURNED TO THE 
STATES, YES. 
>> DID HE EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE 
WANTED YOU TO TELL THE LAWYERS? 
>> HE DID NOT. 
>> A FEW DAYS LATER ON 
SEPTEMBER 7th YOU SPOKE AGAIN 
TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO TOLD 
YOU HE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT SOUNDS CORRECT, YES. 
>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TELL YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
TO HIM? 
>> IF I RECALL THIS 
CONVERSATION CORRECTLY, THIS 
WAS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
RELATED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD 
TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AND HE 
HAD TO WANT TO DO IT. 
>> BY THAT POINT, DID YOU 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT 
RELATED TO THE BIDEN 2016 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> I THINK I DID, YES. 
>> AND THAT WAS A CONDITION FOR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE 
RELEASED. 
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT IS WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED. 
>> AFTER SPEAKING TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED HEARING THIS 
INFORMATION GAVE YOU A SINGING 
FEELING. 
WHY WAS THAT A? 
>> THESE ARE ONE YEAR DOLLARS, 
THE DOD AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
FUNDS. 
WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME. 
BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED A 15 
DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ON 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS, 
SEPTEMBER 7th, 30th, THAT 
REALLY MEANS SEPTEMBER 15th IN 
ORDER SECURE A DECISION FROM 
THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE 
FUNDS TO GO FORWARD. 
>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? 
>> YES. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY? 
>> HE SAID TELL THE LAWYERS. 
>> WHY DID HE SAY TO TELL THE 
LAWYERS? 
>> HE DID NOT EXPLAIN. 
>> HE DOESN'T TELL YOU TO GO 
TELL THE LAWYERS BECAUSE YOU 
ARE RUNNING UP ON THE EIGHT DAY 
DEADLINE, RIGHT? 
>> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE 
DIRECTED THAT. 
IT SEEMED REASONABLE AND WAS 
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WAS 
GOING TO DO. 
>> AND YOU WERE NOT GOING TO 
TELL THEM BECAUSE OF THAT 
CONCERN, YOU WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE HEARING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAY TO 
YOU? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, YOU 
REPORTED TWO CONCERNING 
CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO THE 
LAWYERS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER. 
IN WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM 
HIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
AS ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE TO GET 
UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE 
THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL. 
>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS SAYING 
WERE REQUIREMENTS. 
>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS REFERRING TO WERE 
THE TWO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REFERENCED ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL. 
>> YES. 
>> DURING THIS EARLY SEPTEMBER 
TIME PERIOD, DID YOU HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER? 
>> I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE 
CONVERSATION. 
>> WHAT DO YOU RECALL ABOUT 
THAT CONVERSATION? 
>> I BELIEVE ON OR ABOUT 
SEPTEMBER 6th, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER WAS IN TOWN TO PROVIDE 
AN UPDATE ON HIS ACTIVITIES. 
HE PROVIDED THAT UPDATE. 
WE HAD A ONE-ON-ONE 
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS 
SEPARATE PROCESS. 
>> WHAT DO YOU RECALL SAYING TO 
HIM ABOUT THE SEPARATE PROCESS? 
>> I WAS INTERESTED IN 
UNDERSTANDING HIS UNDERSTANDING 
OF EVENTS. 
>> DID YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT 
YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS 
WAS? 
>> I THINK IT WAS PRIMARILY ON 
RECEIVE MODE. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DO YOU 
RECALL THIS CONVERSATION? 
>> THANK YOU. 
I DO REMEMBER A CONVERSATION 
WITH TIM. 
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. 
I LEFT AROUND THAT TIME TO GO 
ON A TRIP. 
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT 
EARLIER. 
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. 
WHAT I DO REMEMBER IS TIM 
ASKING ME WHAT IS MY IMPRESSION 
OF THE ROLE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
PLAYS? 
MY RESPONSE TO THAT WAS WELL, I 
FIND IT HELPFUL HE HAS 
POLITICAL CONTACTS IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
I DON'T HAVE THOSE CONTACTS. 
I'M WORKING THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY, DIPLOMATIC FRONT. 
I DON'T HAVE THE POLITICAL 
CONTACTS. 
HE IS ABLE TO USE THOSE TO 
SUPPORT THE GOALS WE ARE 
WORKING TOWARD. 
I VIEWED THAT AS HELPFUL. 
>> THAT IS A GOOD SEGWAY TO THE 
NEXT EXHIBIT WHICH IS A 
SEPTEMBER 8th TEXT EXCHANGE 
WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
AT THE TOP AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAYS GUYS, MULTIPLE 
CONVERSATIONS WITH Z, PERIOD 
POTUS, PERIOD LET'S TALK. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ABOUT 16 
MINUTES LATER SAYS GORDON AND I 
JUST SPOKE AND I CAN BRIEF YOU, 
MEANING AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IF 
YOU AND GORDON DON'T CONNECT. 
ONE HOUR LATER AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR SAYS THE NIGHTMARE IS 
GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T 
GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT I QUIT. 
AT THE BOTTOM, HOW DO YOU 
RESPOND? 
>> I'M NOT IN THE LOOP. 
TALK MONDAY? 
>> SO YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP 
IN TERMS OF ALL OF THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, MR. MORRISON WERE 
HAVING? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> ULTIMATELY THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED  SEPTEMBER 11th? 
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE PRIOR TO 
SEPTEMBER 11th THERE WAS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT 
CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE 
HOUSE? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. 
>> BUT YOU WERE TO PRESERVE 
RECORDS? 
>> WE RECEIVE A NUMBER OF THOSE 
REQUESTS. 
>> WHEN WAS THE HOLD LIFTED? 
>>S AS I UNDERSTAND THE 
PRESIDENT GAVE THAT ON 
SEPTEMBER 11th. 
>> WHICH WAS TWO DAYS CONGRESS 
ISSUED AN INVESTIGATION? 
>> YOU'LL. 
THAT CONCLUDES THE MAJORITY 45 
MINUTES. 
BEFORE I TURN TO THE MINORITY, 
DO YOU NEED A BREAK? 
>> WELL, AMBASSADOR AND MR. 
MORRISON, I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR 
YOU. 
TV RATINGS ARE WAY DOWN. 
WAY DOWN. 
DON'T HOLD IT PERSONALLY. 
I DON'T THINK IT IS YOU GUYS. 
WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE COOKING UP HERE 
ON THE BIAS, AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AREN'T BUYING IT. 
I KNOW YOU BOTH ANSWERED THIS 
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS BUT 
I JUST WANT TO BRING A LITTLE 
MORE CLARITY TO IT. 
MR. MORRISON, I'LL START WITH 
YOU. 
DID ANYONE EVER ASK YOU TO 
BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYONE AT ANY 
TIME DURING YOUR TIME IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> YOU WERE THE TOP PERSON FOR 
UKRAINE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> AT THE NFC LEVEL. 
>> WOULD ARGUE AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WOULD BE. 
>> REPORTING TO AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON. 
>> I WAS A SENIOR OFFICIAL, 
YES, SIR. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU HAVE 
A STORIED CAREER. 
WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR YOUR 
SERVICE. 
YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO 
UKRAINE. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DID ANYONE AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE EVER ASK YOU TO BRIBE OR 
EXTORT ANYTHING OUT OF ANYONE 
AT ANY TIME? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR 
BEING HERE. 
I'LL YIELD TO MR. CASTOR. 
>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING 
HERE TODAY AND PARTICIPATING IN 
THE LENGTHY DEPOSITIONS. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU WERE THE 
FIRST ON OCTOBER 3rd. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU WERE WITH US 
ON HALLOWEEN. 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
PRECIPITATION. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE A LONG 
TIME HILL STAFFER, I HAVE AN 
APPRECIATE FOR THAT. 
NEARLY 20 YEARS. 
THANK YOU. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, PENNSYLVANIA 
RESIDENT, CREDIBLE PART OF THE 
COUNTRY. 
>> VERY PROUD OF IT. 
>> I'M FROM NEARBY. 
I WANT TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF 
YOU POSITIONS, YOU WERE SENATE 
CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO 
FOR A STENT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THEN YOU WERE AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND YOUR PORTFOLIO 
SPAN MUCH OF WHAT I BELIEVE 
GEORGE KENT HAS CURRENTLY? 
>> I WAS THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY 
ASSISTANCE SECRETARY. 
I HAD ALL OF EUROPE AND ASIA 
AND NATO, WESTERN EUROPE AND 
THE EUROPEAN UNION. 
>> YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. 
YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR FOR NATO 
IN WESTERN EUROPE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THEN YOU WERE THE SENIOR 
DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE ASIAN 
AFFAIRS CAN. 
>> I WAS ACTING FOR SEVERAL 
MONTHS, SIX MONTHS OR SO. 
>> MR. MORRISON, WE'LL NOTE ALL 
THE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE 
INTERACTED WITH -- AMBASSADOR 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAID YOU WERE 
A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT. 
THAT IS VERY HIGH PRAISE. 
FOR OVER TWO YEARS YOU SERVED 
AS THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE 
OF UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU SERVED FOR FREE? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU SERVED ON A VOLUNTARY 
BASIS? 
THAT JOB. 
I DID. 
>> TAXPAYERS CERTAINLY GOT 
THEIR MONEY'S WORTH. 
>> NOT FOR ME TO SAY. 
>> YOU BELIEVE AMERICA'S POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE HAS BEEN 
STRENGTHENED DURING  YOUR 
TENURE AS THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE? 
>> WHEN I LOOK BACK ANOTHER THE 
RECORD I THINK WE DID A LOT TO 
SUPPORT UKRAINE. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IS NO 
PART DUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROACHED 
EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE 
ALONG THE WAY. 
PROVIDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE 
EQUIPMENT AND THE 
NONRECOGNITION STATEMENT ON 
CRIMEA BEING TWO OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT ONES. 
>> FOR MANY YEARS THERE WAS A 
MISSION FOR. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IT WASN'T UNTIL PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND ADMINISTRATION CAME 
IN THAT WENT THROUGH? 
>> CORRECT. 
THE DELEGATION TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IN MAY, 
I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED IT WAS 
ONE OF 
>> AND, UM, WE TALKED A LITTLE 
THIS MORNING, BUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION CAME 
TOGETHER RATHER QUICKLY. 
>> YES, I BELIEVE WE HAD 3 
DAYS NOTICE TO PUT THE 
DELEGATION TOGETHER. 
>> THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION 
WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT 
WOULD BE ABLE TO LEAD THAT 
EFFORT, AND AS IT TURNED OUT 
HE WAS NOT ABLE TO LEAD IT. 
DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS 
TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS 
UNABLE TO JOIN? 
>> I DON'T. 
>> AND MR. MORRISON, DO YOU 
HAVE ANY, UM, INFORMATION AS 
TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS 
UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 
DELEGATION? 
>> NO. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
TESTIFIED DURING YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT AID IN FACT 
DOES GET HELD UP FROM TIME TO 
TIME FOR A WHOLE ASSORTMENT OF 
REASONS S. THAT YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING? 
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> AND SOMETIMES THE HOLD UPS 
ARE ROOTED IN SOMETHING AT 
OMB, SOMETIMES THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES ON 
THE HILL. 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP 
FOR 55 DAYS FOR UKRAINE, THAT 
DIDN'T IN AND OF ITSELF STRIKE 
YOU AS UNCOMMON? 
>> NO, IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAD 
HAPPENED IN MY CAREER IN THE 
PAST. 
I'D SEEN HOLD UPS OF 
ASSISTANCE. 
I JUST  ASSUMED IT WAS PART OF 
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. 
SOMEONE HAD AN OBJECTION, AND 
WE HAD TO OVERCOME IT. 
>> AND IN FACT, UM, THERE WERE 
CONCERNS THAT PERHAPS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULDN'T 
THE REFORMER HE CAMPAIGNED ON? 
>> THAT WAS A SUPPOSITION I 
MADE DUE TO THE MEETING WITH 
THE PRESIDENT ON THE 23rd. 
I THOUGHT THAT COULD BE WHAT'S 
BEHIND IT. 
>> AND IN FACT THE AID WAS 
LIFTED SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS 
ABLE TO CONVENE A PARLIAMENT? 
>> I BELIEVE HE, LET ME GET 
THE DATES STRAIGHT. 
I BELIEVE, YES, HE WAS ABLE TO 
CONVENE THE PARLIAMENT AROUND 
THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER AND I 
BELIEVE THE AID WAS RELEASED 
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER. 
>> AND WHEN HE WAS ABLE TO 
CONVENE A PARLIAMENT HE WAS 
ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH A NUMBER 
OF ANTI-CORRUPTION 
INITIATIVES? 
>> THAT BEGAN WITH THE 
PARLIAMENT SEATED ON THAT DAY. 
IT WAS A24 HOUR SESSION, BUT 
THEN CONTINUED FOR SOME TIME. 
>> AND THAT WAS AN ENCOURAGING 
SIGN? 
>> IT STARTED OFF IN A VERY 
ENCOURAGING WAY, YES. 
>> AND OTHER THAN THE THINGS 
GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND 
WITH THE PAUSE IN THE AID, YOU 
TESTIFIED, YOU STATED THE 
RELATIONS WITH UKRAINE WERE 
ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU WANTED 
THEM TO BE? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE 
QUESTION? 
>> YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT ONCE THE AID 
WAS LIFTED DESPITE THE THINGS 
GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, 
THAT U.S. UKRAINIAN RELATIONS 
WERE STRONG, AS GOOD AS YOU'D 
WANT THEM TO BE? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU REFERENCED THE SECURITY 
SECTOR ASSISTANCE WALIFTED, 
THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE 
MEETING IN NEW YORK. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND THERE WAS MOMENTUM IN 
PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE 
RUSSIANS, THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU MADE 
IT CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD A DEEP ROOTED NEGATIVE 
VIEW IN UKRAINE AND THEIR 
CORRUPTION ENVIRONMENT? 
>> YES.  
>> AND YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE 
OF HIS VIEWS BACK IN 
SETEMBER 2017? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? 
>> YES, IN 2017 I WAS INVITED 
BY SECRETARY TILLERSON TO DO A 
PRE-BRIEF WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
BEFORE HIS MEETING WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON THE 
MARGINS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
I DID THE PRE-BRIEF AND TOOK 
PART IN THE BILATERAL MEETING. 
>> SO LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW OF 
UKRAINE? 
>> YES, HE HAD A STRONGLY 
NEGATIVE VIEW. 
>> IN 2017 DO YOU REMEMBER 
ANYTHING HE SAID OR DID THAT 
GAVE YOU A FEELING THAT HE HAD 
THE NEGATIVE VIEWS? 
>> UM, YES. 
I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE 
BECAUSE THIS WAS A BILATERAL 
MEETING BETWEEN THE 2 
PRESIDENTS. 
I DON'T WANT TO STRAY INTO 
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL, BUT MY 
IMPRESSION WAS HE HAD A 
STRONGLY NEGATIVE VIEW OF 
UKRAINE AT THE TIME. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
AND YOU DESCRIBED THE 
PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM AT YOUR 
DEPOSITION AS A REASONABLE 
POSITION? 
>> YES. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOST 
PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT ABOUT 
UKRAINE WOULD POSSIBLY THINK 
THAT? 
>> YES.  
>> AND YOU VIEWED IT AS PART 
OF YOUR ROLE TO HELP CHANGE 
HIS MIND THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS A GENUINE 
REFORMER, THAT HE WAS NOT, UM, 
RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR 
SELF-ENRICHMENT, THAT HE WAS 
INDEED A GOOD PERSON? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.  
>> DURING THE MAY 23rd 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN 
THE OVAL OFFICE, COULD YOU 
JUST RELATE TO US THE CONCERNS 
THE PRESIDENT ARTICULATED 
ABOUT THE UKRAINE? 
>> YES, THE PRESIDENT CAME 
INTO THE MEETING AND 
IMMEDIATELY STARTED SPEAKING. 
HE HAD, UM, JUST A STRING OF 
COMMENTS THAT UKRAINE IS A 
TERRIBLE PLACE, THEY'RE ALL 
CORRUPT, THEY'RE TERRIBLE 
PEOPLE. 
THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN, 
UM, I TRIED TO EXPLAIN ALONG 
WITH THE OTHERS THERE, EACH OF 
US TOOK TURNS SPEAKING. 
I TRIED TO SAY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU AND 
THAT HE WAS ELECTED BECAUSE OF 
THAT SITUATION IN UKRAINE AND 
HE HAD A STRONG MANDATE FROM 
THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE TO 
CHANGE IT. 
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT 
THAT WE ACTUALLY SHOW HIM VERY 
STRONG SUPPORT NOW. 
BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
CONVINCED AND SAID THAT 
ZELENSKY IS NO DIFFERENT, THAT 
HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND 
HIM. 
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT I HEAR 
ABOUT UKRAINE, WHAT WE'RE 
TELLING HIM. 
YOU KNOW, I HEAR THAT, YOU 
KNOW, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, 
TALK TO RUDY, THAT KIND OF 
DIALOGUE AS I DESCRIBED.  
>> AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID 
THE UKRAINE  UKRAINIANS TRIED 
TO TAKE 
HIM DOWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY 
IDEA WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO? 
>> YES, I BELIEVED HE WAS 
TALKING ABOUT THE 2016 
ELECTION ABOUT PROVIDING 
DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT OR PAUL MANAFORT TO 
THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. 
THAT WAS ONE OF THE RUMORS 
THAT HAD BEEN OUT THERE AND 
GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT FROM THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL. 
>> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE THE PRESIDENT 
GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT, RIGHT 
IN THE. 
>> I BELIEVE HE WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT IT. 
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY 
BELIEVED, BUT HE BROUGHT IT 
UP. 
>> AND YOU WERE ALSO AWARE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICAL VIEW 
OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY? 
>> AND HE WAS LOOKING AT 
FOREIGN AID PRETTY BROADLY. 
>> YES. 
>> AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE 
U.S. TAXPAYERS WERE TRYING TO 
GET THEIR MONEY WORTH? 
>> YES. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO 
INTERESTED WAS HE NOT IN 
BETTER UNDERSTANDING 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED 
BURDEN SHARING AMONG THE 
EUROPEANS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US 
ABOUT THAT? 
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED 
THAT THE UNITED STATES SEEMED 
TO BEAR THE EXCLUSIVE BRUNT OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE. 
HE WANTED TO SEE THE EUROPEANS 
STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE MORE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
>> AND WAS THERE ANY 
INTERAGENCY ACTIVITY WHETHER 
IT BE WITH THE STATE OR 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO 
LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA 
TO UNDERSTAND, UM, WHO WAS 
CONTRIBUTING WHAT AND SORT OF 
IN WHAT CATEGORIES. 
>> AND SO THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONCERNS, THE AGENCY TRIED TO 
ADDRESS THEM? 
>> YES. 
>> AND BY LATE AUGUST, WE JUST 
DISCUSSED WITH AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER THAT SOMEONE NEW WAS 
SEATED, SO DID THAT GIVE HOPE 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD 
BE ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH 
REFORMS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND DID YOU HOPE DURING THE 
TIME THE AID WAS PAUSED THAT 
POTENTIALLY ZELENSKY WOULD BE 
ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HIS 
BONIFIEDS AND SUBSEQUENTLY BE 
ABLE TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO 
LIFT THE AID? 
>> YES.  
>> IN FACT YOU, UM, YOU 
TRAVELED WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON TO THE UKRAINE AROUND 
THE LABOR DAY WENT, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY I BELIEVE ON 
AUGUST 29th? 
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND I STAFFED THAT 
MEETING. 
>> AND THAT'S AROUND THE TIME 
THE RATA HAD MET AND THEY WERE 
STARTING TO PUSH THROUGH 
REFORMS? 
>> AS I RECALL, THE DATE OF 
THE MEETING WAS ACTUALLY THE 
FIRST DAY OF THE NEW RATA. 
>> AND SOME OF THE NEW REFORMS 
INCLUDED NAMING A NEW 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL? 
>> A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL 
AND BRAND NEW CABINET, YES. 
>> AND THEY PUSHED THROUGH 
SOME LEGISLATION THAT 
ELIMINATED IMMUNITY FOR 
MEMBERS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU PROVIDED 
SOME COLOR INTO THIS MEETING. 
YOU SAID THE UKRAINIANS HAD 
BEEN UP ALL NIGHT WORKING ON 
THESE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES? 
>> YES, THE UKRAINIANS WERE 
EXHAUSTED BY THE ACTIVITY. 
>> AND WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
ENCOURAGED? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WAS THE MEETING ALL 
TOGETHER FAVORABLE? 
>> QUITE. 
>> AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME 
DID BOLTON HEAD OFF TO WARSAW 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OR JUST, 
YOU KNOW YOU WENT TO WARSAW. 
>> WELL, WE HAD A FEW STOPS 
BETWEEN UKRAINE AND POLAND, 
BUT YES, AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
PROCEEDED TO WARSAW WHERE WE 
WERE MAKING SURE EVERYTHING 
WAS STAGED PROPERLY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S ARRIVAL. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON? 
>> HE DID. 
>> AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER 
ABOUT WHAT HE SHARED WITH THE 
VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE 
ZELENSKY MEETING? 
>> I WAS NOT THERE, UM, THE 
ISSUE I REMEMBER THE MOST 
STARKLY WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS QUITE ANNOYED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CRASHED 
THE PRE-BRIEF. 
BUT THE AMBASSADOR HAD 
EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ENSURE 
THE PRESIDENT OR VICE 
PRESIDENT WERE WELL PREPARED. 
>> BUT DID YOU BRIEF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON BEFORE HE 
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET 
WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT? 
>> I DIDN'T NEED TO. 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE.  
>> BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON COMMUNICATED 
TO THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE 
GOINGS ON IN UKRAINE WERE 
POSITIVE? 
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
AND AT THIS TIME AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WAS ADVOCATING FOR THE 
LIFTING OF THE AID? 
>> HE HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME, 
YES. 
>> AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN 
THE WARSAW MEETINGS? 
>> WE HAD A REDUCED SCHEDULE 
FROM WHAT HAD BEEN ARRANGED 
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT, BUT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND 
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
AND I PARTICIPATED IN BOTH 
MEETINGS. 
>> WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM 
THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY? 
>> IT SEEMED VERY POSITIVE. 
>> WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE? 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE 
ISSUE OF THE AID, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND HOW DID THE VICE 
PRESIDENT RESPOND? 
>> HE REPRESENTED HIS SUPPORT 
FOR THE AID. 
HE REPRESENTED THE STRONG 
COMMITMENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO UKRAINE, AND HE 
EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
BECAUSE THIS IS AFTER THE 
POLITICAL ARTICLE HAD COME OUT 
THAT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS A 
HOLD, HE EXPLAINED THAT THAT 
WE WERE DOING WAS THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT, THE AGENCY 
WAS EXAMINING WHAT MORE EUROPE 
COULD DO IN THE SECURITY SPACE 
AND, UM, TAKING A LOOK AT HOW 
UKRAINE WAS REFORMING, UM, 
WHAT HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION. 
>> AND WAS THERE ANY 
DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 
PART OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT ANY OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WE'VE COME TO 
TALK ABOUT? 
>> NO. 
>> SO THE OIL COMPANY WASN'T 
RAISED? 
>> NO. 
>> THE 2016 ELECTION WASN'T 
RAISED? 
>> NO. 
>> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT 
DIDN'T MENTION ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS AT ALL,DID HE? 
>> NO. 
>> YOU MENTIONED THE 
AUGUST 28th POLITICO 
ARTICLE. 
IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU 
BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS MAY 
HAVE HAD A REAL SENSE THE AID 
WAS ON HOLD? 
>> YES. 
>> SO FROM THE 55 DAY PERIOD 
SPANNING JULY 18th THROUGH 
SEPTEMBER 11th, IT DIDN'T 
REALLY BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL 
AUGUST 28th? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I HAD A 
NUMBER OF PHONE CALL WHERE IS 
WE IN FACT TALKED ABOUT DO THE 
UKRAINIANS KNOW YET BECAUSE WE 
FELT STRONGLY THAT WE ENSURED 
THE PRESIDENT WAS ABLE TO MAKE 
THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE 
AID BEFORE THE UKRAINIANS 
FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IS THAT 
ALSO YOUR RECOLLECTION? 
>> YES, IT IS. 
>> IT WASN'T UNTIL THE 
POLITICO ARTICLE? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM 
ONE OF MY UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS ON AUGUST 29th 
FORWARDING THE ARTICLE. 
>> AND CAN YOU SHARE MORE 
ABOUT THAT TIME ABOUT THE HOLD 
ON THE AID AND YOUR 
COMMUNICATIONS? 
>> YES, I HAD NO 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HOLD ON 
AID UNTIL THEY RAISED IT WITH 
ME WITH THE SAME HOPE TIM HAD, 
THAT WE COULD GET IT TAKEN 
CARE OF OURSELVES BEFORE IT 
WAS SOMETHING THEY BECAME 
AWARE OF. 
INSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT I 
WAS AWARE THAT THE HOLD WAS 
PLACED, I WAS AWARE ON 
JULY 18th. 
IT WAS REFERENCED AT AN 
INTERAGENCY MEETING. 
GOT A READ OUT FROM THE 
MEETING FROM ONE OF MY 
ASSISTANTS. 
I IMMEDIATELY SPOKE WITH 
SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO OBJECT. 
I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A BAD 
DECISION OR BAD HOLD. 
MAYBE NOT A DECISION, BUT A 
PROCESS, AND I WANTED TO MAKE 
SURE THE ARGUMENTS WERE 
MARSHALLED TO GET IT LIFTED, 
SO I SPOKE WITH THE PENTAGON, 
I SPOKE WITH ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF AFFAIRS AT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT THAT WENT ON 
TO REPRESENT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AT THE NEXT HIGHER 
LEVEL MEETING. 
I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH 
OFFICIALS IN THE EUROPEAN 
BUREAU, THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL STAFF. 
I WAS ACTIVITY TRYING TO 
CONVEY THIS NEEDED TO BE 
LIFTED, AND I WANTED THEM TO 
BE ABLE TO USE MY NAME IN 
DOING SO BECAUSE I FELT THE 
BEST PROSPECT FOR POSITIONING 
OURSELVES FOR NEGOTIATION 
WINDSHIELD RUSSIA IS THE 
STRONGEST DEFENSE CAPABILITY 
FOR UKRAINE.  
INE.  
>> AND DID YOU COME TO BELIEVE 
THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
PART OF WITHHOLDINGS OF AID? 
>> NO I DID NOT. 
>> YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN TORONTO IN 
JANUARY, AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR  
TESTIMONY THAT THEY HAD SOME 
APPREHENSION THAT PART OF THIS 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED 
WOULD REAR ITS HEAD IN 
TORONTO. 
I'M JUST WONDERING WHETHER YOU 
CAN TELL US IF THAT IN FACT 
HAPPENED. 
>> YES, THANK YOU. 
I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I 
KNOW. 
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER 
CONVERSATIONS OR THINGS, BUT I 
KNOW WE HAD A CONVERSATION, 
BILL TAYLOR AND I BELIEVE 
GORDON SONDLAND AND I AROUND 
THE 23rd OF JUNE THAT 
COLLECTED TO I BELIEVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT 
HAVE BEEN PART OF LATTER. 
THAT BEING SAID, I WAS 
CONVINCED AFTER THAT 
CONVERSATION WE HAD GOTTEN 
NOWHERE. 
WE HAD OUR WHITE HOUSE 
BRIEFING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ON MAY 23rd. 
HE SIGNED A LETTER INVITING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE ON MAY 29th, AND 
FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WE WERE JUST 
SAYING WE'RE WORKING ON IT, 
IT'S A SCHEDULING ISSUE, WE'LL 
GET THERE, DON'T WORRY WITH 
THE UKRAINIANS. 
I TOLD BILL AND GORDON THAT I 
WAS GOING TO SEE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN TORONTO, AND I 
FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO TELL HIM 
THE TRUTH. 
THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE, 
WE'RE NOT GETTING A DATE 
SCHEDULED. 
HERE'S WHAT I THINK THE 
PROBLEM IS. 
IT'S THE NEGATIVE INFORMATION 
FLOW FROM MAYOR GIULIANI. 
AND THAT HE WOULD, ALSO THAT I 
WOULD ADVISE HIM THAT HE 
SHOULD CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PERSONALLY BECAUSE HE NEEDED 
TO RENEW THAT PERSONAL 
RELATIONSHIP AND BE ABLE TO 
CONVEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT 
HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION AND INVESTIGATING 
THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE 
PAST AND SO FORTH. 
SO I DID ALL OF THAT WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AFTER OUR 
FORMAL BILATERAL MEETING. 
>> AFTER THAT MEETING IN 
TORONTO OR THE SERIES OF 
MEETINGS, THERE WAS NO 
DISCUSSION OF PRE-CONDITIONS, 
INVESTIGATIONS OR ANYTHING OF 
THAT SORT? 
>> NO, NO. 
>> AND YOU WERE THERE WITH 
MR. KENT? 
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT 
PRE-CONDITIONS OR 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> NOT AT THAT TIME. 
I THINK LATER ON THESE THINGS 
CAME  UP TALKING ABOUT A 
STATEMENT ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
BUT AT THIS TIME IN TORONTO I 
BELIEVE IT WAS MORE REFERRING 
TO INVESTIGATIONS GENERICALLY, 
THAT THAT'S HOW YOU GO ABOUT 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD 
REAFFIRM HIS COMMITMENT TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A DIRECT 
PHONE CALL. 
>> AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME 
HAD MR. KENT RAISED CONCERNS 
TO YOU ABOUT ANY OF THIS? 
>> NO AT THAT TIME. 
>> OKAY. 
THE NEXT EVENT I WANT TO COVER 
IS THE JULY 10th MEETING IN 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE. 
WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT IT 
THIS MORNING. 
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT THE 
COVERAGE. 
BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT 
AT SOME POINT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTEDLY 
THAT THE MEETING ENDED 
ABRUPTLY. 
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT 
THAT FACT? 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND LET ME ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION FIRST. 
I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOUR 
PRIOR QUESTION TOO. 
BUT ON THE JULY 10th 
MEETING, THIS WAS A MEETING WE 
HAD ARRANGED BETWEEN THE HEAD 
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
DEFENSE COUNCIL AND THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
BOLTON. 
ATTENDING THE MEETING WAS ALSO 
SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, MYSELF, I BELIEVE 
FIONA HILL AND THE PURPOSE WAS 
REALLY A COUNTERPART VISIT. 
I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE 
BEST OPPORTUNITY, IF FIRST 
HIGH LEVEL MEETING IN 
WASHINGTON WITH A SENIOR U.S. 
OFFICIAL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, 
AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION. 
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UKRAINIANS 
TO MAKE THEIR CASE. 
THEY ARE THE NEW TEAM IN TOWN 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
I WAS RATHER DISAPPOINTED WITH 
THE MEETING AS IT TRANSPIRED. 
IT STRUCK ME AS DOWN IN THE 
WEEDS TALKING ABOUT REFORM OF 
NATIONAL SECURITY STRUCTURES 
IN UKRAINE, LEGISLATION THAT 
THEY WERE WORKING ON, AND NOT 
THE BIG PICTURE AND BILATERAL 
RELATIONSHIP. 
I WAS A BYES DISAPPOINTED BY 
THAT. 
AT THE END OF THE MEETING, I 
RECALL HAVING SEEN OTHER 
TESTIMONY. 
I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
DID RAISE THE POINT OF 
INVESTIGATIONS IN A GENERIC 
WAY AFTER THE MEETING WAS 
ALREADY WRAPPING UP. 
I THINK WE ALL THOUGHT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE AND THE 
CONVERSATION DID NOT PUBLIC 
FROM THERE. 
THE MEETING WAS OVER. 
WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE AND HAD A 
PICTURE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND THEN ALL OF US 
EXCEPT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WENT 
TO TALK ABOUT FOLLOW UP. 
HOW WE FOLLOW UP ON THE 
MEETING TO KEEP THE MOMENTUM 
IN THE RELATIONSHIP. 
AND I THINK WE BROKE UP INTO 
SEVERAL SMALL GROUPS. 
I REMEMBER HAVING A 
CONVERSATION WITH SECRETARY 
PERRY AND ONE OF HIS 
ASSISTANTS ABOUT ENERGY 
REFORM. 
I DON'T RECALL OTHER 
CONVERSATIONS FOLLOWING UP ON 
BURISMA. 
>> AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY NO 
PRE-CONDITION DISCUSSED TO THE 
BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? 
>> NO, NO. 
AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ONE 
WHERE I THOUGHT THIS WAS 
REALLY RELATED TO A GENERAL 
NEGATIVE VIEW ABOUT UKRAINE. 
THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING 
SPECIFIC COMMUNICATED TO ME 
ABOUT IT, AND WE CERTAINLY 
DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT 
WITH THE UKRAINIANS, WE WANTED 
TO FIX IT. 
>> AND A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL 
HAPPENED, AND YOU WERE HEADED 
TO UKRAINE DURING THAT TIME 
PERIOD? 
>> YES, I WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY 
ON MY WAY TO UKRAINE I THINK 2 
DAYS PRIOR TO THAT. 
>> AND YOU RECEIVED READ OUTS 
BOTH FROM THE U.S. SIDE AND 
UKRAINIAN SIDE, CAN YOU TELL 
US ABOUT THAT? 
>> YES, I WAS NOT ON THE PHONE 
CALL. 
I HAD THE LUNCH ON THE DAY OF 
THE PHONE CALL. 
I HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR THE 
PHONE CALL BECAUSE I THOUGHT 
IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RENEW THE 
PERSONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN 
THE 2 LEADERS AND CONGRATULATE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. 
THE READ OUT I RECEIVED FROM 
THE UKRAINE SIDE AND THE U.S. 
SIDE, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE 
WHO IT WAS FROM ON THE U.S. 
SIDE WERE LARGELY THE SAME. 
THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL. 
THAT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY 
PHONE CALL. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REITERATED 
HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID REITERATE 
HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO VISIT IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT 
THE PHONE CALL WOULD BE, SO I 
WAS NOT SURPRISED WITH THE 
úREAD OUT. 
>> AND DID YOU EVER ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR ABOUT THIS? 
>> WE WERE IN UKRAINE AT THAT 
TIME, AND WE VISITED THE 
CONFLICT ZONE THE NEXT DAY, 
AND I'M SURE HE HAD THE SAME 
READ OUT WE DID. 
>> AND YOU HAD A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE 26th? 
>> YES, THE DAY AFTER THE 
PHONE CALL IN THE MORNING 
BEFORE HEADING TO THE CONFLICT 
ZONE. 
>> WERE ANY OF THESE 
CONCERNING ELEMENTS RAISED 
ABOUT THE CALL  IN THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
>> NO, ONLY THE BARE BONES 
READ OUT I RECEIVED IS HOW IT 
WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING 
WITH ZELENSKY. 
>> SO THERE'S BEEN ASSERTIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT DEMANDS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MADE? 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT. 
>> YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? 
>> I DON'T RECALL. 
LET ME TURN THAT AROUND AND 
SAY HE WAS VERY POSITIVE ABOUT 
THE PHONE CALL. 
>> OKAY. 
>> I DON'T RECALL HIM SAYING 
ANYTHING ABOUT DEMANDS, BUT HE 
WAS VERY UPBEAT ABOUT THE 
CALL. 
>> AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION 
ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON HOW TO NAVIGATE 
THE VARIOUS -- 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT. 
>> CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE 
ARTICULATED ABOUT THE CALL? 
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 
>> AND IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM 
IN READ OUTS FROM THE UNITED 
STATES OR UKRAINE DID YOU 
RECEIVE AN INDICATION OF 
ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLED A QUID 
QUO PRO,  IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND THE SAME GOES FOR THE 
NEW ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY? 
>> I'VE ONLY SEEN AN 
ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY IN THE 
LAST WEEK. 
>> IT'S THE SAME COMMON SET OF 
FACTS, IT'S JUST INSTEAD OF 
QUID QUO PRO, NOW IT'S 
BRIBERY. 
>> I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN 
ANYTHING THAT I CONSIDERED TO 
BE BRIBERY AT ALL. 
>> OR EXTORTION? 
>> OR EXTORTION. 
>> OKAY. 
>> MR. CASTER, MAY I ADDRESS 2 
SPECIFIC POINTS? 
>> OF COURSE. 
>> ONE IS I'M REMINDED THAT 
THE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON TOOK PLACE ON 
JULY 10th. 
>> YES. 
>> AND I DID NOT BECOME AWARE 
OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE UNTIL JULY 18th. 
>> RIGHT, OKAY. 
>> SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON 
THAT DID NOT COME UP. 
>> AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME 
YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE 
POTENTIAL PAUSE IN THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS 
BREWING? 
>> I DID NOT. 
NO. 
I HEARD ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST 
TIME ON THE 18th OF JULY. 
MAY I MAKE A SECOND 
OBSERVATION AS WELL? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> I REMEMBER SEEING SOME OF 
THE TESTIMONY OF THE MR. KEPT, 
A CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE HAD 
ASKED ME ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES THAT WERE OUT THERE 
IN UKRAINE. 
I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE OF 
THIS CONVERSATION, BUT MY VIEW 
IS IF THERE ARE THINGS LIKE 
THAT, WHY NOT INVESTIGATE 
THEM? 
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S 
ANYTHING TO THEM. 
IF THERE IS, 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE IS WHAT I WAS 
THINKING OF, WE WOULD WANT TO 
KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I DIDN'T 
BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING 
THERE TO BEGIN WITH. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED TO THE EXTENT 
THE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
INVESTIGATE OTHER UKRAINIANS 
FOR WRONGDOING, THERE WAS 
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE IN YOUR 
MIND? 
>> RIGHT, THAT'S BEEN U.S. 
POLICY FOR YEARS. 
>> SO IF CERTAIN UKRAINIANS 
INVOLVED WITH THE BURISMA 
COMPANY -- 
>> THAT I THINK IS THE ONLY, 
UM, PLAUSIBLE THING TO LOOK AT 
THERE. 
AS I SAID, I DON'T FIND IT 
PLAUSIBLE OR CREDIBLE THAT 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD 
HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED IN HIS 
DUTIES, BUT WHETHER INDIVIDUAL 
UKRAINIANS IN THE SOCIETY THAT 
WE KNOW UKRAINE HAS BEEN FOR 
DECADES WERE TRYING TO ACT IN 
A CORRUPT WAY, THAT'S 
PLAUSIBLE. 
>> SECRETARY KENT TOLD US LAST 
WEEK ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO BURISMA TRYING TO RECRUIT 
MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, 
AND THE UKRAINIANS WERE 
PURSUING AN INVESTIGATION, 
THERE WAS A BRIBE PAID. 
WERE YOU TRACKING THAT? 
>> I WAS AWARE OF THOSE KINDS 
OF THINGS. 
I COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE 
DETAILS. 
I JUST KNOW THAT THERE WAS A 
REPUTATION AROUND THE COMPANY. 
>> OKAY. 
>> AND SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE 
FACTS AND THE BRIBE BEING 
PAID, THE BURISMA COMPANY 
WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE 
AND ADDED FOLKS TO THEIR BOARD 
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF 
POLAND AND HUNTER BIDEN, ARE 
YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? 
>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. 
>> AND TO THE EXTEND THE 
UKRAINIANS, THE FOLKS 
AFFILIATED WITH BURISMA WANTED 
TO HIRE THOSE PEOPLE FOR THE 
BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES 
TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN 
MISDEEDS, IF THAT WAS AT A 
FACT WORTH INVESTIGATING, YOU 
CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE 
OF UKRAINIANS TRYING TO GET TO 
THE BOTTOM OF THAT, CORRECT? 
>> WELL, I CAN'T SPECULATE TO 
THE SPECIFICS MOTIVATING 
BURISMA OR NOT, BUT UKRAINIAN 
AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING 
POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY 
UKRAINIAN CITIZENS IS A 
PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE THING 
FOR THEM TO DO. 
>> MR. MORRISON, I WANT TO 
TURN OUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE 
JULY 25th CALL. 
YOU WERE IN THE ROOM. 
DID ANYTHING CONCERN YOU ON 
THE CALL? 
>> NO. 
>> AND AFTER THE CALL ENDED 
YOU, UM, LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, 
ONE OF YOUR NEXT STEPS WAS TO 
ENGAGE THE NSC LAWYERS AND 
YOUR REASONS FOR DOING THAT 
WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S. 
AND YOU ARTICULATED 3 
CONCERNS. 
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THEM 
WITH US OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME 
TO DO IT? 
>> I THINK I ARTICULATED 2 
CONCERNS. 
ONE WAS THAT I DIDN'T SEE 
REPRESENTATIVES OF NSC LEGAL 
ON THE CALL, SO I WANTED TO 
MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGAL 
ADVISOR AND HIS DEPUTY WERE 
AWARE OF THE CALL. 
AND I WAS ALSO CONCERNED 
ABOUT, UM, TAKING STEPS TO 
LIMIT DISCLOSURE FOR FEAR OF 
THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT 
LEAKING. 
>> AND YOU WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IT LEAKING BECAUSE YOU 
WERE WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT 
WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLARIZED POLITICAL 
ENVIRONMENT, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU WERE ALSO WORRIED 
ABOUT IT LEADING TO BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT HERE IN CONGRESS OF, 
UM, TOWARDS UKRAINE, RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU WERE ALSO CONCERNED 
THAT IT MIGHT IMPACT THE 
UKRAINIAN'S PERCEPTION 
NEGATIVELY? 
>> YES. 
>> AND IN FACT ALL 3 OF THESE 
THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU DIDN'T ASK THE LAWYERS 
TO PUT IT ON THE CODE WORD 
SYSTEM, CORRECT? 
>> I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT 
THE LEXICON HERE. 
I DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE 
MOVED TO A COMPARTMENTED 
SYSTEM. 
>> OKAY. 
>> YOU JUST WANTED THE 
TRANSCRIPT TO BE CONTROLLED. 
>> I WANTED ACCESS TO BE 
RESTRICTED. 
>> OKAY. 
AND WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN STORED ON 
THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER, YOU 
BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, 
CORRECT? 
>> WELL, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO 
ME THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. 
I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THAT úM 
PROCESS OF PULLING TOGETHER 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S MATERIALS 
AND THE PRESIDENT'S MATERIALS 
FOR A PLANNED BILATERAL 
BETWEEN POTUS AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AND WHEN I WENT TO 
DO THAT, I COULD NOT PULL UP 
THE PACKAGE IN THE SYSTEM, AND 
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. 
I SPOKE WITH THE EXECUTIVE 
SECRETARY STAFF, ASKED THEM 
WHY, AND THEY DID THEIR 
RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT 
WAS MOVED TO THE HIGHER 
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE 
DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG 
WHOM I THEN ASKED WHY. 
THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE MADE, 
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MINE TO 
QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND IT, AND HE 
ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE NO 
SUCH DIRECTION. 
HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND 
REPRESENTED BACK TO ME THAT IT 
WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT IT 
WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR 
THAT WHEN HE ALSO GAVE 
DIRECTION TO RESTRICT ACCESS, 
THE STAFF UNDERSTOOD THAT AS 
AN APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS 
SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT THAT 
COULDN'T EXIST ON THE LOWER 
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. 
>> SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE THERE'S NO MALICIOUS 
INTENT IN MOVING THE 
TRANSCRIPT TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SERVER? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, 
ANYBODY ON THE NSC STAFF THAT 
NEEDED ACCESS TO THE 
TRANSCRIPT FOR THEIR OFFICIAL 
DUTIES ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO 
ACCESS IT, CORRECT? 
PEOPLE THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW 
AND ACCESS IT? 
>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM? 
YES. 
>> THE MEMCON OF THE 
JULY 25th CALL WAS IN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE PREPARED NORMALLY? 
>> YES. 
>> THAT THERE ISN'T AN EXACT 
TRANSCRIPTION OF WHAT'S SAID 
ON THE CALL, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THAT THERE'S, UM, NOTE 
TAKERS IN THE SITUATION ROOM 
AND THEN THEY PREPARE A DRAFT 
THAT'S CIRCULATED AMONG THE 
RELEVANT PARTIES? 
>> ESSENTIALLY, YES. 
>> AND YOU HAD RESPONSIBILITY 
FOR COORDINATING ANY EDITS? 
>> YES. 
WE LOOK AT THE SHORT HAND, 
WE'LL CALL IT A TRANSCRIPT, 
BUT THE MEMORANDUM OF THE 
CONVERSATION, AND WE ENSURE 
THAT THAT TRANSCRIPTION IS AS 
CLOSE TO ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED HE THOUGHT IT WAS 
VERY ACCURATE. 
DID YOU AS WELL? 
>> I VIEWED IT AS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE. 
>> OKAY. 
COLONEL VINDMAN INDICATED HE 
HAD A COUPLE OF EDITS, HE 
WANTED BURISMA INSERTED IN 
PLACE OF THE COMPANY IN ONE OF 
THE SECTIONS WHERE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS TALKING? 
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT EDIT 
REQUEST? 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT HE SAID 
IN EITHER THIS PROCEEDING FOR 
THE DEPOSITION THAT HE WANTED 
THAT REQUEST, YES. 
>> AT THE TIME DID YOU 
UNDERSTAND HE HAD ASKED FOR 
THAT? 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT, UM, IT 
WAS MY PRACTICE IF I BELIEVED 
AN EDIT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED 
THE CALL, IT STOOD. 
>> YEAH, JUST ON PAGE 4 HE 
WANTED TO SWAP OUT THE WORD 
COMPANY FOR BURISMA. 
>> WAS IT CRUCIAL THAT THE 
EDIT GET INTO THE DOCUMENT? 
>> I DON'T RECALL. 
>> DID HE RAISE ANY QUESTIONS 
WITH YOU ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT? 
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. 
>> DID HE RAISE CONCERNS 
GENERALLY ABOUT THE CALL? 
>> WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE 
TRACK CHANGES VERSION OF THE 
MEMCON HE HAD SOME ISSUES. 
WE WANTED A MORE FULL THROATED 
EMBRACE OF THE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGENDA, AND WE DIDN'T 
GET IT. 
>> YOU INDICATED WHEN YOU TOOK 
OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR 
DR. HILL JULY 13th YOU WERE 
ALERTED TO POTENTIAL ISSUES 
WITH COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
JUDGMENT? 
>> YES. 
>> DID SHE RELAY ANYTHING 
SPECIFICALLY TO YOU? 
WHY SHE THOUGHT THAT? 
>> NOT AS SUCH. 
IT WAS MORE OF AN OVERARCHING 
STATEMENT FROM HER AND HER 
DEPUTY WHO BECAME MY DEPUTY 
THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
JUDGMENT. 
>> OKAY. 
DID ANY OTHER PERSONNEL RAISE 
CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT 
MR. VINDMAN? 
>> YES. 
>> I'M SORRY COLONEL VINDMAN. 
AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THE 
CONCERNS BROUGHT TO YOUR 
ATTENTION? 
>> THERE WERE -- 
>> I'M SORRY, WE ARE NOT GOING 
TO. 
I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT 
TO ANSWER BECAUSE I THINK THAT 
IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT 
YOU'RE ASKING FOR. 
THESE CONCERNS PRE-DATED ANY 
INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINIAN 
SECTOR ASSISTANCE. 
>> WELL, DURING THE DEPOSITION 
I ASKED YOU WHETHER OTHERS 
RAISED A CONCERN THAT COLONEL 
VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED 
INFORMATION? 
>> YOU DID ASK THAT, YES. 
>> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS? 
>> OTHERS HAD REPRESENTED 
THAT, YES. 
>> OKAY. 
AND I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU 
WERE CONCERNED COLONEL VINDMAN 
DID NOT KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP 
AT ALL TIMES WITH HIS OFFICIAL 
DUTIES? 
>> YES. 
>> AND IN FACT WHEN HE MEANT 
TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL LAWYERS FOLLOWING THE 
JULY 25th CALL, HE DID NOT 
FIRST COME TO YOU? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU WERE HIS SUPERVISOR 
IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND IN HINDSIGHT DID YOU 
WISH THAT HE HAD COME TO YOU 
FIRST BEFORE GOING TO THE 
LAWYERS? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WHY IS THAT? 
>> ONE, IF HE HAD CONCERNS 
ABOUT  SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
CONTENT OF THE CALL, THAT'S 
SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE 
EXPECTED TO BE NOTIFIED OF. 
I ALSO THINK JUST AS A MATTER 
OF PRACTICE, SINCE WE BROTH 
WENT TO THE LAWYERS, WE DIDN'T 
NECESSARILY NEED TO AND 
ECONOMY OF EFFORT MAY HAVE 
PREVAILED. 
>> AND AT ANY POINT 
SUBSEQUENTLY DID HE FEEL 
FRUSTRATED THAT HE FELT CUT 
OUT OF SOME OF THE UKRAINE 
PORTFOLIO? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF 
HIS CONCERNS? 
>> WELL, HE, I THINK THE 
EASIEST WAY TO SAY IT IS HE 
WAS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT FOR 
EXAMPLE THE UKRAINE TRIP THAT 
HE WAS NOT, THAT HE DID NOT 
GO. 
HE ASKED ME WHY THIS WAS MY 
PRACTICE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF 
CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR ONE ON ONE AND CERTAIN 
OTHER MATTERS. 
>> OKAY. 
DID YOU EVER GET THE SENSE YOU 
RESOLVED HIS CONCERN, OR DID 
THEY LINGER? 
>> I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY 
THINKING AND THAT WAS THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
TURN QUICKLY TO THE, WHAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBES AS 
THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL. 
HE WAS A PARTICIPANT WITH YOU 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN 
HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND SO DID HE EVER RAISE 
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING 
ON DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF 
THE EARLY AUGUST TIME PERIOD? 
>> ONLY AS YOU SAW REFLECTED 
IN THE TEXT MESSAGES 
THEMSELVES WHERE HE SAID IS 
HIS NOW A LINKAGE OR AR 
DOING THIS. 
HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT JUST IN 
GENERAL RUDY GIULIANI, WHICH I 
THINK A LOT OF US HAD. 
BUT THE ISSUE OF WHAT DO YOU 
DO ABOUT THE ROLE HE'S 
PLAYING. 
AND AS YOU NOTE, WE WERE IN 
FREQUENT CONTACT. 
NEAR DAILY CONTACT THROUGHOUT 
THE ENTIRE PERIOD. 
>> SO DID HE EVER ENGAGE YOU 
IN A ONE ON ONE TELEPHONE CALL 
TO ARTICULATE HIS CONCERNS? 
>> WE WERE ON MANY ONE ON ONE 
TELEPHONE CALLS, HE DID NOT 
RAISE CONCERNS THAT WAY, NO. 
>> AND THIS, YOU'RE AN 
EXPERIENCED DIPLOMAT, AT ONE 
TIME SENATE-CONFIRMED. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION. 
SECRARY PERRY IS A SECRETARY 
OF ENERGY. 
CERTAINLY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE 
AN IRREGULAR BUNCH. 
DID HE EVER ARTICULATE TO YOU 
THAT THE 3 OF YOU WORKING ON 
UKRAINE POLICY WAS A PROBLEM? 
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
>> AND WERE YOU SURPRISED 
DURING HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE 
CAME IN FOR THE DEPOSITION AND 
ACCOMPLISHED THESE 2 TRACKS, 
THAT ONE WAS A REGULAR CHANNEL 
AND ONE WAS IRREGULAR? 
>> YES, I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS 
CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT 
BECAUSE I HAD BEEN IN MY ROLE 
FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. 
I HAD BEEN THE LEAD ON U .S.-
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AND 
NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA AND 
THE INTERAGENCY WORK, AND WORK 
WITH OUR ALLIES. 
WE HAVE A SECRETARY OF ENERGY 
WHO'S A CABINET OFFICIAL, AND 
I THINK HAVING SUPPORT FROM 
VARIOUS U.S. OFFICIALS FOR 
STRENGTHENING OUR ENGAGEMENT 
WITH UKRAINE I VIEWED AS A 
THEN BECAUSE WE'RE ALL U.S. 
OFFICIALS, BUT MAYOR GIULIANI, 
I DON'T VIEW THAT AS A CHANNEL 
AT ALL BECAUSE HE'S NOT A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT. 
HE'S A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
I VIEWED HIM AS PERHAPS A 
USEFUL BAROMETER IN 
UNDERSTANDING WHAT MAY BE 
HELPFUL COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. 
BUT NOT SOMEONE IN A POSITION 
TO REPRESENT THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT AT ALL. 
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.  
>> OKAY, UM, I DON'T WE TAKE A 
5 OR 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
IF I COULD ASK, UM, THE 
AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE 
WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM 
FIRST. 
WE ARE IN RECESS.  
>>> HELLO EVERYONE. 
I'M TANYA RIVERO. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
WE JUST HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 2 
MORE WITNESSES IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THERE'S A RECESS RIGHT NOW, 
AND THE TESTIFYING SHOULD 
RESUME SHORTLY, BUT HERE'S 
WHAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED. 
KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON 
APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE EARLIER 
THIS AFTERNOON. 
VOLKER IS THE FORMER SPECIAL 
ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND INVOLVED 
IN TRYING TO PRESSURE THE 
COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATING THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVALS. 
HE SURPRISED LAWMAKERS BY 
AMENDING HIS PREVIOUS CLOSED 
DOOR TESTIMONY. 
HE SAYS HE NOW DOES NOT 
DISPUTE THAT AID FOR UKRAINE 
WAS LINKED TO A PUBLIC 
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN. 
>> IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW 
UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS SAW THE 
IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE 
UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA AS 
EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
I SAW THEM AS DIFFERENT. 
IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE 
SEEN THE CONNECTION 
DIFFERENTLY, AND HAD I DONE SO 
I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN 
OBJECTIONS. 
>> MORRISON IS THE DEPARTING 
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN 
AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS AT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. 
HE TOLD LAWMAKERS IN PREVIOUS 
CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY HE WAS 
CONCERNED THE DETAILS OF THE 
CLOSED DOOR CALL WOULD BECOME 
PUBLIC, BUT DIDN'T THINK 
ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS 
DISCUSSED. 
DURING HIS TESTIMONY HE SAID 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND 
TOLD HIM AID WAS CONDITIONED 
ON INVESTIGATIONS. 
WE ALREADY HEARD FROM 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS EARLIER 
TODAY. 
THEY WERE BOTH ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL WITH THE LEADER OF 
UKRAINE. 
VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON 
UKRAINE ON THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL. 
HIS FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET 
UNION 40 YEARS AGO AND DURING 
HIS TESTIMONY, HE SAID HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL 
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS 
PROPER.  
>> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
A POLITICAL OPPONENT.  
I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF 
UKRAINE PURSUED AN 
INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO 
CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND 
BURISMA, IT WOULD BE 
INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY 
AND RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, 
UNDERMINING NATIONAL SECURITY, 
AND ADVANCING RUSSIA'S 
OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION. 
>> WE BRING IN REPUBLICAN 
STRATEGIST LESLIE SANCHEZ, 
LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER 
NEW YORK ASSISTANT DISTRICT 
ATTORNEY, REBECCA ROIFE, AND 
LINDA TRAN, A DEMOCRATIC 
STRATEGIST. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING 
HERE. 
LINDA, WE START WITH YOU. 
BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD 
TODAY, MORRISON, VOLKER, 
VINDMAN, DO YOU THINK THE 
DEMOCRATS MOVED THE BALL 
FORWARD? 
>> I DEFINITELY DO. 
IN FACT THE LAST SESSION OF 
TESTIMONY WAS PROBABLY THE 
BIGGEST BOMBSHELL. 
HERE YOU HAD WITNESSES BROUGHT 
IN MY REPUBLICANS, BY THE 
CHOICE OF REPUBLICANS, AND 
VOLKER JUST TO START THINGS 
OFF SAYS JOE BIDEN IS A GOOD 
MAN ESSENTIALLY AND THAT THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM AREN'T 
CREDIBLE. 
HE SAYS IT NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. 
AND AS THE CLIP SHOWED, HE 
STARTED OFF BY AMENDING THE 
VERY THINGS THAT HE HAD SAID 
PREVIOUSLY AS PART OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> SO THERE ARE A LOT OF 
REALLY AMAZING AND INTERESTING 
THINGS THAT BROUGHT TO LIGHT, 
BROUGHT TO LIFE RATHER SOME OF 
THE FACTS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD 
BEEN SEEKING TO LAY OUT OVER 
THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. 
>> I WANT TO PLAY A SOUND BITE 
OF WHAT MORRISON SAID 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND 
SAID THE HOLDING UP OF THE AID 
WAS CONDITIONED UPON. 
LET'S LISTEN.  
>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT HE TOLD 
UKRAINE? 
>> THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS AS A 
EXAMINE OF HAVING THE AID 
LIFTED. 
>> IS THAT THE CLEAREST 
STATEMENT WE'VE HEARD OF A 
QUID QUO PRO THUS FAR? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
IF YOU BELIEE HIM, IF THAT'S 
ACCURATE AND SONDLAND CON IF I 
WERES THAT, THEN IT'S A FAIRLY 
CLEAR STATEMENT. 
NOW YOU HAVE CASTER WHO'S THE 
ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE 
REPUBLICANS SUGGESTING THAT 
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH 
THIS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE 
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO GO 
BECAUSE THESE ARE THE FACTS. 
THESE ARE FACT WITNESSES. 
THIS LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY WHAT 
THE DEMOCRATS WANT, AND THE 
ONLY WAY TO SPIN IT IS SAY 
HE'S LYING, AND I DON'T THINK 
THEY WANT TO DO THAT OR SAY 
THIS IS BUSINESS AS USUAL, 
JUST THE PRESIDENT, HE THINKS 
HE'S PURSUING AN 
ANTICORRUPTION SORT OF 
CAMPAIGN. 
THAT'S A HARD POSITION TO TAKE 
GIVEN THE FACTS. 
IT MAY PLAY POLITICALLY. 
BUT IN TERMS OF THE FACT IT'S 
HARD TO ESTABLISH THAT NOW 
BECAUSE HOW ON EARTH DOES THIS 
INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN 
FURTHER AN ANTICORRUPTION 
AGENDA? 
WE'VE REPEATEDLY HEARD FROM 
EVERY EXPERT ON THE UKRAINE, 
EVERY PERSON ON THE GROUND 
THAT IT WAS IN FACT COUNTERTO 
THAT AGENDA. 
>> AND NOW THIS CLOSE TIE TO 
THE DELAY OF THE AID WHICH IS 
SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T HEARD 
BEFORE MAKES IT EVEN MORE 
DIFFICULT, SO LESLIE, HOW ARE 
REPUBLICANS GOING TO BOUNCE 
BACK FROM THE TESTIMONY WE 
HEARD TODAY? 
>> I THINK REPUBLICANS STILL 
THINK THEY HAD A FAIRLY DECENT 
DAY. 
I DON'T THINK IT'S A BOMBSHELL 
THE DEMOCRATS WANT IT TO BE. 
FIRST OFF. 
WE HAVE TO HEAR WHAT SONDLAND 
SAYS TOMORROW. 
REALLY THIS IS ALL A ROLL UP 
TO KEEP YOU TUNED IN TOMORROW 
BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHERE 
THE RUBBER MEETS IN ROAD IN 
THE SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING AND 
ALSO SOMETHING WE HAVE TO 
WORRY ABOUT IN TERMS OF A 
CREDIBLE WITNESS IN TERMS OF 
CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY. 
BUT THE FINAL NOTE, IN 
LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS WE 
DID ALL DAY, OVER AND OVER, 
PERHAPS IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, 
BUT IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL. 
IT CAME OUT IN DIFFERENT 
PARTS, THROUGH DIFFERENT PARTS 
OF TESTIMONY, AND THAT'S WHERE 
THE REPUBLICANS WILL DRILL 
DOWN. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT DID REACT 
EARLIER TO THE HEARINGS, SO 
LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID.  
>> UNDER PRESIDENTS RONALD 
REAGAN. 
>> I JUST GOT TO WATCH, AND 
THE REPUBLICANS ARE ABSOLUTELY 
KILLING IT. 
THEY'RE DOING SO WELL BECAUSE 
IT'S A SCAM. 
IT'S A BIG SCAM. 
VINDMAN, I WATCHED HIM FOR A 
LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING, AND 
I THINK HE, I'M GOING TO LET 
PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN 
DETERMINATION, BUT I DON'T 
KNOW VINDMAN, YOU NEVER HEARD 
OF HIM. 
I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THESE 
PEOPLE. 
>> SO LESLIE, WE HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT SAY REPUBLICANS WERE 
QUOTE KILLING IT TODAY, BUT 
SOME ARE TAKING OFFENSE OR 
DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH 
HIS PERCEIVED ATTACK ON 
VINDMAN, A MILITARY MAN. 
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? 
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF 
DIFFERENT THINGS. 
MORRISON HAS COME OUT AND SAID 
THAT VINDMAN DOES NOT FOLLOW 
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. 
HE'S BEEN KNOWN TO GO OUTSIDE 
THAT. 
THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK TO 
WHETHER HE WAS AN INDEPENDENT 
AGENT IN A SENSE. 
HE WENT TO COUNSEL FIRST WHO 
TOLD HIM TO NOT GO TO 
MORRISON, BUT HE TOLD HIS 
BROTHER AND ALL THESE 
DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND HIS BOSS 
MORRISON WAS THE LAST TO KNOW. 
SO I THINK THERE'S QUESTIONS 
ABOUT RELIABILITY AND HIS 
VOICE AND JUDGMENT. 
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S A 
SALIENT POINT ONE WAY OR THE 
OTHER. 
I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO AGAIN 
OVERALL HE SAID THE CALL THAT 
SOUNDED INAPPROPRIATE, BUT THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT, 
SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE WAS I 
THINK THE TERM THEY USED, AND 
IT'S GOING TO GET BACK TO THE 
ISSUE OF IS THIS SOMETHING 
THAT'S IMPEACHABLE, AND 
NOTHING HAS REACHED THAT POINT 
YT -- 
>> LINDA, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO 
RESPOND? 
>> I THINK ON THE FACE OF IT 
THE OPTICS ARE NOT GOOD FOR 
REPUBLICANS. 
THEY SPENT THE DAY, OR THE 
FIRST PART OF THE DAY LOBBING 
ATTACKS AGAINST A DECORATED 
WAR VETERAN WHO WAS INJURED 
AND RECEIVED A PURPLE HEART 
SERVING THE NATION. 
AND HE'S WHAT YOU EXPECT TO BE 
THE TRUMP IDEAL OF AN 
IMMIGRANT. 
HE CAME HERE AND SPENT THE 
LAST 40 YEARS SERVING THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC. 
SO THE VERY FACT THAT 
REPUBLICANS FOUND THEMSELVES 
IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WERE, 
WHETHER TRYING TO CHIP AWAY AT 
HIS CREDIBILITY OR TO THROW 
SOME COLD WATER ON SOME OF THE 
PRETTY HE HAVE THINK THINGS HE 
WAS SAYING, THAT'S NOT A GOOD 
POSITION. 
>> BUT I DON'T THINK HE SAID 
ANYTHING HEFTY. 
NOT SUCH A BOMBSHELL. 
>> JUST THE FACT I THINK HE 
WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE 
PHONE CALL, HE WAS 
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WHAT HE 
PERCEIVED THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED. 
YOU KNOW, HE CAN'T PRETEND TO 
TALK FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTENTIONS WERE, 
BUT HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE 
ENOUGH WITH THE CALL THAT HE 
NEEDED TO REPORT IT. 
>> HE WENT OUTSIDE HIS CHAIN 
OF COMMAND, FREE WILL, WHAT HE 
INTERPRETED TO BE THE BEST 
COURSE OF ACTION. 
>> BUT THAT'S ALSO A PROCESS 
ARGUMENT, RIGHT? 
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHETHER YOU 
THINK VINDMAN'S VERSION OR 
INTERPRETATION OF THE CALL IS, 
UM, ACCURATE, THE LANGUAGE 
USED IN THE CALL, DO ME A 
FAVOR, LOOK INTO THE BIDENS, 
ALL OF THE OTHER SUBSTANCE OF 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND 
HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE 
ABOUT -- 
>> REBECCA DO YOU WANT TO 
SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT VINDMAN 
DID GO OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND TO MAKE HIS COMPLAINT? 
>> I WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS 
QUESTION ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY 
WHICH IS I DON'T THINK THERE'S 
A HUGE AMOUNT OF QUESTION 
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ANYMORE. 
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR NOW. 
WE'VE HAD WITNESS AFTER 
WITNESS AFTER WITNESS TESTIFY 
AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. 
SO IF YOU WANT TO UNDERMINE 
HIS CREDIBILITY, IT'S ONLY TO 
THE QUESTION OF HOW DID HE 
CHARACTERIZE THIS CALL. 
DOES HIS SENSE THAT IT'S 
IMPROPER MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU 
ANTER? 
AND THAT IS, I SUPPOSE A 
POLITICALLY IMPORTANT POINT. 
BUT IN A PROCEEDING, THE WAY 
IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IS THE 
FACT WITNESSES COME OUT AND 
TALK ABOUT THE FACTS, AND THEN 
THE, UM, FACT FINDERS WHO ARE 
HERE CONGRESS DETERMINING 
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PROPERTY. 
OR MAYBE THE FACT FINDERS ARE 
THE PUBLIC. 
SO I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING 
IS WE ARE NOW BEGINNING TO 
CONNECT THE DOTS ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED. 
THE DEFENSE, THE REPUBLICANS, 
I KEEP CALLING THIS A DEFENSE 
BECAUSE I ENVISION IT LIKE A 
COURTROOM, BUT IT ISN'T. 
THEY'RE DEVELOPING LIKE A CORE 
THEORY. 
SO WHAT'S YOUR STORY, WHAT'S 
YOUR CORE THEORY? 
THE BEST ONE THEY HAVE SO FAR 
AND I THINK THEY SHOULD STICK 
WITH IT IS NO BIG DEAL. 
BECAUSE EVERY OTHER ONE LIKE 
THESE WITNESSES ARE TAINTED, 
TO ME THOSE ARE SORT OF SIDE 
SHOWS BECAUSE AFTER YOU HEAR 
IT YOU SAY I GET WHAT 
HAPPENED. 
>> AND THAT'S PROBABLY GOING 
TO BE THE STRATEGY OF 
REPUBLICANS GOING FORWARD. 
ES, MAYBE SOME  
THINGS HAPPENED, BUT IT'S NOT 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> YES, AND I THINK 
CONSISTENTLY IF YOU GO LINE BY 
LINE, WITNESS AFTER WITNESS, 
IT SUMS UP TO THAT. 
AND THIS DOES NOT HAVE THE 
BENEFIT OF HAVING AN ORGANIZED 
DEFENSE, AND IT'S THE CROSS 
PRESSURE BETWEEN THE LEGAL 
ASPECTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO 
PARSE THROUGH AND THE 
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS. 
>> BUT LOOKING AT THE LARGER 
POLITICAL IMPLICATION FOR A 
MOMENT, WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE AN 
ELECTION, OF COURSE, SO THIS 
HAS HUGE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IF HE'S GOING TO SAY IT WASN'T 
GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, LESSON LEARNED. 
WOULD THAT GIVE HIM MORE 
POLITICAL WEIGHT THAN IF HE 
STICKS TO HIS GUNS OF I DID 
NOTHING WRONG IT WAS A PERFECT 
PHONE CALL? 
>> YES, BUT HE'D HAVE TO 
CHANNEL BILL CLINTON. 
A MOMENT OF CONTRITION, THE 
DEFINITION OF IS IS, AND 
THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE THE 
APPROACH OF THE PRESIDENT. 
HE'S DOGMATIC IN HIS 
INSISTENCE TO THE CALL WAS 
PERFECT. 
>> SO IS THE STRATEGY TWO 
PRONGED? 
THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY APOLOGIZES FOR THE 
PRESIDENT WHILE THE PRESIDENT 
CONTINUES TO SAY I DID NOTHING 
WRONG? 
>> I THINK THIS IS WHAT'S 
FASCINATING. 
REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN AGREE 
THAT SOMETHING IS FISHY IN THE 
CALL. 
THEY DON'T FEEL PARTICULARLY 
COMFORTABLE ABOUT IT, BUT IS 
IT WORTH THE REMOVAL OF A 
PRESIDENT? 
ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
ESPECIALLY WITH SO MANY 
INDIVIDUALS SAYING THEY DIDN'T 
SEE ANYTHING PARTICULARLY 
ILLEGAL. 
THEY FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AND IT 
WAS OBJECTIVE. 
>> BUT REASONABLE PEOPLE SAY 
THERE'S SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT 
THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT WILL 
NEVER SAY THAT. 
>> YES, IF YOU THROW A DART, 
IT'S GOING TO LAND SOMEWHERE 
IN THAT SPACE. 
>> AND THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE WAY 
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT 
LEGAL PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE 
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER 
SOMETHING WENT WRONG HERE, TO 
ME, IF THE YOU'RE FOLLOWING 
THE BRIBERY STATUTE, I'M 
STARTING TO THINK THERE'S NO 
QUESTION. 
I MEAN, THERE IS AN EXCHANGE. 
I MEAN, HE'S DEMANDING 
SOMETHING OF VALUE TO HIMSELF 
PERSONALLY WHICH IS THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS 
IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING OF 
VALUE WHICH IS, I MEAN SORRY A 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE THAT IS THE 
RELEASE OF THIS AID AND THAT 
MEETING. 
SO I, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND 
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE 
MUELLER REPORT IT'S ALL LIKE I 
DON'T KNOW, WHAT IS THIS, IS 
IT BAD, IS IT NOT? 
HERE, I DON'T KNOW, BRIBERY IS 
IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> AND LINDA, IF THERE WERE A 
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND NOT A 
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT FACING 
THE SAME ALLEGATION, HOW DO 
YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS 
WOULD BE HANDLING IT? 
>> OH, THEY'D BE RELENTLESS OF 
COURSE. 
YOU SAW SOME GRAND STANDING 
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS 
TODAY, AND CERTAINLY LAST 
WEEK. 
IN FACT SOME MADE HEADLINES 
FOR THE GRAND STANDING THEY 
DID. 
IT WOULD BE OFF THE CHARTS. 
IF YOU PUT BARACK OBAMA FOR 
EXAMPLE IN THE POSITION THAT 
DONALD TRUMP IS IN RIGHT NOW, 
JUST IMAGINE THE FIREWORKS. 
>> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN. 
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY 
IT WAS AN APPEARANCE AT LEAST 
OF  IMPROPRIETY TO HAVE JOE 
BIDEN'S SON ON THE BOARD OF 
THIS COMPANY, JUST LIKE THE 
PHONE CALL. 
IT'S FISHY, DOESN'T SEEM 
RIGHT. 
BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID HE 
KNEW JOE BIDEN WASN'T UP TO NO 
GOOD. 
LET'S LISTEN TO THE EXCHANGE.  
>> WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN 
RELATED TO HIS SON AND BURISMA 
NOT TO BE BELIEVED? 
>> SIMPLY BECAUSE I'VE KNOWN 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
FOR A LONG TIME. 
I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS 
DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE, AND 
IT'S JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME 
THAT A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DO 
ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACT HOW HE 
SEES BEST FOR THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
>> WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT 
VOLKER DEFENDED BIDEN SO 
VOCIFEROUSLY THERE? 
>> I LITTLE. 
I THINK IT CALLS INTO 
QUESTION, I THINK REPUBLICANS 
WILL SEE HE HAS A BLIND SPOT 
WITH RESPECT TO THAT AND 
COULDN'T SEE EVEN WHAT THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PREPPED 
THEIR OWN AMBASSADOR FOR IN 
TERMS OF LOOKING AT THESE 
PERHAPS INCONSISTENCIES OR 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK LINDA 
ABOUT VOLKER'S DEFENSE OF 
BIDEN? 
>> I THINK IT WAS STUNNING TO 
HAVE A REPUBLICAN CALLED 
WITNESS ESSENTIALLY SERVE AS A 
CHARACTER WITNESS FOR JOE 
BIDEN, THE VERY TARGET OF THE 
BRIBERY ATTEMPT BY DONALD 
TRUMP. 
SO I THINK THAT WAS A HUGE 
BOMBSHELL MOMENT THAT WE JUST 
DIDN'T EXPECT. 
AND I ALSO THINK THAT 
ULTIMATELY AS THIS CONTINUES 
TO PLAY OUT, IN SOME WAYS IT 
ACTUALLY DOES SPEAK TO THE OF , 
OBVIOUSLY THE THREAT THAT 
DONALD TRUMP FEELS, BUT ALSO 
OFFERS JOE BIDEN THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO LEAN INTO HIS 
FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AND 
OTHER COMPONENTS WE HAVEN'T 
REALLY HEARD AS MUCH FROM HIM 
UNTIL RECENTLY. 
>> AND HOW WILL IT PLAY OUT 
FOR BIDEN ON THE CAMPAIGN 
TRAIL, LINDA? 
>> WELL I THINK SAY OF 
COURSE I HAVE A TARGET ON MY 
BACK, DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T 
WANT TO FACE ME. 
HE'S THE MOST ELECTABLE. 
THERE'S A WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT 
THAT'S A POSITIVE. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK LESLIE? 
IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU 
HAVE BOTH TRUMP AND BIDEN 
FACED WITH THE FALLOUT FROM 
THESE, YOU KNOW, FROM THESE 
HEARINGS FOR THEIR CAMPAIGNS, 
AND YOU CAN MAKE ARGUMENTS 
THAT IT'S GOING TO HELP AND 
HURT BOTH OF THEM, CORRECT? 
>> RIGHT. 
BUT WHERE WE STAND TODAY, THE 
MOST DAMAGE I WOULD ARGUE IS 
DONE TO JOE BIDEN. 
NOT BECAUSE OF JOE BIDEN 
HIMSELF, BECAUSE OF HUNTER AND 
DID HE KNOW AND WAS HE 
SUPPORTING HIS SON AND KIND OF 
PULLING THAT THREAD A BIT MORE 
WHICH IS REALLY HOW THIS 
ISSUE, WHETHER PEOPLE AGREE OR 
NOT. 
>> THAT'S HOW YOU SEE IT. 
>> I THINK THAT'S HOW VOTERS 
SEE IT. 
>> OKAY. 
>> I JUST WANTED TO ADD, AND 
THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING TO 
ME, BUT I DID WANT TO ADD THAT 
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER JOE 
BIDEN DID ANYTHING WRONG IS 
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE 
LEGAL QUESTION AT ISSUE SHEER. 
SO HE COULD BE AS CORRUPT AS, 
I MEAN, HE COULD BE THE WORST 
PERSON, AND THAT'S IRRELEVANT 
TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR 
NOT THIS WAS A BRIBE. 
ALL IT HAS TO BE IS THERE WAS 
SOMETHING OF PERSONAL INTEREST 
TO THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS 
TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS 
EXCHANGE AND I THINK THAT'S 
BEEN ESTABLISHED. 
SO IT, THIS IS A REALLY 
INTERESTING POLITICAL 
QUESTION, AND OF COURSE THE -- 
>> AND THE OTHER INTERESTING 
POLITICAL QUESTION IS IF 
THAT'S ESTABLISHED, IS THAT AN 
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE AS IT'S 
DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, 
REBECCA? 
>> RIGHT, AND THAT'S A KEY 
QUESTION. 
TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE WELL, YOU 
KNOW, THERE IS A REASON WHY 
THE, UM, DRAFTERS WROTE 
TREASON,  BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ABUSE 
OF OFFICE. 
USING AN OFFICE FOR THE PUBLIC 
GOOD FOR PRIVATE GAIN, AND 
THAT'S JUST THE DEFINITION OF 
WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WERE MOST 
CONCERNED ABOUT. 
>> BUT IT'S SENATE REPUBLICANS 
THAT MAKE THE DETERMINATION, 
AND IS THERE ANYTHING WE HEARD 
TODAY, WE CAN PROBABLY ALL 
AGREE THAT TODAY WAS PROBABLY 
THE MOST DAMAGING TESTIMONY 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
SO IS THERE ANYTHING WE HEARD 
TODAY LESLIE THAT WILL CHANGE 
THE MIND OF A SINGLE 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR. 
>> NO. 
>> THERE YOU GO. 
AND THAT PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT 
ALL.  
THAT KIND OF SAYS IT ALL. 
>> REPUBLICANS WILL DECIDE 
WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP IS 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE, AND I 
AGREE WITH LESLIE, THE 
LIKELIHOOD OF THAT IS 
INCREDIBLY LOW. 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL 
ULTIMATELY DECIDE IF DONALD 
TRUMP IS IMPEACHED, AND I 
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ABOUT 
SAFEGUARDING THE CONSTITUTION 
THAT IF SOMEONE PRETTY CLEARLY 
COMMITTED AN ACT OF BRIBERY, 
THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE 
IMPEACHED. 
>> I WANT TO SAY ONE THING, 
WHICH IS MY INTEREST HERE OR 
WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO 
FOCUS ON IS DESPITE HOW 
POLARIZED WE ARE POLITICALLY, 
WE STILL HAVE PROCEEDINGS THAT 
GET THE FACTS TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
>> WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT. 
>> WE SHOULD BE EXTREMELY 
PROUD OF THAT, AND WHEN PEOPLE 
ARE TALKING ABOUT ON EITHER 
SIDE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE 
RULE OF LAW, I SEE THIS AS AN 
EXAMPLE OF THE OPPOSITE OF 
THAT WHICH IS OUR INSTITUTIONS 
ARE HOLDING UP WELL UNDER A 
GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE. 
YOU HAVE PEOPLE SPINNING 
THINGS ON EITHER SIDE, BUT IS 
THERE A REAL SENSE WE'RE 
DISAGREEING OVER THE FACTS? 
NO. 
WE'RE CONVERGING, AT LEAST TO 
A LARGE EXTENT. 
AND TO ME THAT'S REMARKABLE. 
>> SO YOU HAVE REASON TO BE 
HOPEFUL! 
>> I DO. 
>> YOU HEARD IT HERE. 
THANK GOODNESS SOMEONE SAID 
IT. 
I BELIEVE THAT VOLKER AND 
MORRISON MAY HAVE BEEN SEATED, 
AND I BELIEVE PROCEEDNGS ARE 
ABOUT TO BEGIN SO LET'S LISTEN 
IN.  
>> WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO 15 
MINUTE ROUNDS. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU WERE 
RIGHT TO ASK IF A QUOTE WAS 
YOUR WORDS, AND I ACTUALLY 
READ THE WRONG PART IN THE 
QUOTE. 
WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID WAS IT 
CREATES A PROBLEM AGAIN WHERE 
ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE 
TRYING TO DO TO ADVANCE THE 
BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP, 
STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE, STRENGTHEN THE 
POSITIONING AGAINST RUSSIA IS 
NOT GETTING SUCKED INTO A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL DEBATE IN 
THE U.S., DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
NARRATIVE THAT OVERSHADOWS 
THAT. 
SO YOU WERE RIGHT TO POINT 
THAT OUT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR 
THE MISTAKE. 
I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE 
OF THINGS YOU SAID IN THE 
MINORITIES ROUND. 
CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT THE READ 
OUT OF THE JULY 25th CALL 
YOU GOT? 
>> YES, I RECEIVED A READ OUT 
FROM BOTH UKRAINIAN COLLEAGUES 
AS WELL AS FROM A U.S. PERSON. 
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MY 
STAFF OR SOMEONE FROM THE 
EMBASSY OR WHERE. 
AND THE READ OUT IS THAT IT 
WAS A GOOD PHONE CALL. 
THAT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY 
PHONE CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
WIN IN THE PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTION. 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
RENEWED HIS COMMITMENT TO 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND 
ADVANCING REFORM IN UKRAINE, 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP RENEWED 
HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO COME TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THE 
READ OUT WAS EXACTLY AS YOU 
EXPECTED THE CALL TO GO? 
>> YES, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE 
TRYING TO TEE UP. 
>> I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU 
AGAIN THE JULY 25th TEXT YOU 
WROTE TO ANDRE YERMACH. 
YOU SAID ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z 
CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL 
INVESTIGATE QUOTE GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 
2016, WE'LL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR 
VISIT TO WASHINGTON, THAT'S 
WHAT YOU EXPECTED FROM THE 
CALL, RIGHT? 
>> I EXPECTED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONVINCING 
IN HIS CONVEYING WHO HE IS AS 
A PERSON AND DOING THAT THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE 
CONVINCED AND RENEW HIS 
INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> BUT YOU DON'T MENTION 
CORRUPTION IN THIS TEXT? 
THE WORLD CORRUPTION IS NOT 
THERE. 
>> THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT 
THERE. 
INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT 
WOULD BE CORRUPT WOULD BE 
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION. 
>> YOU JUST SAID IT AGAIN THAT 
INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, YOU ARE 
AWARE OF COURSE THAT MOST 
INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TO 
THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE 
PAST, RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> SORRY? 
>> YES. 
>> SO THAT DOESN'T REALLY MOVE 
THE NEEDLE WHETHER IT'S 
CURRENT OR PAST IN TERMS OF 
THE SUBJECT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> YES, THE SUBJECT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION ARE THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST. 
>> YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE 
MEETING YOU HAD ON JULY 26th 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV. 
>> ON THE 26th? 
WE HAD A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YES. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT THE TOPIC OF 
INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT COME UP 
AT ALL. 
>> RIGHT, I DON'T RECALL THEM 
COMING UP. 
JUST THE GENERAL PHONE CALL. 
>> AND YOU DIDN'T TAKE NOTES? 
>> NO. 
>> BECAUSE THERE WERE STAFFERS 
THERE TO DO THAT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO IF THERE ARE 2 STAFFERS 
THAT TOOK NOTES TO THE MEETING 
AND TESTIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT 
OF EITHER SENSITIVE TOPICS OR 
INVESTIGATIONS CAME UP, ARE WE 
BETTER OFF TAKING THEIR WORD 
FOR IT OR YOURS? 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT 
THEIR NOTES IF THEY WERE TAKEN 
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AT THE 
MEETING. 
>> ANOTHER WITNESS, UM, 
TESTIFIED BEFORE US, LAURA 
COOPER, ABOUT A MEETING THAT 
SHE HAD WITH YOU ON JULY, ON 
AUGUST 20th. 
DO YOU RECALL HAVING THAT 
MEETING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU 
DIDN'T MENTION IT IN OUR 
DEPOSITION? 
>> I DO. 
I DID MENTION I HAD BEEN 
MAKING THE ROUNDS TO WEIGH IN 
ON LIFTING THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
>> AND SHE RECALLED WITH SOME 
SPECIFICITY THAT MEETING THAT 
WAS ALSO BASED ON HER NOTES 
THAT YOU DESCRIBED THE 
STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE TRYING 
TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
DISAVOW INTERFERENCE IN THE 
ELECTION AND INVESTIGATE THOSE 
INVOLVED IN ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE, AND IF HE WERE 
TO AGREE TO DO THAT SHE 
FIREFIGHTERRED, THEN YOU 
THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT HELP TO 
LIFT THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF 
THE CONVERSATION AS WELL? 
>> NOT EXACTLY. 
>> HOW DOES YOURS DIFFER? 
>> I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT 
THE STATEMENT HE DISCUSSED 
EARLIER. 
THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN IN THE 
SUBJECT OF THE EXCHANGES 
BETWEEN MR. YERMAK AND MYSELF, 
MYSELF AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND RUDY GIULIANI AND BACK TO 
YERMAK. 
I DISCUSSED THIS EFFORT COULD 
BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A RESET 
IN THE NEGATIVE THINKING OF 
UKRAINE THAT HE HAD. 
IF WE DID THAT, I THOUGHT THAT 
WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IN 
UNBLOCKING WHATEVER HOLD THERE 
WAS ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
THAT IF THERE'S THIS NEGATIVE 
PRESUMPTION ABOUT UKRAINE, 
GETTING THIS STUFF ON TRACK 
WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT 
INTERPRETATION, BUT YOU DON'T 
DOUBT THAT WHAT SHE TESTIFIED 
IS INACCURATE, DO YOU? 
>> I BELIEVE SHE ACCURATELY 
REFLECTED WHAT SHE UNDERSTOOD 
FROM THE CONVERSATION. 
>> UM, YOU TESTIFIED A LITTLE 
BIT ABOUT THE JUNE 28th 
CONFERENCE CALL THAT YOU HAD 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, UM, I'M NOT 
SURE IF DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT 
WAS ON THE LINE. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
>> AND SECRETARY PERRY BEFORE 
YOU LOOPED IN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE 
PARTICIPANTS OR WAS SECRETARY 
PERRY NOT A PART OF IT? 
>> I'M PRETTY SURE KENT WASN'T 
ON IT. 
I DON'T REMEMBER IF SECRETARY 
PERRY WAS ON IT, AND I DON'T 
REMEMBER IF I STAYED ON FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JOINING THE 
CALL OR NOT. 
THERE WERE 2 SEPARATE CALLS. 
>> WERE THERE ANY STAFF 
MEMBERS OR NOTE TAKERS ON THE 
CALL? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
>> WHY? 
>> WE WERE HAVING A CALL AMONG 
OURSELVES TO TALK ABOUT THE 
MESSAGES WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED 
TO CONVEY. 
>> AND AT THAT POINT WE'VE HAD 
OTHER TESTIMONY, UM, FROM 
PEOPLE WHO DID TAKE NOTES THAT 
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS OR WHAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO 
DO IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING. 
DO YOU RECALL THAT? 
>> I RECALL SEEING THAT IN 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY. 
I BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN 
A TEXT MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT. 
AGAIN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS 
OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
BECAUSE WHAT I CERTAINLY 
UNDERSTOOD WERE ABOUT BEING 
CONVINCING ABOUT THIS 
PRESENTING THE NEW PRESIDENT 
AND TEAM AS A CHANGE IN 
UKRAINE.  
>> WELL, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
BURISMA IN THE 2016 ELECTION, 
RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU INTERPRETED THOSE 
TO BE OKAY BECAUSE IN THEORY 
THEY WERE LOOKING INTO 
UKRAINIANS? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> BUT WE CAN AGREE, CAN WE 
NOT, THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS, 
ALL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WERE 
BURISMA IN THE 2016 ELECTION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND WHAT YOU THEN AMENDED 
YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY TO SAY IS 
THAT IN RETROSPECT, IF YOU 
DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE 
PURPOSE FOR MR. GIULIANI AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WANT THE 
BURISMA INVESTIGATION WAS FOR 
POLITICAL BENEFITS AND IN 
DIGGING UP DIRT OR GETTING 
SOME INFORMATION ON VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
>> IT'S CORRECT THAT I LEARNED 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST 
IN INVESTIGATING VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN FROM THE PHONE 
CALL TRANSCRIPT WHICH CAME 
MUCH, MUCH LATER. 
FROM GIULIANI, I DIDN'T KNOW 
HE WAS ACTIVITY PURSUING THIS. 
I DID KNOW THAT HE RAISED THIS 
WITH ME DIRECTLY AND I HAD 
PUSHED BACK ON IT. 
>> YOU KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS PURSUING THIS AT 
THE JULY 10th MEETING ING WHEN 
HE RAISED THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
HIMSELF. 
>> HE DIDN'T SPECIFY BIDEN OR 
BURISMA EITHER. 
I SAW IT AS A GENERIC COMMENT 
AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT 
MEETING. 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BIDEN 
WASN'T MENTIONED, BUT YOU DO 
AGREE THAT WHEN INVESTIGATIONS 
ARE REFERENCED IN THIS CONTEXT 
IT'S BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
>> YES, THAT'S WHAT I 
UNDERSTAND. 
>> AND ON THAT JULY 10th 
CALL WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
RAISED THE INVESTIGATIONS, HE 
DID THAT IN RESPONSE TO A 
QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIANS 
ABOUT. 
>> REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
>> YOU SAID THAT YOU THAT IT 
THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? 
>> YES. 
>> UM, DIDN'T HE MAKE THAT 
COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO A 
QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS ABOUT WHEN THEY 
COULD SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING? 
>> THAT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT. 
I REMEMBER THE MEETING 
ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING 
OVER, AND THEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND BRINGING THAT UP. 
>> AND IN THE JULY 2nd OR 
3rd MEETING IN TORONTO YOU 
HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
YOU ALSO MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS TO HIM, RIGHT? 
>> YES,. 
>> AND YOU WERE REFERRING TO 
BURISMA AND 2016? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT'S 
WHAT THE UKRAINIANS 
INTERPRETED REFERENCES TO 
INVESTIGATIONS TO BE RELATED 
TO BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTION? 
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY 
AT THAT TIME IF WE HAD TALKED 
TO THAT SPECIFICALLY, BURISMA 
2016, BUT THAT WAS MY 
ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE 
THINKING THAT TOO. 
>> MR. MORRISON, WHEN DID YOU 
HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH 
FIONA HILL ABOUT BURISMA AND 
THE PARALLEL PROCESS INVOLVING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY 
GIULIANI, DO YOU RECALL? 
>> WE HAD A NUMBER OF HAND OFF 
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 
15 JULY. 
>> OKAY. 
SO IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME YOU 
WERE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THIS 
EFFORT TO PROMOTE THIS BURISMA 
INVESTIGATION THAT SONDLAND 
AND GIULIANI WERE GOING ON 
ABOUT. 
AT LEAST YOU HEARD ABOUT IT 
FROM DR. HILL? 
>> I HEARD ABOUT IT FROM 
DR. HILL. 
>> I WANT TO PULL UP ANOTHER 
EXCERPT FROM A RECENT WALL 
STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT 
QUOTES AN E-MAIL FROM 
JULY 13th THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SENT TO YOU. 
AND HE WROTE TO YOU QUOTE SOLE 
PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO 
GIVE POTUS ASSURANCES OF NEW 
SHERIFF IN TOWN. 
CORRUPTION ENDING, UNBUNDLING 
MOVING FORWARD, AND ANY 
HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL 
BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD 
TRANSPARENTLY. 
AND YOU RESPONDED TRACKING. 
WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEAN 
WHEN HE WROTE TO YOU ANY 
HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL 
BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD 
TRANSPARENTLY? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAD ANY 
UNDERSTANDING. 
THESE ARE E-MAILS? 
JULY 13 E-MAILS? 
I WASN'T EVEN IN THE SEAT YET. 
BUT I KNEW THAT AMONG THE HEAD 
OF STATE MEETINGS WE WERE 
ATTEMPTING TO SCHEDULE WAS ONE 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> RIGHT. 
BUT IT WAS BEFORE THIS THAT 
DR. HILL TOLD YOU ABOUT 
BURISMA AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND IN PARTICULAR, HIS 
DESIRE FOR THE PARALLEL 
PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE 
BURISMA? 
>> YES. 
>> SO YOU KNEW THAT WHEN YOU 
RECEIVED THE E-MAIL ASKING YOU 
ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? 
>> NOT NECESSARILY. 
>> NO? 
>> NO. 
>> WHY NOT? 
>> BECAUSE AMONG THE 
DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH 
DR. HILL WERE ABOUT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. 
I THINK SHE COINED IT THE 
GORDON PROBLEM. 
AND I DECIDED TO KEEP TRACK OF 
WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
DOING. 
I DIDN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS 
ACT ON THINGS GORDON SUGGESTED 
HE BELIEVED WERE IMPORTANT. 
SO HE WANTED TO GET A MEETING. 
I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED TO AND HAD AGREED TO A 
MEETING, SO I WAS TRACKING 
THAT WE NEEDED TO SCHEDULE A 
MEETING. 
>> YOU WERE NOT ENDORSING THE 
NOTION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT YOUR 
TESTIMONY? 
>> THAT IS MY TESTIMONY. 
>> OKAY. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
JUMP AHEAD. 
AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED, 
YOU WENT TO THE YES 
CONFERENCE, RIGHT, IN UKRAINE? 
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO 
TESTIFIED BASED ON QUITE 
DETAILED NOTES INDICATED THAT 
EARLIER A FEW DAYS BEFORE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD HIM 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A 
BUSINESS MAN, AND BEFORE HE 
WRITES A CHECK, HE LIKES TO 
SEE PEOPLE PAY UP, SOMETHING 
TO THAT EFFECT. 
YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT? 
>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
TESTIMONY. 
>> AND YOU'RE ALSO FAMILIAR 
THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID 
THAT YOU SAID SOMETHING VERY 
SIMILAR TO HIM WHEN YOU WERE 
IN UKRAINE FOR THE CONFERENCE. 
DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT TO 
AMBASSADORAYLOR? 
>> YES, I WAS REPEATING THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID TO ME 
TO EXPLAIN TO BILL TAYLOR WHAT 
THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS. 
>> AND WHAT CONTEXT DID 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THAT 
TO YOU? 
>> I THINK WE WERE TALKING 
AOUT THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD 
ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND HE 
WAS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT, 
HE'S ALREADY, YOU KNOW, GOT A 
NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE. 
HE SEES A CHECK ON HIS DESK 
THAT'S GOING TO THE 
UKRAINIANS, NOT SURE ABOUT 
THEM, SO HE WANTS TO HOLD ONTO 
IT UNTIL HE'S ASSURED. 
>> RIGHT, AND THE PAY UP 
BEFORE HE WRITE IT  WRITES THE 
CHECK IS A PAY UP. 
>> THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME. 
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A PAY 
UP. 
THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR. 
I HEARD FROM GORDON, HE SEES 
THE CHECK AND WANTS TO MAKE 
SURE HE HAD A DEAL WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS. 
I DIDN'T KNOW THE GENERIC 
FORMULATION. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. 
>> 15 MINUTES TO RANKING 
MEMBER NUNES. 
>> DO YOU EXPECT ANY MORE OF 
THESE MAGICAL 15 MINUTE 
DEVOTIONS YOU COME UP WITH IN 
THE BACK? 
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MAGICAL 
THEY ARE. 
THEY'RE PRESCRIBED BY HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660 THAT WE CAN 
HAVE SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS UP TO 
45 MINUTES. 
THIS IS PART OF PRESCRIBED 
PROCEDURE UNDER THE HOUSE 
RESOLUTION. 
>> DO YOU EXPECT MORE THIS 
EVENING? 
>> I DO NOT EXPECT MORE WILL 
BE NECESSARY.  
>> FOR EVERYONE WATCHING, THIS 
IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW OUT 
OF CONTROL THIS PROCESS HAS 
BECOME WHERE THE DEMOCRATS 
JUST MAGICALLY GIVE THEMSELVES 
ADDITIONAL MINUTES, WHICH 
THEY'RE RIGHT IN THE LITTLE 
SPECIAL RULE THEY WROTE THEY 
CAN DO, BUT YOU'D AT LEAST 
THINK THAT THEY'D HAVE THE 
DECENCY TO JUST TELL US YOU'RE 
GOING TO HAVE 15 MINUTES MORE. 
AND I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN 
GO 4 HOURS, WE CAN GO 5 HOURS, 
WE'LL GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT. 
YOU CAN KEEP DIGGING IF YOU 
WANT. 
THE DEEPER THE HOLE YOU DIG, I 
THINK THE MORE VIEWERS WILL 
TURN OFF BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST 
AREN'T BUYING THE DRUG DEAL 
YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO SELL.  
I WOULD ADD THAT SINCE WE ARE 
GETTING INTO PRIME TIME, THESE 
ARE 2 WITNESSES THAT WERE YOUR 
WITNESSES THAT YOU CALLED IN 
TO DEPOSE. 
WE STILL HAVE FOR WITNESSES 
YOU DID NOT DEPOSE, INCLUDING 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO YOU AND 
OTHERS CLAIM NOT TO KNOW, 
WHICH WE STILL NEED TO GET TO 
THE BOTTOM OF THAT BECAUSE 
IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT 
MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO HOW 
THIS WHOLE MESS BEGAN IN THE 
FIRST PLACE. 
SECONDLY WE'VE ASKED FOR THE 
DNC OPERATIVES WORKING WITH 
UKRAINIANS TO DIG UP DIRT FOR 
WHAT THE LEFT CALLS CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES, WHICH THEY'RE RIGHT, 
THEY'RE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF 
DIRT THEY DUG UP TO SPIN THEIR 
OWN ISSUES IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR 
THESE WITNESSES. 
I KNOW MR. CASTER DOES. 
>> YES, I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK 
AND YIELD SOME TIME BACK. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ARE YOU 
AWARE OF A STATEMENT ABOUT NO 
ONE EVER TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, 
CERTAINLY NOT HIM THAT THERE 
WAS ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
> I SAW THAT STATEMENT, YES. 
>> AND DO YOU KNOW THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER? 
>> I DO. 
>> AND DURING TIMES RELEVANT 
DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
WITH HIM ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS 
AND LINKS? 
>> NOT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS 
WITH HIM. 
I BELIEVE I KEPT THAT 
DISCUSSION TO BEING WITH 
MR. YERMAK AND WE DID DISCUSS 
WITH THE FOREIGN MINISTER AND 
DIPLOMATIC ADVISOR SECURITY 
ASSISTANTS AFTER IT WAS 
RAISED, AFTER AUGUST 29th. 
I DID DISCUSS THAT WITH HIM. 
>> THE PRIMARY PERSON YOU 
WORKED WITH IS MR. YERMAK? 
>> YES. 
>> HE ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
DID MR. YERMAK EVER GIVE YOU 
FEEDBACK ON HIS INTERACTIONS 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? 
> I CAN'T SAY IF HE DID OR 
DIDN'T. 
WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT 
AND TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES AS 
WE WENT ALONG. 
>> THE EPISODE AT WARSAW WHERE 
APPARENTLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
PULLED MR. YERMAK ASIDE, DID 
MR. YERMAK GIVE YOU ANY 
FEEDBACK ON THAT MEETING? 
>> I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING 
SPECIFIC ON THAT. 
THIS WAS AROUND I BELIEVE 
SEPTEMBER 1st OR 2nd, AND 
IT WAS AT THAT TIME I HAD 
BEEN, YOU THINK, TEXTED BY 
MR. YERMAK,  WHERE I TOLD THEM 
ALL DON'T WORRY, WE KNOW ABOUT 
THIS, WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IT. 
AND I THINK I LEFT THE 
CONVERSATION AT THAT. 
>> AND THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, 
THEY TRUSTED YOU? 
>> VERY MUCH SO. 
WE HAD A VERY CLOSE 
RELATIONSHIP. 
>> SO WHEN YOU MADE STATEMENTS 
LIKE THIS, DID THEY BELIEVE 
YOU? 
>> I THINK THEY BELIEVED ME, I 
THINK THEY'D HEAR THINGS FROM 
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT TRUSTED MANY 
I. 
>> AND THEY ALSO TRUSTED 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? 
>> YES. 
>> JUST LIKE TO DEMYSTIFY A 
LITTLE BIT OF THE WHOLE, UM, 
MAYOR GIULIANI ROLE HERE. 
YOU MET WITH HIM I BELIEVE ONE 
TIME? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU EXCHANGED SOME TEXT 
MESSAGES WITH HIM CORRECT? 
>> YES, BETWEEN I GUESS THE 
10th OF JULY AND THE 13th 
OF AUGUST. 
>> AND DURING THE DEPOSITION, 
WE ACCOUNTED FOR THEM ALL AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HE DIDN'T 
HAVE ANY ONE ON ONE MEETINGS 
WITH GIULIANI TO YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT I 
DON'T KNOW. 
>> AND I THINK AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT THERE 
WERE A COUPLE OF CONFERENCE 
CALLS HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON WITH 
YOU. 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> OKAY. 
JUST GETTING BACK TO THE 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COINED IN 
HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DID 
YOU HAVE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO SORT OF CLOSE THE LOOP WITH 
HIM ABOUT ANY CONCERNS 
WHATSOEVER OR WAS IT ALL 
SPECIFIC INSTANCES RAISED IN 
THE TEXTS? 
>> ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC 
INSTANCESES. 
>> >. DO YOU THINK AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS 
WITH HIM BELIEVED THAT 
MR. GIULIANI WAS IN FAR 
GREATER COMMUNICATION WITH 
YOURSELF, SECRETARY PERRY, AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE 
THOUGHT. 
>> OKAY. 
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE 
MR. NUNES.  
>> I HAVE NOTHING MORE. 
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN ALLOW US 
TO USE OUR MAGIC MINUTES TO 
YIELD? 
>> THE HOUSE PERMITS. 
>> WE NOW GO TO 5 MINUTE 
MEMBER QUESTIONS. 
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 5 
MINUTES. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING WITH 
RESPECT TO THE JULY 10th 
MEETING, YOU TESTIFY I 
PARTICIPATED IN THE 
JULY 10th MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON. 
I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT 
WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
THE CONVERSATION DID NOT 
CONTINUE, AND THE MEETING 
CONCLUDED. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE ASKED 
YOU ABOUT THAT MEETING DURING 
YOUR DEPOSITION, AND YOU TOLD 
US NOTHING ABOUT THIS. 
I BELIEVE WE ASKED YOU ABOUT 
WHY THE MEETING CAME TO AN END 
AND WHY YOU HAD EARLIER 
INDICATED I THINK TO 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT IT DID 
NOT GO WELL, AND YOUR ANSWER 
WAS THAT THEY WERE IN THE 
WEEDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY. 
WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US ABOUT 
THIS? 
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I 
REMEMBERED FROM THE MEETING. 
WHAT I PROVIDED IN MY 
OCTOBER 3rd STATEMENT. 
AS I SAID, I LEARNED OTHER 
THINGS, INCLUDING SEEING THE 
STATEMENTS FROM ALEX VINDMAN 
AND FIONA HILL AND THAT 
REMINDED ME THAT YES, AT THE 
VERY END OF THE MEETING AS IT 
WAS RECOUNTED IN COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S STATEMENT, I DID 
REMEMBER THAT YES, THAT'S 
RIGHT, GORDON BROUGHT THAT UP 
AND THAT WAS IT. 
>> SO AT THE TIME WE DEPOSED 
YOU AND ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY 
ABOUT WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU 
DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT GORDON 
SONDLAND BROUGHT THIS UP IN 
THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH 
UKRAINIANS AND AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON CALLED AN END TO THE 
MEETING AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
DESCRIBED THE MEETING AS A 
DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND 
MULVANEY COOKED UP. 
YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF 
THAT? 
>> IN TERMS OF GORDON BRINGING 
THAT UP, NO, I DIDN'T REMEMBER 
THAT AT THE TIME OF THE MY 
OCTOBER 3rd TESTIMONY. 
I READ THE ACCOUNT BY ALEX AND 
I SAID YES, THAT'S RIGHT, THAT 
DID HAPPEN. 
I STILL DON'T RECALL IT BEING 
AN ABRUPT END TO THE MEETING. 
THE MEETING WAS ESSENTIALLY 
úOVER, AND WE GOT UP, WE WENT 
OUT TO THE LITTLE CIRCLE IN 
FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, WE 
TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH, IT DID NOT 
STRIKE ME AS ABRUPT. 
>> NOW AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY 
TODAY, I THINK ALL OF US 
THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
NOW IF AS YOU SAY, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND ALSO MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE BOLTON 
MEETING, AND YOU DON'T RECALL 
HIM BEING MORE SPECIFIC 
úALTHOUGH OTHERS TESTIFIED HE 
WAS IN THE WARD ROOM, WHY DID 
YOU THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE 
IS THIS. 
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS, PUT IT 
THIS WAY, SOMETHING OF AN EYE 
ROLL MOMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A 
MEETING, YOU'RE TRYING TO 
ADVANCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 
BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP. 
WE HAVE THE HEAD OF THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE 
COUNCIL. 
IT WAS A DISAPPOINTING MEETING 
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS GOT AS MUCH OUT OF 
IT IN TEMPERATURES OF THEIR 
PRESENTATION AS THEY COULD 
HAVE, AND THIS COMES UP AT THE 
VERY END OF THE MEETING LIKE 
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE 
TALKING ABOUT. 
>> BUT YOU'VE SAID YOU THINK 
IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE 
UKRAINIANS TO DO 
INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016 AND 
BURISMA AS LONG AS THAT DIDN'T 
MEAN THE BIDENS, SOMETHING YOU 
HAVE NOW, I THINK, UNDERSTAND 
YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN 
OTHERWISE. 
BUT NONETHELESS, IF IT WAS 
APPROPRIATE, WHY ARE YOU 
SAYING TODAY THAT ALL OF US 
THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? 
>> YEAH, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT 
THE PLACE OR THE TIME TO BRING 
UP THAT. 
THIS WAS A MEETING BETWEEN THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND 
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL. 
FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING WE'RE 
HAVING BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE 
UNITED STATES AFTER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ELECTION. 
>> IS PART OF REASON SERVICE 
INAPPROPRIATE IS ALSO IN THE 
CONTEXT OF TRYING TO GET THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING? 
>> UM, PROBABLY ALTHOUGH I 
DON'T RECALL THAT. 
I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT 
CONTEXT OF WHEN THAT CAME UP. 
I VIEWED THE MEETING OF HAVING 
ESSENTIALLY ENDED. 
>> I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR 
UPDATED TESTIMONY THAT, UM, 
YOU THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE 
AND OBJECTIONABLE TO SEEK TO 
GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, 
AM I RIGHT? 
>> TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
OR SOMEONE WHO'S A U.S. 
OFFICIAL, I DON'T THINK WE 
SHOULD BE ASKING FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT. 
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S TRUE 
OF A POLITICAL RIVAL. 
>> AND YOU RECOGNIZED WHEN YOU 
GOT THE CALL RECORD AND 
FINALLY DID SEE THE CALL 
RECORD, THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE 
ON THE CALL, THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> MR. MORRISON, MR. VOLKER 
THINKS IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO 
ASK A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. PERSON OR 
POLITICAL RIVAL, BUT YOU SAID 
YOU DON'T THINK SO. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> AS A HYPOTHETICAL MATTER, I 
DO NOT. 
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A 
HYPOTHETICAL MATTER. 
LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ONLY 
TELL YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING 
AT THE TIME. 
THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD 
THE PRESIDENT TO BE DOING. 
>> BUT NONETHELESS, THIS WAS 
THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME WHERE 
YOU WENT FROM LISTENING TO A 
PRESIDENTIAL CALL DIRECTLY TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, 
IS IT NOT? 
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOUR CONCERN WASN'T 
THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL, BUT THAT 
IT WOULD LEAK. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND WHAT WOULD BE LEAKING 
IS A PRESIDENT ASKING A 
FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO 
INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN. 
>> I STATED I HAD 3 CONCERNS 
ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE 
CALL LEAKING MIGHT BE. 
>> IF IT WAS A PERFECT CALL, 
WOULD YOU HAVE HAD A CONCERN 
OF IT LEAKING? 
>> NO. 
WELL, NO, I WOULD STILL HAVE A 
CONCERN ABOUT IT LEAKING. 
>> OKAY.  
>> AND WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT 
IT WAS APPROPRIATE IF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY 
TO INVESTIGATE JOHN KASICH FOR 
NANCY PELOSI OR AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER? 
>> IN THOSE HYPOTHETICAL 
CASES, NO, NOT APPROPRIATE. 
>> BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE ABOUT 
JOE BIDEN? 
>> AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO 
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME. 
AND WHY I ACTED AGAIN AT THE 
TIME. 
>> FINALLY MY COLLEAGUES ASKED 
DOESN'T AID GET HELD UP FOR 
ALL KIND OF REASONS. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HAVE YOU 
EVER SEEN MILITARY AID HELD UP 
BECAUSE A PRESIDENT WANTED HIS 
RIVAL INVESTIGATED? 
>> NO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. 
>> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT 
MR. WILLIAMS? 
MR. MORRISON, I'M SORRY. 
>> NO, CHAIRMAN. 
>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER. 
>> SO YOU TOOK 2 ADDITIONAL 
MINUTES, ARE YOU GIVING YOUR 
SIDE 7 MINUTES? 
>> OF COURSE. 
>> I RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER. 
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. 
I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO 
GOVERNMENT AND COUNTRY. 
WE ARE SAFE TODAY BECAUSE OF 
THE WORK OF YOU MEN. 
DURING ALL THE TESTIMONY WE'VE 
HAD, NO ONE HAS EVER ALLEGED 
THAT EITHER OF YOU HAVE DONE 
ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR 
IMPROPER AND EVERYONE HAS 
SPOKEN OF BOTH OF YOU AS 
HAVING A HIGH LEVEL OF 
PROFESSIONALISM AND STANDARDS. 
AMBASSADOR , I APPRECIATE YOUR 
WORK ON THE JAVELINS, THAT 
MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE WITH 
UKRAINE, DID IT NOT? 
>> VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. 
>> MR. MORRISON, TELL US ABOUT 
YOUR MILITARY SERVICE.  
>> I'M A U.S. NAVAL RESERVE 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 
>> AND WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW 
SCHOOL? 
>> GEORGE WASHINGTON 
UNIVERSITY. 
>> NOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
TALK ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE, 
AND WE HAVE TO PICK UP THE 
PACE HERE BECAUSE THESE ARE 
SHORT PERIODS OF TIME WE HAVE 
NOW FOR THIS PORTION OF 
QUESTIONS. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT 
THEIR PERCEPTIONS, THEIR 
BELIEFS, THEIR FEELINGS EVEN, 
WHAT THEY HEARD AND THEIR 
UNDERSTANDINGS AND THOUGHTS. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT, 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ALL 
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH 
OTHER AND OTHER PEOPLE, AND 
ALL HAD A BUNCH OF HEARSAY, 
BUT THIS BOILS DOWN TO JUST 
ONE THING. 
THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 
SO THE ONLY THING THAT 
MATTERS, IT REALLY ONLY COMES 
DOWN TO WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES INTEND 
AND WHAT DID HE SAY, AND WHAT 
DID THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND 
OR HEAR. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU'RE ONE 
OF THE FIRST PEOPLE IN THE 
OPEN TESTIMONY THAT'S HAD 
CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH, SO I 
GET TO ASK YOU. 
YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, AND YOU BELIEVE THE 
POLICY ISSUES HE RAISED 
CONCERNS UKRAINE WERE VALID, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES EVER SAY TO YOU 
HE WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW AID 
TO THE UNITED STATES TO GO TO 
THE UKRAINE UNLESS THERE WERE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA, 
THE BIDENS, OR THE 2016 
ELECTIONS? 
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
>> DID THE UKRAINIANS TELL YOU 
THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT 
GET A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, CALL FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, OR MILITARY AID UNLESS 
THEY UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS 
OF THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 
ELECTIONS? 
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> SO YOU JUST TOOK APART 
THEIR ENTIRE CASE. 
IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES DIDN'T SAY IT, AND THE 
UKRAINIANS DIDN'T UNDERSTAND 
IT, AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE 
THAT STANDS IN BETWEEN THEM. 
I ASK YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
THE THREE AMIGO THING, 
WHATEVER THEY'RE TRYING TO 
DISPAR AJ YOU WITH, YOU'RE NOT 
PART OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, 
YOU'RE PART OF THE OFFICIAL 
CHANNEL? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> EXPLAIN THAT. 
>> I WAS APPOINTED BY THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY 
TILLERSON IN JULY OF 2017, TO 
BE THE U.S. SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE 
NEGOTIATIONS. 
THAT'S A ROLE DIFFERENT FROM 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 
OR DIFFERENT FROM AMBASSADOR 
IN UKRAINE. 
THAT ROLE IS PARTICULARLY 
FOCUSED ON THE DIPLOMATIC 
ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE 
EFFORTS TO REVERSE RUSSIA'S 
INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF 
UKRAINE. 
IT IS, UM, MINSK AGREEMENT 
IMPLEMENTATION, SUPPORT FROM 
NATO, SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE 
OSCE AND THE MONETARY 
ADMISSIONS, ALLIES LIKE 
POLAND, THE UK, CANADA 
SUPPORTING THE UKRAINE. 
IT'S -- 
>> GREAT DESCRIPTION. 
I'LL CUT YOU OFF THERE. 
YOU'RE ALSO ONE OF THE FEW 
PEOPLE WHO HAD ACTUALLY SPOKEN 
TO GIULIANI, AGAIN ALL THESE 
OTHER PEOPLE HAD FEELINGS AND 
UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT 
GIULIANI WAS DOING. 
DID GIULIANI EVER TELL YOU 
THAT UNITED STATES AID OR A 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT 
OCCUR FOR THE UKRAINIANS UNTIL 
THEY AGREED TO AN 
INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE 
BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION? 
>> EVERYTHING I HEARD FROM 
GIULIANI I TOOK TO BE HIS 
OPINION. 
>> SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS NEVER TOLD YOU THAT 
GIULIANI HAD TOLD THEM THAT IN 
ORDER TO GET A MEETING WITH 
THE PRESIDENT, PHONE CALL WITH 
THE PRESIDENT, MILITARY AID OR 
FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED 
STATES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO 
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> NO. 
>> OKAY. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT YOU SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND HE TOLD YOU OF A 
CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
ON PAGE 128 OF HIS TESTIMONY, 
HE RELATES THE CONTENT OF A 
CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND HE WAS ASKED 
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO. 
HE SAID I DIDN'T FRAME THE 
QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT THAT 
WAY AS A LINK, I ASKED THE 
OPEN ENDED QUESTION WHAT DO 
YOU WANT. 
THIS IS MR. SONDLAND IN HIS 
TESTIMONY ASKING THIS QUESTION 
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, AND THIS IS WHAT HE 
REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES SAID. 
HE SAID I WANT NOTHING. 
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM 
ANYTHING, I DON'T WANT 
ANYTHING FROM THEM. 
I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE 
RIGHT THING. 
HE KEPT REPEATING NO QUID PRO 
QUO OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
DO YOU HAVE A REASON TO 
BELIEVE MR. SONDLAND IS NOT 
TELLING THE TRUTH AS TO THE 
CONTENT OF HIS CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES? 
>> NO CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AND DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE 
EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE THAT 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE EITHER IN THE SECRET 
DUNGEON TESTIMONIES RELEASED 
OR IN THE OPEN TESTIMONIES HAS 
PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE? 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT. 
>> MR. MORRISON? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> MR. MORRISON, UM, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
REPORTED TO YOU, THAT'S 
CORRECT? 
>> HE DID SIR. 
>> NOW YOU HAVE A LEGAL 
BACKGROUND. 
HE SAID THAT HE LISTENED TO 
THE PHONE CALL, A PHONE CALL 
YOU SAID YOU SAW NOTHING THAT 
HAD OCCURRED ILLEGALLY, AND HE 
SAID HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS MOVE 
FORWARD. 
DO YOU BELIEVE, BECAUSE HE 
ONLY WAS TELLING US HIS 
OPINION, DO YOU BELIEVE IN 
YOUR OPINION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
DEMANDED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> TO BOTH OF YOU, UKRAINE IS 
AN ASPIRING TO THE EU, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. 
IS THE UKRAINE IN HIS 
PORTFOLIO? 
>> YES, ALSO BECAUSE THE 
SANCTIONS ON UKRAINE BY THE EU 
ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. 
>> MR. MORRISON? 
>> I AGREE SIR. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND 
GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DESCRIBED HIS 
JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS QUOTE 
PERFECT, AND I THINK HE'S DONE 
THAT ON TWITTER NOT ONCE, 
TWICE, BUT MY MY COUNT 11 
TIMES. 
IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS 
CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFECT IS 
OF A PIECE WITH THE IDEA WE 
HEAR IN DEFENSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT IT'S JUST 
NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND 
I'M CONCERNED FROM THE START 
THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT ACTUALLY 
GOING AFTER CORRUPTION BUT IN 
FACT AIMING CORRUPTION AT THE 
VICE PRESIDENT. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED IN 
ON THE CALL IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
SITUATION ROOM. 
DID YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT 
MENTION THE COMPANY CROWD 
STRIKE AND THE SERVER? 
>> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. 
>> DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTION THE BIDENS? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN THE LENGTH OF THAT 
PHONE CALL USE THE WORD 
CORRUPTION? 
>> NO, SIR. 
WELL, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE HE 
DID. 
>> WAS THE REQUEST THAT 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATE CROWD 
STRIKE AND THE BIDENS 
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU 
UNDERSTOOD TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY TOWARDS COMBATING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE? 
>> SIR, IT WAS THE FIRST I 
HEARD OF MUCH OF THIS. 
>> IN FACT IN YOUR DEPOSITION, 
YOU TESTIFIED YOU WANTED TO 
STAY AWAY FROM WHAT YOU 
DESCRIBED AS THIS QUOTE BUCKET 
OF INVESTIGATIONS. 
WHY DID YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY 
FROM THOSE ISSUES? 
>> THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ADVISED 
BY DR. HILL. 
>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL WAS NOT, AND 
I'M QUOTING YOU HERE, THE FULL 
THROATED ENDORSEMENT OF THE 
UKRAINE REFORM AGENDA THAT I 
WAS HOPING TO HEAR. 
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? 
>> SIR, WHAT WE, MYSELF, 
COLONEL VINDMAN, OTHERS, WHAT 
WE PREPARED IN THE PACKAGE WE 
PROVIDED THE PRESIDENT WAS 
BACKGROUND ON PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, BACKGROUND ON HIS 
POSITIONS ABOUT REFORMING 
UKRAINE, REFORMING ITS 
INSTITUTIONS, ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION. 
WE WERE HOPING, WE RECOMMENDED 
THE PRESIDENT VERY CLEARLY 
SUPPORT WHAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON IN HIS OWN 
ELECTION, AND WHAT HIS PARTY 
RAN ON IN THEIR ELECTION. 
>> BUT THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN 
THE CALL, DID IT? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER 
DISCUSSION WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
ACTUALLY RAISED THOSE THINGS 
WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT? 
>> CORRUPTION REFORM? 
>> YES. 
>> SIR, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME 
SINCE I REFRESHED MYSELF ON 
THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE 
AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO 
I HESITATE TO SAY DID HE EVER 
RAISE IT, BUT HE DID NOT RAISE 
IT AT THE TIME OF THE 25th 
OF JULY PHONE CALL. 
>> SWITCHING GEARS A BIT. 
YOU STRIKE ME AS A PROCESS 
GUY. 
IT'S NAGGING AT ME BECAUSE YOU 
CHARACTERIZE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S LINKING AND 
WHATEVER WAY IT HAPPENED OF 
AID TO AN INVESTIGATION AS THE 
GORDON PROBLEM. 
YOU SAID IT CAUSED YOU TO ROLL 
YOUR EYES, AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
SAID EVERYBODY IN THE 
JULY 10th MEETING THOUGHT IT 
WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
JOHN BOLTON CHARACTERIZES THIS 
AS THE DRUG DEAL, SO IT SEEMS 
LIKE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM 
UNDERSTANDS THERE'S A HUGE 
PROBLEM HERE. 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT 
WOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF 
BUSINESS WHEN YOU HAVE AN 
AMBASSADOR OUT THERE GOING 
ROGUE AS APPARENTLY THERE WAS 
CONSENSUS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS DOING, THAT EITHER THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN 
BOLTON OR SECRETARY OF STATE 
MIGHT REIN THEM IN. 
WHY DIDN'T THAT HAPPEN? 
>> SIR, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, 
BUT I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE 
THAT AMBASSADORS WORK FOR THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> DO YOU HAVE, YOU WORKED FOR 
HIM, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA 
WHY JOHN BOLTON WOULD 
CHARACTERIZE IT AS A DRUG 
DEAL, BUT NOT REIN HIM IN? 
>> AMBASSADORS DON'T WORK FOR 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, 
SIR. 
>> NO, BUT HE SPENDS TIME WITH 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 
EVERYONE IN THE ROOM IS 
CALLING IT THE GORDON PROBLEM, 
A DRUG DEAL, AND THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE DOES NOTHING. 
>> SIR, I'M SORRY, WAS THERE A 
QUESTION? 
>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INSIGHT 
INTO THAT? 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
TESTIFIED YOU WERE TROUBLED 
ONCE YOU READ THE RECORD OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25th 
CALL. 
YOU TESTIFIED VOTE THAT ASKING 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
WORK TOGETHER WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO LOOK INTO 
THIS, YOU CAN SEE IT BECOMES 
EXPLOSIVE IN DOMESTIC 
POLITICS, AND YOU CALL THIS 
UNACCEPTABLE. 
WHAT SPECIFICALLY IN THAT CALL 
TO THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT DO 
YOU FIND UNACCEPTABLE OR 
TROUBLING? 
>> IT IS THE REFERENCE TO VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.  
ESIDENT BIDEN.  
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CONWAY? 
>> THANK YOU. 
THIS MORNING WE HEARD MUCH 
ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR 
A FAVOR. 
AT LEAST IN LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S MIND IT WAS A 
DEMAND, REQUIREMENT, ORDER. 
BUT IN THE LAST PART OF THE 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 2 
HEADS OF STATE, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TALKS ABOUT A PROSECUTOR 
HE'S PARTICULARLY IN FAVOR OF 
AND WOULD LIKE TO STAY THERE, 
AND ZELENSKY SAYS MR. 
PRESIDENT, NO, SINCE WE WON 
THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IN THE 
PARLIAMENT, THE NEXT 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL WILL BE MY 
PERSON, MY CANDIDATE. 
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A HEAD OF 
STATE WHO'S BEEN COWED OR 
BULLIED AND IS UNDER THE THUMB 
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES? 
>> NOT AT ALL. 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
THE IMPACT OF THE PAUSE THAT 
OCCURRED, THE 55 DAY PAUSE IN 
THE ASSISTANCE OR THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, NONE OF US REALLY 
UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME 
FRAME. 
NO ONE KNEW OTHER THAN 
INTERNAL U.S. FOLKS UNTIL LATE 
AUGUST, SO THE VISIONS 
WOULDN'T HAVE NECESSARILY 
KNOWN ABOUT IT. 
BUT THE IMPACT ON THE AID THAT 
HE ALREADY HAD, SHOULD RUSSIA 
HAVE TRIED TO MOVE THE LINE OF 
CONTACT FURTHER WEST WITH 
THEIR TRANSACTION WOULD THE 
LETHAL ASSISTANCE WE'D GIVEN 
THEM BE ABLE TO PUSH BACK ON 
THAT? 
>> YES, IT WOULD. 
>> MR. MORRISON? 
>> I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I 
WOULD ALSO ADD THE HOLD AS I 
UNDERSTOOD IT APPLIED TO 
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
IT DID NOT APPLY TO F MS, AND 
THE JAVELINS WERE PROVIDED ANT 
FMS. 
>> SO THE MOST LETHAL WEAPON 
PROVIDED TO THE UKRAINIANS 
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS 
NATIONAL POLICY WHICH HE SET 
WAS ABLE TO THEM SHOULD THE 
RUSSIANS HAVE PUSHED THEIR 
TANKS WEST, THE JAVELINS? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, 
EVEN WITH THE PAUSE AND 
EVERYTHING GOING ON? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS 
REPORTING THAT THE RUSSIANS IN 
AN ACT OF WAR TOOK 2 GUN SHIPS 
AND A TUG AND 24 SAILORS LAST 
NOVEMBER, YET THE RUSSIANS 
HAVE GIVEN THE 24 SAILORS BACK 
IN SEPTEMBER AND THE 
ASSOCIATED PRESS IS REPORTING 
TODAY THAT THEY'RE GIVING THE 
GUN BOATS AND TUG BACK. 
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE UKRAINE 
ARE UNABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH 
THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE THEY'RE 
HURT BY OUR ACTIONS? 
>> NO, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT 
THE UKRAINIANS ARE INEPT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE 
AS A PERSONAL REQUEST, I 
REQUEST YOU AND ONE OF YOUR 
LAWYERS TO PUT INTO THE RECORD 
THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT 
PROVIDES FOR THE ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY OR RIGHT TO IMMUNITY 
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT OVER AND 
OVER, I DON'T THINK IT'S 
THERE, BUT IF IT'S FEDERAL 
STATUTE OR A BRIEF YOU CAN 
CITE, BUT THAT IN THE RECORD 
SO WE'LL KNOW THAT, AND BEFORE 
YOU GET MAD AND ACCUSE ME OF 
WANTING THE OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, YOU GET UPSET 
EVERY TIME SOMEONE ACCUSES YOU 
OF KNOWING WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS, I GET UPSET 
EVERY TIME YOU ACCUSE ME, 
BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHAT'S GOING 
ON, WHAT WE WANT TO OUT THAT 
INTERVIEWER. 
THAT'S UNFAIR FOR YOU TO MAKE 
THAT ACCUSATION. 
THIS IS ABOUT LEVELING THE 
PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE 2 
TEAMS. 
YOUR TEAM KNOWS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, THEY HAVE 
INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO HE OR 
SHE IS. 
IT'S SIMPLY LEVELING THE 
PLAYING FIELD. 
AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE OVERRUN 
BY REQUEST FOR A CLOSED DOOR 
SUBPOENA, I UNDERSTAND THAT, 
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT YOU 
PUT INTO THE RECORD THE BASIS 
ON WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO 
ASSERT THIS RIGHT TO 
ANONIMITY. 
AND A DOCUMENT WE ALL USE, 
INTENDED TO BE THE TRUTH AND 
STRAIGHT FORWARD, SHE SAYS IN 
THAT DEAR COLLEAGUE THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BY LAW IS 
REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO THE 
HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES. 
YOU'RE DEFYING THE SPEAKER. 
IF SHE'S CORRECT, YOU'RE 
DEFYING THE LAW. 
IF SHE MISLED US INTO THINKING 
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TRUE, 
THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO TELL 
THE SPEAKER SHE NEEDS TO 
RETRACT THAT DEAR COLLEAGUE 
LETTER AND SET THE RECORD 
STRAIGHT. 
IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER REQUIRED 
BY LAW TO TESTIFY TO US AND 
WHAT'S HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT YOU 
QUESTIONED. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN 
HAS EXPIRED. 
I'M HAPPY TO ENTER INTO THE 
RECORD THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
STATUTE ALLOWING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO REMAIN 
ANONYMOUS. 
I RECK ECONOMIZE T NEWS 
MISS SEWELL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IT'S CLEAR 
THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAS BECOME 
A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE U .S.-
UKRAINE RELATIONS BY 
JULY. 
YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT 
ON JULY 2nd YOU MET WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND HIS 
AID IN TORONTO, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I HAD A BILATERAL MEETING 
WITH UKRAINE AND THEN A 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS CHIEF OF STAFF. 
>> AND THERE YOU DISCUSS 
MR. GIULIANI'S QUOTE NEGATIVE 
VIEW OF UKRAINE BASED ON A 
CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE 2016 
ELECTION, RIGHT? 
>> I CONVEYED THAT HE WAS 
REPEATING A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE BASED ON 
ACCUSATIONS OF THE THEN 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL. 
>> ARE YOU SAYING YOU DIDN'T 
THINK THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE 
VIEWS? 
>> NO, THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE 
VIEWS. 
>> BUT THAT WASN'T YOUR 
DESCRIPTION? 
>> I'M SORRY, I LOST THE 
QUESTION. 
>> I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WHO 
SAID THE NEGATIVE VIEWS, THAT 
YOU DISCUSSED NEGATIVE VIEWS. 
>> THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF 
UKRAINE WAS PUTTING OUT THIS 
SERIES OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
THAT I BELIEVE WERE 
SELF-SERVING AND INACCURATE. 
MR. GIULIANI HAD HAD REPEATED 
THESE TO ME, SO I BELIEVE HE 
WAS AFFECTED BY THOSE AND 
BELIEVED THOSE. 
>> AND BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE 
NEGATIVE. 
>> BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE 
NEGATIVE AND WAS CONVEYING 
THEM TO THE PRESIDENT. 
>> SO WAS IT PROBLEMATIC THAT 
HE BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE 
VIEWS? 
IS IT TRUE? 
>> YES, THE WHOLE THING WAS 
PROBLEMATIC. 
>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED 
THAT ON JULY 2nd YOU TOLD 
UKRAINIANS THEY NEEDED TO 
QUOTE COOPERATE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS, END QUOTE. 
YOU'RE NOW SAYING YOU DON'T 
RECALL THOSE WORDS? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I SAIDS 
COOPERATION ON INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> DID YOU SAY INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> I BELIEVE I DID, YES. 
>> AND WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
>> BURISMA 2016 WAS IN MY MIND 
BUT I WANTED TO KEEP IT 
GENERAL, AND CONVEY THEY WERE 
SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTINGS 
CORRUPTION AND WOULD ENGAGE IN 
WHATEVER INVESTIGATIONS 
NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP THE 
COUNTRY. 
>> NOW MOVING TO JULY 10th, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT YOU A 
TEXT MESSAGE, YOU SENT A TEXT 
TO GIULIANI, AND I BELIEVE 
IT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW. 
AND YOU SAID MR. MAYOR WOULD 
WE MEET FOR COFFEE OR LUNCH, I 
WANT TO UPDATE YOU ON MY 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT UKRAINE, I 
THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO GET WHAT YOU NEED. 
IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. 
>> THAT'S AN ACCURATE TEXT 
MESSAGE. 
>> WHAT DID YOU MEAN? 
>> CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE 
REPRESENTING ZELENSKY AND HIS 
TEAM. 
>> LATER THAT DAY YOU AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET WITH 
UKRAINE OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
WE HEARD THAT SONDLAND TOLD 
ZELENSKY HE NEEDED TO 
COOPERATE WITH THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS A 
PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE? 
IN ORDER TO FIGHT CORRUPTION 
YOU NEED TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATIONS AND SEE WHAT 
CITIZENS HAVE BEEN UP TO AND 
DOING. 
>> BUT WAS THAT THE PURPOSE OF 
THAT? 
YOU KNEW THE PRESIDENT WANTED 
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE 
DONE AS A CONDITION FOR THEM 
TO ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING 
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE? 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE? 
>> WELL FIRST OFF, WE HAVE TO 
BE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT IN TERMS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
>> BUT BURISMA HAS NOTHING TO 
DO WITH -- 
>> I'M SAYING UKRAINIANS 
WITHIN THE COMPANY ACTED IN A 
CORRUPT WAY OR SOUGHT TO BUY 
INFLUENCE. 
THAT'S A LEGITIMATE THING TO 
INVESTIGATE. 
THAT'S HELPFUL TO CONVINCE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY 
THAT -- 
>> WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE HEARD 
FROM 2 WITNESSES THIS MORNING 
THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
NOT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. 
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND 
WHAT YOU'RE GETTING YOURSELF 
INTO, BUT SITTING HERE TODAY, 
I TRUST YOU UNDERSTAND THAT 
IT'S SIMPLY WRONG. 
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME.  
>> MR. TURNER? 
>> I YIELD MY TIME TO JIM 
JORDAN. 
>> YOU WERE THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND PRIOR TO THAT YOU 
WORKED AT THE NSC, SENATE 
CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO, 
SO IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU WHEN 
YOU'RE REFERRED TO AS THE 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL, BUT IT 
BOTHERS REPRESENTATIVE TURNER 
AND ME. 
YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO 
UKRAINE, AND IN THAT ROLE YOU 
SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT 
YOU WERE THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE, 
HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA'S INVASION 
AND OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE AND 
CALLING OUT RUSSIA'S 
RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE WAR. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND IN THAT CAPACITY YOU 
STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING 
THE BAN ON SALES TO WEAPONS TO 
UKRAINE RIGHT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IT. 
>> YES. 
>> BUT IN SPITE OF THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL 
SKEPTICAL OF GIVING TAX 
DOLLARS TO UKRAINE, AND THE 
REASON IS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T 
LIKE FOREIGN AID, RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S ONE REASON AND 
UKRAINE'S HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION IS ANOTHER. 
>> ONE OF THE THIRD MOST 
CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE 
PLANET. 
AND EUROPE ISN'T DOING ENOUGH, 
AND IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND, 
HE DID THINK UKRAINE WAS 
TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
>> YES. 
>> BECAUSE THINGS HAPPENED. 
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DENY IT, 
BUT WHEN THERE'S AN OP ED ON 
AUGUST 4th, 2016 CRITICIZING 
THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT'S 
SERVELY TRYING TO INFLUENCE 
THE ELECTION. 
WHEN A KEY MINISTER IN THEIR 
GOVERNMENT SAYS NEGATIVE 
THINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE TRUMP, 
THAT SERVELY  LOOKS LIKE 
INFLUENCING THE ELECTION. 
AND WHEN THEY STATE DURING THE 
CAMPAIGN THE MAJORITY OF THE 
UKRAINIAN FIGURES WANT HILLARY 
CLINTON TO WIN, THAT PROBABLY 
STICKS IN THE CANDIDATE'S 
MIND. 
WHEN PEOPLE SAY BAD THINGS 
ABOUT US IN THE COURSE OF THE 
CAMPAIGN, WE DON'T NECESSARILY 
THINK GREAT THINGS ABOUT THEM. 
BUT YOU WERE CONVINCED 
ZELENSKY WAS THE REAL DEAL, 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> BECAUSE YOU SPENT A LOT OF 
TIME WITH THE GUY. 
AND GUESS WHAT, WHAT AID WAS 
FROZEN, YOU KNEW IF YOU COULD 
GET THEM TOGETHER, IT WOULD 
WORK OUT. 
WHEN AID WAS FROZEN, YOU TOLD 
THE UKRAINIANS DON'T WORRY 
ABOUT IT. 
YOU SAID DON'T BE ALARMED 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHEN AID IS FROZEN AND 
RELEASED, ALL KINDS OF 
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND SENIOR U.S. 
OFFICIALS, RIGHT? 
>> STARTS WITH THE CALL. 
THEN YOU MEET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AND THEN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON MEETS WITH HIM, AND 
THEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
MEETS WITH HIM, AND THEN 
JOHNSON AND MURPHY MEET WITH 
HIM. 
AND IN NOT ONE OF THESE 
MEETINGS, NOT A SINGLE ONE, 
DID SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION NOT ONCE DID 
THEY COME UP. 
DID THAT CONVERSATION COME UP, 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOT ONCE. 
NO DISCUSSION OF AID FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS AND, AND YOU 
TESTIFIED, YOU NEVER BELIEVED 
AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
TALKED ABOUT EITHER, IN ANY OF 
THE CONVERSATIONS. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 
MEETINGS? 
THEY ALL BECAME CONVINCED OF 
THE SAME THING YOU KNEW. 
THEY ALL SAW THE SAME THING. 
THIS GUY IS THE REAL DEAL. 
HE'S A LEGITIMATE REFORMER. 
AND THEY ALL CAME BACK AND 
TOLD THE PRESIDENT, HEY MR. 
PRESIDENT, THIS GUY IS REAL. 
RELEASE THE DOLLARS. 
AND IN THE MEANTIME THEIR 
NEWLY ELECTED PARLIAMENT AS 
MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED TO 
STAYED UP ALL NIGHT TO PASS 
THE REFORM MEASURES AND GET 
RID OF THE PROSECUTOR, TO PUT 
IN THE SUPREME HIGH 
ANTICORRUPTION COURT AND GET 
RID OF THIS IDEA THAT NO ONE 
IN THEIR CONGRESS OR 
PARLIAMENT COULD BE HIT WITH A 
CRIME. 
ALL THIS HAPPENS AND THEY COME 
BACK AND TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP 
GUESS WHAT, TIME TO RELEASE 
THE DOLLARS, AND HE DID IT, 
RIGHT? 
>> THE DOLLARS WERE RELEASED. 
>> YEAH, YOU DID YOUR JOB. 
YOU DID YOUR JOB. 
AND YOU HAVE TO PUT UP WITH 
ALL THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE OUT TO GET THIS PRESIDENT. 
YOU DID YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU 
WERE SUPPOSED TO ALL THESE 
YEARS, AND THE  DEMOCRATS PUT 
YOU 
THROUGH THIS. 
HERE'S THE SADDEST THINGS, ONE 
OF THE SADDEST THINGS ABOUT 
ALL THIS, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE PUTTING US THROUGH, YOU 2 
GUYS HERE TELLING IT STRAIGHT, 
YOU'VE BOTH DECIDED YOU'LL 
STEP OUT OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE 
OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING. 
THAT'S THE SAD THING. 
PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
AND TIM MORRISON WHO SERVED 
OUR COUNTRY SO WELL ARE NOW 
STEPPING OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT 
BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE 
DOING. 
THAT'S WHY MR. TURNER GOT SO 
FIRED UP, AND I'M FIRED UP TOO 
BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU 
GUYS DID. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CARSON. 
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
FOCUS ON THE PRESS STATEMENT 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY 
GIULIANI WANTED UKRAINE TO 
MAKE ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS 
TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU 
HAD THIS EXCHANGE. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS 
MORRISON, READY TO GET DATES 
AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS. 
YOU REPLY EXCELLENT, HOW  DID 
YOU SWAY HIM? 
AND SONDLAND SAYS I'M NOT SURE 
I DID. 
I THINK POTUS WANTS 
DELIVERABLE. 
THE DELIVERABLE WAS THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO BUIRSMA AND 
PUBLIC INTERFERENCE BY 
UKRAINE. 
>> I UNDERSTAND THE 
DELIVERABLE TO HAVE BEEN THE 
STATEMENT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING 
ABOUT. 
>> ON AUGUST 13th, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DISCUSSED 
A DRAFT STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE 
WITH MR. GIULIANI. 
WHY DID YOU DISCUSS THE DRAFT 
STATEMENT WITH MR. GIULIANI? 
>> BECAUSE THE IDEA OF THE 
STATEMENT HAD COME UP FROM 
YERMAK'S MEETING WITH 
GIULIANI. 
REMEMBER HE ASKED ME TO 
CONNECT HIM WITH GIULIANI. 
I DID, THEY HAD A MEETING, AND 
THEY BOTH CALLED ME 
AFTERWARDS. 
MR. GIULIANI SAID HE THOUGHT 
UKRAINE SHOULD MAKE A 
STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION. 
MR. YERMAK SAID AND WE'RE ALSO 
SAY BURISMA IN  
>> SO THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SOLVE THIS 
PROBLEM I HAD OBSERVED WITH THE 
MAY 23 MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, THE PROBLEM BEING HE 
IS GETTING A BAD SET OF 
INFORMATION, A STATEMENT LIKE 
THIS. 
>> WAS MR. GIULIANI SATISFIED 
WITH THE STATEMENT? 
>> NO. 
>> HE BELIEVED IT NEEDED TO SAY 
BURISMA AND 2016 SPECIFICALLY 
OR IT WOULD NOT BE CREDIBLE OR 
ANYTHING NEW. 
>> IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI WANTED 
A STATEMENT THAT WOULD 
REFERENCE BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS EXPLICITLY, ONE THAT 
WOULD BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
MR. AMBASSADOR, HERE IS THE 
TEXT YOU SENT TO THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL AUGUST 13. 
LET'S PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN. 
YOU SAID HI, GOOD TALKING. 
FOLLOWED BY AN INSERT AT THE 
END FOR THE TWO KEY ITEMS. 
MR. AMBASSADOR, THOSE TWO KEY 
ITEMS WERE SPECIFIC REFERENCES 
TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA 
AND THE 2016 ELECTION, ISN'T 
THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DID MR. GIULIANI DICTATE 
THOSE KEY ITEMS? 
>> HE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION 
WITH HIM TO DESCRIBE THE 
CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH 
GIULIANI. 
MR. GIULIANI SAID IT WOULD HAVE 
TO INCLUDE THESE THINGS TO BE 
CONVINCING TO HIM, I PUT THEM IN
TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT 
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS 
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. 
>> YOU INCLUDED THEM IN THE 
PROPOSAL TO THE UKRAINIANS. 
>> I PUT IT BACK IN TO BE CLEAR 
TO THE UKRAINIANS, THIS IS WHAT 
THEY WANTED. 
>> MR. GIULIANI DICTATED IN 
AUGUST WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA, WHY 
WERE THE UKRAINIANS STILL 
CONSIDERING GIVING AN INTERVIEW 
WITH THE SAME THINGS IN 
SEPTEMBER? 
>> IF I MAY, CONGRESSMAN, I 
CONVEYED THIS TO THE UKRAINIANS 
IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR, WE KNEW 
WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS 
ABOUT, FOLLOWING UP ON HIS 
PRIOR CONVERSATION, THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD REASONS NOT TO 
DO THAT AND DESCRIBED THOSE 
REASONS AND I AGREED WITH THEM, 
WE AGREED TO SCRAP THE 
STATEMENT. 
FROM THAT POINT ON, I DID NOT 
HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS 
ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. 
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAME UP OR 
WHY IT CAME UP THERE WOULD BE A 
POSSIBILITY IF PRESIDENT 
ZELINSKI DOING AN INTERVIEW 
WITH U.S. MEDIA LATER SAYING 
SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IN THE 
END, HE DID NOT DO THIS EITHER. 
>> IN. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST DURING THE 
JULY 25 CALL WAS NOT CONSISTENT 
WITH U.S. POLICY. 
I EMPHATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU, 
SIR. 
THESE TEXT MESSAGES SHOW 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPENT MUCH OF 
AUGUST PRESSING UKRAINE TO MEET 
THOSE REQUESTS, WE CAN ONLY BE 
GRATEFUL, I GUESS THE PRESIDENT 
ESSENTIALLY GOT CAUGHT AND 
CONGRESS PASSED LAW TO ENSURE 
THE FUNDING WAS RELEASED TO 
UKRAINE BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE. 
I THINK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
SERVICE. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
I WILL START IF I CAN WITH YOU, 
MR. MORRISON. 
DISCUSSING THE 7/25 PHONE CALL 
AND THE CONCERNS LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN HAD,  THE 
LIEUTENANT COMMUNAL CAME WITH 
YOU WITH EDITS TO THE 
TRANSCRIPT, YOU STATED YOU 
ACCEPTED ALL OF HIS EDITS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED ALL 
THE EDITS I BELIEVED WERE 
FAITHFUL TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY 
DISCUSSED. 
>> DID HE COME TO YOU WITH AN 
ADDED THAT SAID THE WORD, 
DEMAND SHOULD BE IN THERE? 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT 
SPECIFICALLY, SIR. 
>> HE DIDN'T EITHER. 
HOW SOON AFTER THE PHONE CALL 
DID HE MEET WITH YOU ON THAT 
PARTICULAR ISSUE? 
>> WE GOT THE DRAFT THAT WAS 
NORMAL FAIRLY QUICKLY AFTER THE 
CALL THAT SAME DAY. 
>> THAT SAME DAY, TODAY HE SAID 
I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO MR. 
EISENBERG, IT IS NOT PROPER FOR 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE U.S. 
CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
HE WAS GOING TO MR. EISENBERG 
WITH HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
CONVERSATION, HE DID NOT AT ANY 
POINT ON THE EDITS SAY THERE 
SHOULD BE A DEMAND AND YOU KNOW,
HE DIDN'T DO THAT, BUT HE DID 
SAY HE DID NOT COME TO YOU WITH 
HIS CONCERNS BECAUSE YOU WANT 
AVAILABLE, BUT THAT SAME DAY, 
HE CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS GENERALLY 
CORRECT, YES SIR. 
>> HE SAID YOU WERE NOT 
AVAILABLE AND YOU DID NOT HEAR 
THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, 
DID YOU? 
>> NO SIR. 
>> SOMETIME BETWEEN THE CALL 
AND TODAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN  MUST HAVE BEEN HEARING 
VOICES, HE HEARD DEMAND AT THE 
TIME, HE DID NOT HEAR IT THAT 
DAY AND HE DID NOT MAKE IT AN 
ISSUE THAT THEY ARE TODAY HE 
DOES. 
I THINK THAT IS PRETTY BIZARRE. 
WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WENT TO LEGAL, MR. EISENBERG, 
DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED 
NOT TO SPEAK TO YOU? 
>> I DON'T HAVE FIRST-HAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, NO SIR. 
>> YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED 
TO CONTACT THE IG I SEE? 
>> NO SIR, I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE. 
>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS 
ADVISED WHEN HE WENT TO LEGAL. 
>> NO SIR, I DO NOT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. VOLKER, I ENJOYED YOUR 
OPENING TESTIMONY TAKING US 
THROUGH THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS 
EXTREMELY WELL DONE AND I 
APPRECIATE IT, YOU TALK ABOUT 
LETTERS SIGNED AND SHARING 
CONCERNS ABOUT LEADERSHIP IN 
YOUR ASSIGNED COUNTRY, AGREEING 
WITH AND SOMETIMES DISAGREEING 
WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF YOUR OWN 
COUNTRY WHEN YOU FELT IT WAS 
APPROPRIATE. 
YOU ARE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND 
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, LET'S 
FACE IT, PART OF THE TEAM THERE 
TO SERVE THE COUNTRY IN THAT 
WAY. 
THAT ALTON HE SOUNDED LIKE THE 
WORKS OF A VERY GOOD DIPLOMAT, 
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
>> IT IS TRULY APPRECIATED. 
CORRUPTION WAS A CONCERN, 
LEGITIMATELY IN UKRAINE AND IN 
MANY WAYS, MR. JORDAN POINTED 
OUT SOME OF THE THINGS DONE BY 
UKRAINIANS IN PLAIN SIGHT, I 
MIGHT USE THAT TERM, IN PLAIN 
SIGHT BY PUTTING UP ADS IN OUR 
NEWSPAPERS AND CERTAINLY MORE 
THAN ONE COUNTRY CAN BE TRYING 
TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. 
>> WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THAT 
WHOLE THING ABOUT UKRAINIANS 
HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, IT WAS JUST 
THE RUSSIANS. 
THAT COMES FROM A COMMUNITY, 
SOME OF THE PEOPLE HAVE COME UP 
WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE SOME 
OF THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WE ARE 
GOING TO FIND OUT IF WE HAVEN'T 
ALREADY WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED 
WITH THIS WHOLE RUSSIAN 
COLLUSION HOAX. 
I WANT TO SAY, YOU DID A GREAT 
JOB, YOU VETTED ZELINSKI'S 
INTENTIONS, WHAT HE INTENDED TO 
BE A PRESIDENT. 
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS ACCURATE? 
>> YES, THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY 
OBJECTIVES OF THE INAUGURATION, 
TO TAKE OUR OWN JUDGMENT AND 
REPORT BACK TO THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THAT IS WHAT YOUR JOB SHOULD 
BE, YOU BECAME COMFORTABLE WITH 
THIS PRESIDENT, DIDN'T YOU? 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> YOU WANTED TO ASSURE OUR 
PRESIDENT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE 
WITH HIM. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN SOME WAYS, YOU HAVE TO 
WORK SOMETIMES THROUGH ANY 
MEANS AVAILABLE. 
THAT MIGHT INCLUDE WORKING WITH 
RUDY GIULIANI IF IT CAN BE 
HELPFUL TO YOU TO GET THAT 
MESSAGE AND ADVICE TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? 
>> I THINK THE MESSAGES 
CONVEYED BY MR. GIULIANI WERE A 
PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE AT 
VARIANCE WITH OUR OFFICIAL 
MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT, NOT 
CONVEYING THAT POSITIVE 
ASSESSMENT WE ALL HAD. 
I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO 
TRY TO STEP IN AND FIX THE 
PROBLEM. 
>> IN THAT, I THINK YOU TURNED 
A USEFUL BAROMETER OF WHERE 
THINGS WORK. 
>> YES. 
>> THERE ARE USEFUL BAROMETERS 
THAT COME IN DIFFERENT FASHIONS 
LIKE DENNIS RODMAN AND NORTH 
KOREA AND JAMES TAYLOR WITH 
FRANCE, YOU'VE GOT A FRIEND, IF 
THEY CAN HELP THE CAUSE. 
IN THAT SITUATION, IT IS NOT 
ILLEGAL. 
GOOD JOB, AMBASSADOR. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
PARTICIPATION TODAY AND HEAR 
SERVICE. 
I WILL TAKE US OUT 30,000 FEET 
FOUR-MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT 
COVERUPS. 
BUT FOR THE FACT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER CAME FORWARD, WE 
WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
THIS. 
BUT FOR THE FACT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL OF THE CIA FOUND IT TO 
BOTH BE URGENT AND CREDIBLE, WE 
WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
IT. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID AFTER 
YOU HEARD THE CALL, YOU WENT 
DIRECTLY TO THE ATTORNEYS IN 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
AND RECOMMENDED THEY BE LIMITED 
ACCESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY PUT 
INTO A SPECIAL SERVER, THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED 
ANY DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER TO 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
TO YOU MR. VOLKER, THANK YOU, 
BUT TO THE BACK AS YOU AS A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH YOUR OWN 
PERSONAL PHONE AND TEXT MESSAGE 
WITH MR. GIULIANI AND MR. 
SONDLAND AND WHOMEVER ELSE, FOR 
THOSE TEXT MESSAGES WE ARE 
PUTTING ON THE SCREEN ALL DAY, 
WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING AND THIS 
COVER-UP WOULD BE COMPLETE. 
THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD 
THINK ABOUT. 
NOW, ON JULY 19, YOU HAD 
BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AT 
THE TRUMP HOTEL, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN THAT CONVERSATION, AT ONE 
POINT HE BROUGHT UP MR. YURIY 
LUTSENKO, WHATEVER HE IS 
SAYING, THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. 
IS THAT CORRECT ? 
>> YES. 
>> THEN HE BROUGHT UP MR. 
BIDEN, I WILL QUOTE YOU HERE, 
I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. 
HE IS A PERSON OF INTEGRITY. 
TO GIULIANI, SIMPLY NOT 
CREDIBLE TO ME. 
JOE BIDEN WOULD BE INFLUENCED 
IN HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT 
BY MONEY OR THINGS FOR HIS SON 
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
WE HAVE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS 
OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS ABOUT 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND TO 
BURISMA AND BIDEN AND THE 2016 
CROWDSTRIKE SERVER. 
YOU AND THAT CONVERSATION WITH 
MR. GIULIANI BASICALLY DEBUNKED 
ALL OF THAT. 
NOW, AT THAT TIME, AT THAT 
BREAKFAST, WHO ELSE WAS WITH 
YOU AT THAT BREAKFAST? 
>> THERE WAS SOMEONE MR. 
GIULIANI BROUGHT ALONG, I LATER 
LEARNED THIS WAS LEV PARNAS. 
>> HE WAS AT THAT BREAKFAST MR. 
GIULIANI HAD WITH YOU AND WE 
KNOW LEV PARNAS HAS SINCE BEEN 
INDICTED FOR FOREIGN CAMPAIGN 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL ACTION 
COMMITTEE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> ON MAY 23, YOU WERE IN THAT 
DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
AND AT ONE POINT, HE REFERRED 
TO ZELINSKI HAVING TERRIBLE 
PEOPLE AROUND HIM. 
DO YOU THINK HE WAS CALLING 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM? 
>> THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT 
CAME TO MIND, ONE OF THEM WAS 
FORMER INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST 
AND JOURNALIST, LESHCHENKO IS 
SOMEWHAT IN THESE STORIES  SEEN 
AS RINGING FORTH A BLACK LEDGER 
RELATING TO PAUL MANAFORT'S 
ACTIVITIES IN UKRAINE, THAT IS 
ONE PERSON, THE OTHER PERSON I 
THOUGHT IT COULD REFER TO WAS 
THE PERSON NAMED AS PRESIDENT 
ZELINSKI'S CHIEF OF 
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. HE 
WAS KNOWN AS A LAWYER FOR ONE 
OF THE MAIN OLIGARCHS IN UKRAINE
. THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY 
AT THE TIME OF HIM APPOINTED TO 
THE ADMINISTRATION. 
>> DO YOU THINK OF THEM AS 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE? 
>> I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE IS 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE, NO. 
>> ON CUE. 
MR. MORRISON, EARLIER IN 
TESTIMONY FROM OUR COLLEAGUES 
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, 
YOU INDICATD OTHERS 
REPRESENTED TO YOU, COLONEL 
VINDMAN LEAKED,  THE REMEMBER 
SAYING THAT? 
>> YES MAN. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
CURL VINDMAN  THIS MORNING SAID 
HE DID NOT, DOES NOT LEAK, 
WOULD YOU THEREFORE WANT TO 
MAYBE REARRANGE YOUR COMMENTS 
ABOUT THE REFERENCES YOU MADE 
TO COLONEL VINDMAN? 
>> NO MA'AM. 
>> EVEN THOUGH UNDER OATH, HE 
SAID HE NEVER LEAKED, YOU 
BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO SAID TO YOU, 
HE MAY HAVE LEAKED. 
>> MA'AM, I DID NOT BELIEVE OR 
DISBELIEVE THEM. 
>> THEY TOLD YOU, YOU DECIDED TO
CONTINUE TO PUT THAT FORWARD 
EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD NO 
EVIDENCE. 
>> NO MA'AM. 
MA'AM, I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN IF I 
COULD ANSWER. 
NO MA'AM, THAT IS INCORRECT. 
ME, DR. HILL AND OTHERS IN THE 
NSC RACED CONCERNED ABOUT ALEX, 
THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOTED. 
I DID NOT TAKE THEM FOR FACE 
VALUE, I TREATED THEM AS 
REPRESENTATIONS OF OTHERS, I 
FORM MY OWN JUDGMENTS, I TOOK 
NO ACTION BECAUSE OF THE 
STATEMENTS OF SOMEONE ELSE THAT 
I COULD NOT INDEPENDENTLY 
VALIDATE. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. 
WELCOME TO IMPEACH LOLLAPALOOZA 
WHICH IS CALLING ON THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO IMPEACH 
DONALD J TRUMP BECAUSE IT HAS 
BEEN A LONG DAY, IT TURNS OUT 
IMPEACHMENT IS VERY BORING IF 
YOU DON'T HAVE COMPELLING OR 
CONDEMNING EVIDENCE. 
GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS. 
THE GOOD NEWS I WILL BE VERY 
BRIEF, WE ARE GOING ON 10+ 
HOURS OF THIS. 
I WILL YIELD BACK SOME OF MY 
TIME, THE BAD NEWS IS, MOST OF 
MY COLLEAGUES AFTER ME WON'T. 
SO, WE HAVE SOME TIME TO GO. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, VERY 
QUICKLY, DO YOU THINK SOMEONE 
SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM 
INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED 
ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY 
JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CANDIDATE 
FOR OFFICE, EVEN OFFICE FOR 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? 
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD 
BE ABOVE THE LAW. 
>> OF COURSE NOT, THAT WOULD BE 
ABSURD. 
WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE ALLEGED 
ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS 
THAT OCCURRED OVERSEAS OR 
ANOTHER COUNTRY? 
WOULD IT BE IMPROPER TO SEEK 
THE HOST COUNTRIES HELP LIKE WE 
DO WITH INTERPOL OR OTHER LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES? 
>> THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR DOING 
THAT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT 
MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES 
ABROAD. 
>> AGAIN, THE HOST NATIONS, 
THEIR GOVERNMENTS HELP IS NOT 
UNUSUAL, TO SEEK THEIR HELP. 
>> NO, IT IS NOT. 
WE HAVE TREATIES FOR THAT. 
>> IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, THE 
ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT WAS 
DOING. 
MR. MORRISON, I WONDER BRIEFLY, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, HE 
DESCRIBED SIX PEOPLE, I BELIEVE 
IT WAS FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE IN 
THE SITUATION ROOM LISTENING TO 
THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO 
PRESIDENTS.  
COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED THE 
INDIVIDUALS AS EXCEPTIONAL, 
THERE WAS NO REASON TO QUESTION 
THEIR INTEGRITY OR 
PROFESSIONALS IN, THIS IS THE 
EXCHANGE HE HAD WE HAD WITH THE 
CLOSED-DOOR TETIMONY. 
YOU AGREE WITH THE DESCRIPTION 
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF 
AS EXCEPTIONL PEOPLE? 
>> YES, THERE PATRIOTS. 
>> PEOPLE OF GREAT INTEGRITY 
AND PROFESSIONALISM? 
>> YES THERE. 
I'M SORRY, DID ANY OF THESE 
EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE 
OF UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY, 
PROFESSIONALISM INDICATE TO YOU 
THEY THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN 
ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR 
AS A RESULT OF THIS PHONE CALL? 
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
>> THEM SUGGEST YOU THEY THOUGHT
THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED WITH 
BRIBERY OR ANY SUCH THING 
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? 
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AND ONLY LEAVES TWO POSSIBLE 
EXPLANATIONS, THESE TWO 
INDIVIDUALS DECIDE WITH GREAT 
INTEGRITY, EITHER THAT IS NOT 
TRUE, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE OR 
THEY JUST INTERPRETED AN 
AMBIGUOUS CONVERSATION VERY 
DIFFERENTLY. JUST AS AN ASIDE, 
AS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER, I NEVER
UNDERSTOOD WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA 
WAS AGAINST PROVIDING LEGAL AID 
TO UKRAINE. 
AMBASSADOR, DO YOU KNOW WHY HE 
REFUSED TO DO THAT? 
>> I WOULD ONLY POINT TO 
STATEMENTS FROM THE 
ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME. 
THERE WAS A PERCEPTION OUR 
ALLIES WOULD OPPOSE IT, GERMANY 
WOULD OPPOSE IT, THERE WAS THE 
PERCEPTION GERMANY SHOULD BE IN 
THE LEAD, IT COULD BE 
PROVOCATIVE TO RUSSIA OR 
ESCALATE THE CONFLICT. 
AS I'VE SAID EXTENSIVELY AT THE 
TIME, AND AS SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE, I DON'T AGREE 
WITH THOSE ARGUMENTS. 
I BELIEVE THE RECORD HAS BORNE 
OUT PROVIDING LETHAL ARMS IS 
DEFENSIVELY IMPORTANT. 
>> I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK 
YOU GOT IT RIGHT AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP GOT IT RIGHT. 
I WILL YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. QUIGLEY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO DIRECT 
YOUR ATTENTION TO A MEETING YOU 
HAD WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND 
MR. YERMAK IN KIEV. 
>> I BELIEVE WE HAD  DINNER 
DURING THE CONFERENCE. 
>> YOU RECALL DISCUSSING WITH 
MR. YERMAK, UKRAINE'S INTENT TO 
INVESTIGATE THEIR FORMER 
PRESIDENT , MR. POROSHENKO? 
>> MEMBER RAISING THE 
POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTIONS. 
>> THEY BROUGHT IT UP, TALKED 
ABOUT INTENTIONS. 
>> EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN, 
SORRY, TO BE CLEAR, THERE WAS A 
LOT OF TALK IN KIEV AT THAT 
TIME ABOUT WHETHER THE NEW TEAM 
WOULD BE PROSECUTING THE FORMER 
PRESIDENT. 
I HAD MET WITH PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO AND OTHERS IN THE 
OPPOSITION AS WELL. 
I WANTED TO CALL MR. YERMAK'S 
ATTENTIONS  TO THE PROBLEMS OF 
THIS. 
I'M AWARE OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN 
THE REGION THAT HAVE GONE 
THROUGH WITH PROSECUTIONS OF 
THE FORMER GOVERNMENT, IT HAS 
CREATED THE DIVISIONS IN 
SOCIETY. 
I CITED PRESIDENT ZELINSKI'S 
INAUGURATION SPEECH, I'M SORRY, 
HIS NATIONAL SPEECH FROM AUGUST 
24 ALL ABOUT UNIFYING THE 
COUNTRY. 
ICON CHINNED MR. YERMAK  TO SAY 
PURSUING PROSECUTION OF 
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO RISKS 
DEEPENING OPPOSITION IN THE 
COUNTRY WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE 
OF WHAT MR. ZELENSKY WANTS TO 
DO. 
>> IT IS FAIR TO SAY YOU 
DISCOURAGE HIM FROM SUCH 
ACTION. 
>> I DISCOURAGE HIM AND RAISE 
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE 
POTENTIAL ACTION MIGHT BE. 
>> WHAT WAS MR. YERMAK'S 
REACTION? 
>> I'VE SEEN THE TESTIMONY OF 
OTHERS, MR. TAYLOR'S  
TESTIMONY 
>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. 
KENT. 
>> I BELIEVE BASED ON THAT 
TESTIMONY, MR. YERMAK  SAID 
ASKING US TO INVESTIGATE 
CLINTON AND BIDEN? 
>> SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF 
IT IS OKAY TO ASK US TO 
INVESTIGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH 
YOU ARE THESE SO-CALLED 
INVESTIGATIONS BUT YOU DON'T 
WANT US TO INVESTIGATE OUR OWN 
PRESIDENT. 
IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE 
THIS? 
>> I DID NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND 
WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO, TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE WE WERE NOT BEING 
ASKED TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON OR 
BIDEN. 
I WAS PUZZLED BY THE REMARK, 
THAT IS WHY I DID NOT RESPOND. 
>> DID YOU INVESTIGATE WHAT HE 
MIGHT'VE MEANT OR ASK ANYBODY? 
>> NO, I TOOK IT AS SOMETHING 
OF A DEFLECTION OF THE POINT I 
WAS MAKING ABOUT UNIFYING 
UKRAINE. 
>> BUT IN ALL THIS TIME, MR. 
GIULIANI AND THIS TIME, HE 
MENTIONED THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION, HE MENTIONED 
BIDEN OVER 50 TIMES AND 
TWENTYSOMETHING TIMES IN 
RELATION TO UKRAINE, NONE OF 
THAT STIRRED YOUR CURIOSITY? 
YOU JUST NOW FINALLY COME TO 
THIS POINT? 
>> AS I TESTIFIED, I MET WITH 
MR. GIULIANI ONCE, HE BROUGHT 
UP VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND I 
PUSHED BACK ON THAT. 
I MAINTAIN A VERY CLEAR 
DISTINCTION, UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATING ITS OWN CITIZENS 
AND CORRUPTION IS FINE. 
GOING BEYOND THAT TO SAY WE 
WILL INVESTIGATE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT FINE. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
IN THE ADMINISTRATION WITH 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO POROSHENKO? 
>> YES. 
I KNOW I HAVE RAISED THIS WITH 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN ADVANCE OF 
THAT, WE HAVE BEEN TO SOME OF 
THE SAME MEETINGS, THE COUNTRY 
TEAM THERE, I DON'T REMEMBER IF 
I RAISED IT WITH GEORGE KENT OR 
NOT, I MAY WELL HAVE DONE. 
IT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD 
DISCUSSED AS PART OF OUR 
MEETINGS IN KIEV AT THAT TIME. 
>> I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> AMBASSADOR, WE HAD THIS 
CONVERSATION, YOU USED URGED 
UKRAINIANS NOT TO PROSECUTE 
THEIR FORMER PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO. 
THEIR RESPONSE WAS LIKE YOU ARE 
ASKING US TO INVESTIGATE THE 
CLINTONS AND THE BIDENS. 
THAT WAS THE RESPONSE? 
>> THAT IS WHAT I RECALL AFTER 
SEEING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S 
TESTIMONY. 
>> YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT 
AT THE TIME, AND THE TIME, HAVE 
YOU READ THE CALL RECORD? 
HAD YOU READ THE CALL RECORD, 
IT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE? 
>> YES. 
>> I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT 
SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER, 
WHEN YOU SAID THE 2016 
CONSPIRACY THEORY OF YURIY 
LUTSENKO HAD NO MERIT.  
THERE WAS NO HARM. 
DON'T THEY HAVE ENOUGH 
LEGITIMATE CORRUPTION TO 
INVESTIGATE WITHOUT SPENDING 
TIME INVESTIGATING A DEBUNKED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY? 
>> THERE'S ALL KINDS OF 
CORRUPTION TO INVESTIGATE IN 
UKRAINE. 
>> NONETHELESS, YOU PROPOSE TO 
DO SOMETHING WITH THE 
INVESTIGATION WITHOUT MERIT 
BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF AN 
EFFORT TO FIX THE PROBLEM 
GIULIANI WAS CREATING. 
>> I DID NOT PROPOSE IT. 
>> I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE 
OKAY WITH IT OR AMENDED 
STATEMENTS AS WE HAVE SAID TO 
INCLUDE IT BECAUSE IF IT WOULD 
HELP FIX THE GIULIANI PROBLEM, 
IS THAT THE THINKING? 
>> YES, THAT IS THE CORRECT, WE 
WITH THREAD THE NEEDLE, 
REASONABLE FOR UKRAINE TO DO 
AND RESET THE NEGATIVE 
PERCEPTIONS HELD BY MR. GIULIANI
AND THEN THE PRESIDENT, WHY 
NOT. 
>> THIS IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IN 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT IS YOUR 
EFFORT, WHEN YOU WANT TO FIX IT,
IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, BASED ON THE 
SEPTEMBER 25 CALL, YOU WERE NOT 
ABLE TO FIX IT? 
>> BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT 
RELEASED ON THE 25th, I CAN SEE 
NOW THERE IS A LOT ELSE GOING ON
, A LOT ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN I KNEW AT THE TIME, THE 
EFFORTS I WAS MAKING WERE 
CLEARLY NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF 
WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED
. 
>> IT IS FAIR TO SAY, YOU COULD 
NOT FIX THE GIULIANI PROBLEM. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
MS. STEFANIK. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEARS OF 
SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL 
EXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP ON 
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. 
I WANT TO PARTICULARLY TECH MR. 
MORE SUN ON HIS WORK ON THE 
HOUSE ARMED COMMITTEE WHICH 
ICER. 
I WANT TO START WITH THE JULY 
25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE ON THE 
CALL AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF 
WITHHOLDING  EIGHT ON THE CALL, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> NO BRIBERY OR EXTORTION? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I PRESUME 
YOU GOT A READOUT OF THE CALLS, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> VERY TERSE READOUT, YES. 
>> IN THIS TERSE READOUT FROM 
THE CALL, AMBASSADOR, FROM U.S. 
PARTICIPANTS, WAS THERE ANY 
REFERENCE TO WITHHOLDING AID OR 
BRIBERY? 
>> NO, THERE WAS NOT. 
>> ANY REFERENCE TO QUID PRO 
QUO OR EXTORTION? 
>> NO, THERE WAS NOT. 
>> I PRESUME YOU GOT FEEDBACK 
FROM YOUR UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS AS TO HOW THE CALL 
WENT. 
THAT THEY MENTION THE 
WITHHOLDING OF AID, THE QUID 
PRO QUO? 
>> NO, THEY DID NOT. 
>> DID THEY MENTION BRIBERY?  
>> NO, THEY DID NOT. 
>> IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER THE 
CALL, YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, JULY 26 , IN THAT 
MEETING, HE MADE NO MENTION OF 
QUID PRO QUO. 
HE MADE NO MENTION OF 
WITHHOLDING THE AID, NO MENTION 
OF BRIBERY. 
>> NO. 
>> THE FACT IS, UKRAINIANS WERE 
NOT AWARE OF THIS WHOLE ON AID, 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN THE COMING WEEKS, YOU ARE 
IN TOUCH WITH UKRAINIANS AS 
PART OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES, 
THIS INCLUDED TALKING TO 
UKRAINIANS OVER THE PHONE, IN 
PERSON, ON TEXT, UKRAINIANS 
NEVER BROUGHT UP AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THE NEVER BROUGHT UP 
WITHHOLDING OF THE AID OR QUID 
PRO QUO OR BRIBERY? 
>> NO. 
LET ME SAY THE AID, THEY DID 
BRING IT UP AFTER THE POLITICO 
ARTICLE. 
>> I WILL GET TO THAT, UNTIL 
THE ARTICLE, THEY DID NOT BRING 
IT UP. 
>> NO. 
>> YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION, 
IT NEVER CAME UP IN 
CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND I 
BELIEVE THEY HAD TRUST IN ME, 
THEY WOULD'VE ASKED IF THAT IS 
REALLY WHAT THEY WERE WORRIED 
ABOUT, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU POINTED OUT, UKRAINIANS 
NEVER KNEW THE FOREIGN AID WAS 
ON PAUSE UNTIL THE ARTICLE WAS 
PUBLISHED IN POLITICAL IN 
AUGUST. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THEY DID NOT KNOW DURING THE 
CALL. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU HAD TO CORRECT ADAM 
SCHIFF ON THE TIMELINE AND THE 
CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION, THE 
CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE 
ASKED YOU, WHEN THEY BECAME 
AWARE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS 
BEING WITHHELD FOR A REASON YOU 
COULD NOT EXPLAIN, NO ONE COULD 
EXPLAIN, WHERE THEY UNDER 
GREATER PRESSURE TO GIVE THE 
PRESIDENT WHAT HE ASKED FOR ON 
THE CALL? YOU ANSWER, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE, THE NEWS ABOUT A 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID 
NOT GET INTO UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT CIRCLES AS INDICATED 
TO ME BY THE CURRENT FOREIGN 
MINISTER THEN DIPLOMATIC 
ADVISOR UNTIL THE END OF 
AUGUST. 
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? 
>> YES, IT IS. 
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO GOT THE 
FACTS WRONG AGAIN WHEN HE ASKED 
YOU THIS, AT THE POINT THEY 
LEARNED THEIR AID WAS PAUSED, 
WOULDN'T THAT GIVE THEM ADDED 
URGENCY TO MEET THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST ON THE BIDENS  LIKES 
YOU ANSWER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
I THINK UKRAINIANS FELT LIKE 
THEY ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT 
DIRECTION AND HAD NOT DONE 
ANYTHING, THEY HAD NOT DONE 
ANYTHING ON INVESTIGATION. 
ISN'T IT THE CASE, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, AT ONE POINT, CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF SAID TO YOU, WHEN YOU 
WERE TRUTHFULLY TESTIFYING, 
AMBASSADOR, YOU ARE MAKING THIS 
MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT 
HAS TO BE. 
IT IS PAGE 127 FROM THE 
DEPOSITION, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I REMEMBER THAT. 
>> THE TRUTH IS, THE FACTS ARE 
INDEED NOT COMPLICATED. 
I WILL CLOSE THAT WITH TWO 
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOTH OF YOU. 
DID UKRAINE OPEN INVESTIGATION 
INO THE BIDENS? 
>> MR. MORRISON. 
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER. 
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. 
>> DID EITHER ONE OF YOU HAVE 
EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO? 
>> NO MA'AM. 
>> NO. 
>> ANY EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY? 
>> NO MA'AM. 
>> ANY EVIDENCE OF TREASON? 
>> NO MA'AM. 
>> NO EVIDENCE OF TREASON. 
>> I WILL YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. MORRISON, DID AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WANT THE SECURITY HOLD 
AID WITH LIFTED? 
>> YES, HE DID. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR 
ALTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN LATE 
AUGUST RELATED TO UKRAINE 
RELATED SECURITY ASSISTANCE? 
>> SIR, CAN YOU POINT TO I 
TESTIFIED? 
>> PAGE 266, AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AUGUST 2019, 
THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT YET READY 
TO APPROVE? 
>> 226. 
>> 266 AND 268. 
>> I'M ASKING YOU DID THAT 
HAPPEN OR DID NOT? 
>> SORRY, I WANT TO BE CLEAR 
THE WAY YOU'RE CHARACTERIZING 
IT. 
OKAY, YES SIR, I SEE. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT. 
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE 
MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS READY 
TO APPROVE ASSISTANCE. 
>> THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
REVEAL ANY REASON FOR THE 
REASON FOR THE HOLD FROM THIS 
MEETING? 
>> NO SIR. 
>> MR. MORRISON, DO YOU 
CONSIDER YOURSELF LOYAL TO THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT EXECUTES 
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE 
UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I WOULD SAY HE SETS IT, YES 
SIR. 
>> AS A STAFFER ON THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND SOMEONE 
WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY, IT 
IS YOUR JOB TO FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTE THE FOREIGN POLICY 
PRIORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT 
COME IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> MY JOB IS TO OBEY ALL LAWFUL 
ORDERS. 
>> ON JULY 20, YOU LISTEN TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TALK TO THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE. 
>> YES SIR. 
>> REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HAD 
PREPARED AS TALKING POINTS FOR 
THE PRESIDENT, YOU HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES SIR, HE MADE A REQUEST. 
>> AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, IS IT FAIR 
TO SAY YOU TALKED TO YOU 
UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS A NUMBER 
OF TIMES? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES WHEN YOU 
TALKED TO YOUR UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS DID YOU ASK THEM 
TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS? 
>> NEVER, SIR. 
>> WHY NOT? 
>> SIR, IT WAS NOT A POLICY 
OBJECTIVE I WAS AWARE OF. 
>> BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, 
MR. MORRISON, YOU'RE NOT IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE TO CARRY OUT YOUR 
POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
YOU JUST TESTIFIED THE 
PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN 
POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR THE 
UNITED STATES. 
THE ONE CALL YOU LISTENED TO 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES PRIORITIES 
WERE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. 
I'M ASKING YOU, SIR, WHY DIDN'T 
YOU FOLLOW UP ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES WHEN YOU 
TALKED  TO THE UKRAINIANS? 
>> SIR, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT 
AS A POLICY OBJECTIVE. 
>> MR. MORRISON, I KNOW YOU PUT 
THAT CONVERSATION IN THE SERVER 
BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU FEARED 
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND 
OTHER REASONS YOU GAVE, BUT YOU 
ALSO CHOSE TO DEFY THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST  TO NOT 
COME HERE AS OTHERS HAVE LIKE 
MR. MULVANEY AND MR. BOLTON AND 
YOU HAVE COME HERE AND BEEN 
TRUTHFUL. 
I APPRECIATE THAT. 
MR. MORRISON, WHETHER YOU 
ACKNOWLEDGE IT PUBLICLY OR NOT, 
I BELIEVE YOU KNEW WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED THE UKRAINIANS 
TO DO WAS WRONG AND AS YOU JUST 
DESCRIBED, YOUR DUTY IS TO 
FOLLOW THE FOREIGN POLICY 
PRIORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT. 
BUT TO ALSO ONLY FOLLOW 
SOMETHING THAT IS LAWFUL ORDER, 
I DON'T THINK YOU BELIEVED IT 
WAS LAWFUL ORDER, THAT IS WHY 
HE DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THOSE 
PRIORITIES. 
MR. VOLKER, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT 
TODAY ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT 
BEING SUCH AN ANTICORRUPTION 
PRESIDENT, HE REALLY CARED 
ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY? 
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY? 
>> YES, IT IS. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MET A 
NUMBER OF TIMES WITH PRESIDENT 
PUTIN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES, A FEW TIMES. 
>> AND HE HAS HAD A NUMBER OF 
PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT 
PUTIN. 
>> IS TURKEY A CORRUPT COUNTRY? 
>> YES I BELIEVE SO. 
>> DESPITE THAT, AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE, PRESIDENT ARAGON HAD 
LUNCH WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> YES, IT IS. 
>> FINALLY, MR. GIULIANI ON MAY 
9 TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BASICALLY KNOWS 
WHAT I'M DOING AS HIS LAWYER. 
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
STATEMENT? 
>> NO, I'M NOT. 
>> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH SOMEONE 
SITTING NEXT TO YOU, A LAWYER 
ASK ON A CLIENT'S BEHALF AND 
ONLY CLIENTS BEHALF, IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE A LAWYER ASK ON 
HIS CLIENTS BEHALF, I'M NOT 
SURE ABOUT ONLY ON CLIENTS 
BEHALF BECAUSE I THINK AS I 
UNDERSTOOD MAYOR GIULIANI IN 
THIS CASE, HE WAS DOING A LOT 
OF WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE ON HIS 
OWN. 
I DON'T THINK HE WAS ALWAYS 
INSTRUCTED. 
>> YOU SAID NOT MEDDLING AN 
ELECTION, NOT INVESTIGATION. 
HE DID NOT SAY I, HE SAID WE, 
CORRECT? 
>> TAKING THAT FROM THE 
STATEMENT. 
>> YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. MORRISON, MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM CALIFORNIA SUGGEST HE 
KNOWS YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR 
THOUGHTS BETTER THAN YOU DO? 
HE DID NOT GIVE YOU THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. 
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE A RESPONSE 
LIKES 
>> NO SIR, I HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT MAKE A REQUEST, I 
RECEIVED NO DIRECTION AT ANY 
TIME TO ATTEMPT TO LEAD A 
POLICY PROCESS DIFFERENT FROM 
WHAT I LAID OUT IN MY 
DEPOSITION, I WAS DIRECTED BY 
DR. KUPPERMAN TO LAUNCH THE 
PROCESS TO ENSURE UNITY OF 
OPINION IN THE INTERAGENCY AS 
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING 
SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. 
THAT IS WHAT I DID, I ACTED 
UPON THE DIRECTION I WAS GIVEN. 
>> COPY. 
WHILE WE ARE WITH YOU MR. 
MORRISON, THANKS FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY, CLEAR AND SOBER 
TESTIMONY, DID YOU PARTICIPATE 
IN OVER HERE CONVERSATIONS 
ABOUT HOW POLITICAL INFORMATION 
ELECTED BY UKRAINE ON THE 
BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN? 
>> NO SIR. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SAME 
QUESTION, DID YOU PARTICIPATE 
IN OR OVER HERE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW 
POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED 
BY UKRAINE ON THE BIDENS WOULD 
BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? 
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A TEXT 
EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. 
YERMAK  ON AUGUST 12 THAT 
TALKED ABOUT THIS PROPOSED 
STATEMENT. 
AND MAYOR GIULIANI PROVIDED 
FEEDBACK ON WHAT HE THOUGHT 
NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED ON THAT. 
DID MAYOR GIULIANI GET FEEDBACK 
FROM THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT 
SHOULD GO INTO THAT PROPOSED 
STATEMENT? 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK HE 
DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PRESIDENT.
>> BASED ON YOUR RECOLLECTION, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO IN THE 
ZELENSKY REGIME HAS MAYOR 
GIULIANI INTERACTED WITH IN 
ADDITION TO MR. YERMAK, WHICH 
WE  ALREADY TALKED ABOUT AND 
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
MR. LESHCHENKO. 
>> I DON'T KNOW HE WOULD 
INTERACT WITH IN THE ZELENSKY 
GOVERNMENT.  
I'M AWARE OF HIM HAVING CLAIMED 
HE MET WITH YURIY LUTSENKO'S  
PREDECESSOR AS PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL. 
>> THAT IS NOT WITHIN WITH 
WHICH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE HE 
WOULD'VE MET WITH. 
>> IN FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE, 
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ROLE IN 
UKRAINE? 
>> HE CARED ABOUT UKRAINE, HE 
WANTED TO SEE U.S. SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE INCREASED, HE WANTED TO 
SEE EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE INCREASE INCLUDING 
SANCTIONS AND HE WANTED TO BE 
HELPFUL. 
>> WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH 
ZELENSKY OFFICIALS WITHOUT 
LETTING OTHER PEOPLE KNOW. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS NOT 
LETTING PEOPLE KNOW. 
I THINK HE MAY HAVE HAD 
CONVERSATIONS, I THINK HE WAS 
ACTING, I THINK WE CIRCLED BACK 
QUITE FREQUENTLY WITH MYSELF, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND OTHERS. 
>> CAN YOU SAY YOU HAVE A CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MAYOR 
GIULIANI WERE DOING IN ALL 
THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? 
>> I CAN'T SAY I HAD A CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING, I THOUGHT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I WERE 
WORKING ON THE SAME OBJECTIVE, 
GETTING A MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A STATEMENT 
AS I UNDERSTOOD IT THAT 
MENTIONED BURISMA 2016 WOULD BE 
POTENTIALLY HELPFUL. 
I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING MORE 
ABOUT THEIR INTERACTIONS. 
>> YOU DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING AS THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE. 
DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAD 
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING? 
>> NO, I DON'T. 
>> YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURISMA AND 
BIDEN WITH THE 2016 ELECTIONS? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS 
HAD SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING? 
>> YES, I DO. 
>> THERE'S ALSO A PERCEPTION 
WENT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, 
WHICH WE HAVE ALL, 33 YEARS OF 
BEING AN AWESOME AMBASSADOR, 
WHEN SHE LEFT KIEV, THE U.S. 
POSITION ON CORRUPTION HAD 
WEAKENED. 
THAT WAS WHAT WAS FLOATING 
AROUND, WHO TOOK OVER AFTER 
HER? 
>> IMMEDIATELY AFTER WAS JOE 
BENNINGTON. 
>> WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL STRONG 
OR WEAK ON CORRUPTION? 
>> I WOULD SAY IN LINE WITH ALL 
THE REST OF OUR POLICY. 
>> AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS 
THAT PERON REPLACED WITH? 
>> BILL TAYLOR. 
>> YOU SUGGESTED FOR THE 
POSITION. 
>> YES. 
>> WAS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRONG 
OR WEAK ON CORRUPTION? 
>> VERY STRONG. 
>> IN MY LAST 23 MINUTES, WHO 
SETS OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? 
>> THE PRESIDENT. 
>> NOT SOME OTHER STAFFER 
WITHIN THE NSC STAFF? 
>> THE NSC STAFF EXISTS TO MAKE 
SURE THE PRESIDENT HAS A FULL 
ARRAY OF OPTIONS FOR HIS 
DECISION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CASTRO. 
>> ON CUE, CHAIRMAN AND THANK 
YOU, GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY. 
IS IT CORRECT TO SAY BOTH OF 
YOU GENTLEMEN WERE APPOINTED OR 
HIRED BY THE WHITE HOUSE WITH 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? 
>> YES OR. 
>> IN MY CASE, I SECRETARY TELL 
HER SON. 
>> YES, SERVING THE SAME 
ADMINISTRATION. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR 
GORDON SONDLAND, I JUST KNOW HE 
HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP I DID NOT HAVE. 
IN FACT, IN ONE TEXT MESSAGE 
DATED JULY 26, YOU WILL TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, GREAT 
PHOTO, GORDON. 
CAN YOU GET THIS TO POTUS 
WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES? JULY 26 
WAS THE SAME DAY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT 
FROM A RESTAURANT IN KIEV. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I'M SORRY, THE DATE. 
>> JULY 26. 
>> YES, I KNOW THAT TO BE 
CORRECT NOW. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT CALL? 
>> NO, I WAS NOT. 
>> THIS COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF 
IT NOW AS WE ALL ARE NOW. 
>> REAL WHERE HE HAD A DIRECT 
LINE TO THE PRESIDENT? 
>> HE CLAIMED HE TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT FREQUENTLY. 
>> DID YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT 
THAT? 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A BIG 
PERSONALITY, SOMETIMES SAYS 
THINGS THAT MIGHT BE A BIT 
BIGGER THAN LIFE. 
>> HE WAS A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE, HAND-PICKED BY THE 
PRESIDENT OR SOMEONE IN THE OF 
ADMINISTRATION TO SERVE IN HIS 
POSITION . 
>> I BELIEVE HE COULD SPEAK 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
>> HE HAD ALSO BEEN A LARGE 
DONOR TONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I HAVE LEARNED THAT, YES. 
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU STATED 
DURING YOUR TESTIMONY, WHEN YOU 
MET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR THE 
FIRST TIME, HE REPRESENTED HIS 
MANDATE FROM THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TO GO MAKE DEALS. 
IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED BETWEEN
JULY 25 AND SEPTEMBER 11 THIS 
YEAR, YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SPOKE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. 
IS IT ACCURATE EVERY TIME YOU 
CHECKED, YOU WERE ABLE TO 
CONFIRM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
IN FACT SPOKEN TO THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> MR. MORRISON, HE ALSO 
TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
EMAILED YOU AND SEVERAL WHITE 
HOUSE STAFF TO SAY HE BRIEFED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ADVANCE OF 
HIS JULY 25 CALL WITH UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT? 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL 
YOU WHAT HE BRIEFED THE 
PRESIDENT ON? 
>> HE SENT ME AN EMAIL, SIR. 
IT WAS VERY SUCCINCT, THREE 
ITEMS WITH RESPECT UKRAINE, I 
BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON THE 
CALL. 
>> YOU SET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SPOKEN 
BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
>> PRESUMABLY, THE WHITE HOUSE 
SITUATION ROOM KEEPS A RECORD 
OF THOSE CALLS. 
>> SIR, THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE 
TO CONFIRM IT. 
>> OKAY. 
YOU SEPARATELY TESTIFIED YOUR 
STAFF PREPARED A BRIEFING MEMO 
WITH SUGGESTED POINTS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO RAISE JULY 25, 
POINTS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
>> THE PRESIDENT DID NOT USE 
THOSE POINTS, DID HE? 
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
>> LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, 
YOU PREPARED MATERIALS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT, THEY DID NOT INCLUDE 
REFERENCES TO THE BIDENS OR 
2016 ELECTION, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THE GUY 
WITH THE DIRECT LINK TO THE 
PRESIDENT, THE GUY TALKING 
ABOUT MAKING DEALS BRIEFED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THE 
2016 ELECTION AND VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN AND HIS SON TO THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AFTER HE 
WAS BRIEFED BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND? 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT WERE 
ON THE SAME PAGE. 
THEY BOTH WERE WORKING TO 
BENEFIT THE PRESENCE PERSONAL 
POLITICAL INTERESTS, EVEN WHEN 
THAT UNDERMINED U.S. FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
I WANT TO ASK YOU IN THE SHORT 
TIME I HAVE, BOTH OF YOU 
GENTLEMEN, WHO SERVE THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT, WHETHER 
PUTTING PRESIDENT TRUMP ASIDE, 
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT IS 
PROPER FOR ANY PRESIDENT, NOW 
OR LATER, TO ASK A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A 
U.S. CITIZEN AND SPECIFICALLY, 
A U.S. CITIZEN BUT COULD BE A 
POLITICAL RIVAL? AMBASSADOR. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT 
TO DO THAT. 
IF WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
CONCERNS WITH THE U.S. CITIZEN, 
GENERALLY THERE ARE APPROPRIATE 
CHANNELS FOR THAT. 
>> MR. MORRISON. 
>> I AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. RADCLIFFE. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU BEING 
HERE TODAY, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A 
LONG DAY. 
MR. MORRISON, I WILL TRY TO 
SUMMARIZE SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD 
TO SHORTEN THIS. 
YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25 CALL, 
COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ON THE JULY 
25 CALL, CORRECT? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> I WILL TELL YOU HE TESTIFIED 
EARLIER TODAY, HE HEARD WHAT HE 
THOUGHT WAS A DEMAND ON THAT 
CALL THAT WAS IMPROPER AND FELT 
HE HAD A DUTY TO REPORT THAT. 
I THINK WE HAVE ESTABLISHED 
ALREADY HE DID NOT DISCUSS OR 
REPORT ANY OF THAT TO YOU, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> YOU DID HAVE A DISCUSSION 
WITH COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT 
OTHER CONCERNS HE HAD WITH THE 
CALL, I BELIEVE YOU SAID  THE 
TRANSLATION AND THE FACT YOU 
BOTH SHARED A DISCUSSION ABOUT 
THEY ARE NOT BEING A FULL 
THROATED EMBRACE OF THE 
UKRAINIAN REFORM AGENDA, IS 
THAT FAIR? 
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONCERN 
ABOUT SOMETHING IMPROPER, 
SPECIFICALLY AT NO POINT DID HE 
COME TO YOU AND SAY, I HEARD 
SOMETHING I THOUGHT WAS 
IMPROPER AND WAS A CRIME. 
>> NO SIR, I HAVE NO 
RECOLLECTION OF HIM DOING THAT. 
>> NO BRIDE OR EXTORTION OR 
QUID PRO QUO, ALL THE THINGS 
MS. THE PHONIC ASKED YOU? 
>> NO SIR. 
>> AS YOU WERE LISTENING, DID 
YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKE 
DEMAND OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD 
CONSTITUTE A CRIME? 
>> SIR, I'M TRYING TO STAY ON 
THE SAME SIDE OF MAKING LEGAL 
CONCLUSIONS, NO SIR, I DID NOT 
HEAR ANY DEMAND. 
>> YOU HAVE A LAW DEGREE. 
>> YES OR. 
>> YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH 
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION. 
IS IT FAIR TO SAY, AS YOU WERE 
LISTENING TO THE CALL, YOU DID 
NOT THINK WOW, THE PRESIDENT IS 
BRIBING THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, THAT NEVER CROSSED 
YOUR MIND? 
>> IT DID NOT. 
>> OR THAT HE WAS EXTORTING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE OR DOING 
ANYTHING IMPROPER? 
>> CORRECT, SIR. 
>> HAVE YOU HEARD OR READ IN 
THE MEDIA WHERE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU AND 
SAID REPEATEDLY AND 
CONSISTENTLY, HE DID NOT HEAR 
ANY DEMAND OR CONDITIONS, HE 
DID NOT FEEL PRESSURE.  
HE DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANYTHING 
IMPROPER OR CORRUPT ON THE 
CALL. 
>> I ATTENDED THE BILATERALLY 
IN NEW YORK AND HE MADE CLEAR 
IN FRONT OF THE PRESS HE FELT 
NO PRESSURE. 
>> SO, DID ANYONE ON THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER 
THIS CALL EXPRESS TO YOU SOME 
CRIME, BRIBERY EXTORTION, QUID 
PRO QUO, ANYTHING HAD OCCURRED? 
>> NO SIR. 
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. 
MORRISON, ABOUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. 
I DON'T WANT YOU TO SPECULATE 
TO THE IDENTITY, I WANT TO ASK 
YOU ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS THAT 
STARTED THIS AS TO THEIR 
VERACITY. 
FIRST OF ALL, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO APPARENTLY 
WAS NOTON THE CALL, ADVISED THE
ICIG, THE PRESIDENT'S  CONDUCT 
UNDER SECTION 33, "SERIOUS 
PROBLEM, ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF 
LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER". 
BEGIN TO BE CLEAR, YOU DID NOT 
HEAR A VIOLATION OF LAW OR 
EXECUTIVE ORDER AS HE LISTENED 
TO THE CALL. 
>> SIR, I MADE NO JUDGMENT 
ABOUT ANY LEGAL CONDUCT 
OCCURRING. 
>> IT WAS ASSERTED AT THE START 
OF THIS HEARING, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE 
TRAINING LEADERSHIP TO TAKE 
ACTIONS TO HELP THE PRESIDENT'S 
2020 REELECTION BID ? PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DOES NOT MENTION 2020 
DURING THE CALL. 
DEADLY? 
>> 
>> HE USES THE WORD DEMAND. 
>> COUNSEL, YOU SHOULD USE A 
MICROPHONE. 
>> I'M SORRY. 
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I BELIEVE 
YOU SAID A WHISTLEBLOWER LIKE 
COLONEL VINDMAN.  
>> NO, I'M SORRY. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER, LIKE COLONEL 
VINDMAN, USES THE WORD DEMAND 
ON PAGE 4, THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
ASSERTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER  AND 
SONDLAND PURPORTEDLY PROVIDED 
ADVICE TO UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP 
ON HOW TO NAVIGATE THE DEMANDS 
THE PRESIDENT HAD MADE OF MR. 
ZELENSKY. AGAIN, THERE WERE NO 
DEMANDS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, 
MR. MORRISON? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. 
>> SPECULATIONS ABOUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, THE MOTIVATIONS, 
THE FACT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS 
WRONG ABOUT THE FACTS AS WELL, 
CORRECT? 
>> SIR, I'M NOT INTIMATELY 
FAMILIAR WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT. 
I DID NOT HEAR A DEMAND IN THAT 
CALL. 
>> GENTLEMEN, THE TIME HAS 
EXPIRED. 
>> MR. CHAIR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY 
AND I FRANKLY FOUND THE SUM OF 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE 
NOT JUST GENUINE BUT DOWNRIGHT 
ELOQUENT, IN PARTICULAR I NOTED 
THE PASSAGES OF PUTTING BACK ON 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND 
SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 
STRONG RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND 
PROSPEROUS UKRAINE, ONE THAT 
OVERCOMES A LEGACY OF 
CORRUPTION AND THIS IS CRITICAL 
FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. 
SOME OF US BELIEVE WE ARE NOT 
PUSHING BACK STRONGLY ENOUGH ON 
RUSSIA. 
SOME OF US BELIEVE WE ARE NOT 
BEING SUPPORTIVE ENOUGH OF THE 
UKRAINE. 
BUT ONE OF OUR CHALLENGES IS TO 
GO HOME TO THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM 
WE WE WORK AND EXPLAIN TO THEM 
WHY IT IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTEREST, YOU HAVE AN AUDIENCE 
LIKE YOU NEVER WILL AGAIN, TO 
LOOK INTO THE CAMERA AND TELL 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHY IT IS 
IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. 
WHY IT SHOULD MATTER TO THEM IF 
THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THEIR LIFE 
IS GETTING THEIR KIDS OFF TO 
SCHOOL, PAYING THEIR BILLS AND 
THE LIKE. 
SIR. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, 
CONGRESSMAN. 
I'D AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY, 
WE ARE NOT PUSHING BACK HARD 
ENOUGH ON RUSSIA AND WE OWE 
UKRAINE A GREAT DEAL OF 
UPPORT. 
>> WHY DOES IT MATTER? 
>> RUSSIA IS TRYING TO UPEND 
SECURITY IN EUROPE, REASSERT 
ITS DOMINATION OF NEIGHBORING 
COUNTRIES WHETHER IT IS GEORGIA 
OR UKRAINE OR THE BALTIC 
STATES. 
IT HAS LED TO WAR IN EUROPE. 
THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS LEFT 
MORE PEOPLE DEAD IN EUROPE THEN 
ANY EUROPEAN WAR SINCE THE 
BALKANS. 
PEOPLE DISPLACED BY WAR IN 
EUROPE SINCE ANYTHING SINCE 
WORLD WAR II. 
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP 
FOR FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, THEY 
WANT REFORM, THEY WANT TO SEE 
THEIR COUNTRY BE SUCCESSFUL 
LIKE GERMANY AND LIKE SWEDEN 
AND LIKE US. 
THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR OF 
AGGRESSION AGAINST THEM 
DESIGNED TO HOLD THEM BACK. IF 
WE WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF 
FREEDOM FOR THE UNITED STATES, 
IT OUGHT TO BE SUPPORTING 
FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE 
WORLD. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
WE ARE HERE IN PART BECAUSE 
UNDER COVER OF CONCERN FOR 
GENERAL CORRUPTION, SOME OF US 
BELIEVE THERE WASN'T. 
IN FACT, THERE IS SOMETHING 
QUITE NEFARIOUS AS THE 
ALTERNATIVE. 
THERE WASN'T A CONCERN ABOUT 
GENERAL CORRUPTION, BUT 
REVIEWING THE RECORD ON THAT, 
SIR, IS IT NOT TRUE IN MARCH OF 
THIS YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE CERTIFIED UKRAINE AS 
HAVING BEEN SUFFICIENT, MADE 
SUFFICIENT PROGRESS TO CONTINUE 
TO RECEIVE MILITARY ASSISTANCE? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF 
THAT, I BELIEVE IT TO BE 
CORRECT. 
>> ISN'T TRUE, APRIL 21, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON 
OVERWHELMING MANDATE WAS 76 % 
OF  THE VOTE, BUILT LARGELY ON 
HIS ANTICORRUPTION. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IT WAS A FRIEND AND EXPAND 
ON JULY 21 WHEN HIS PARTY WON 
PARTY CONTROL ON THE BASIS OF 
ANTICORRUPTION? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY HE 
ENACTED SWEEPING REFORMS TO 
COMBAT ANTICORRUPTION, DID HE 
NOT? 
>> YES, HE HAS. 
>> EVERYONE ON THE GROUND WAS 
FILLED WITH OPTIMISM UKRAINE 
WAS GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT 
COMBATING CORRUPTION? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DID YOU 
KNOW ONE OF THE FIRST 
ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES PASSED 
IN THE UKRAINE WAS A LAW TO 
PROVIDE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
THE PRESIDENT? 
>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 
>> IT IS TRUE. 
HE THOUGHT COLLUSION SHOULD 
START WITH HIMSELF. 
I RAISE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE MY 
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE KEEP CHARACTERIZING 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS 
INHERENTLY WRONG, AND I'M 
QUOTING THEM, IT WILL OVERTIME 
AN ELECTION. 
OVER AND OVER, IT WILL OVERTURN 
AN ELECTION. 
IMPEACHMENT IS AN 
ANTICORRUPTION TOOL. MY FRIENDS 
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, 
IT DOES OVERTURN AN ELECTION BY 
DEFINITION. 
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A 
PROBLEM WITH OUR CONSTITUTION 
AND ITS PROVISIONS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, I RECOMMEND THEY 
REREAD THE RELEVANT PASSAGES IN 
ARTICLE 1 SECTIONS 2 AND THREE, 
SOME OF THE HISTORY ABOUT HOW 
WE GOT THERE. 
LOOK, NONE OF US WANTS TO BE 
HERE DESPITE WHAT IS BEING 
SAID. 
NONE OF US CAME TO THIS EASILY. 
WE DIDN'T. 
THE CALL THE REST OF MY LIFE, 
THE 45 HOURS I SPEND AT THE 
FAMILY CAPITAL PLUNGED IN SELF 
REFLECTION AND LITERALLY 
POWERFUL DELIBERATION ABOUT 
THIS WHOLE MATTER. 
COLLECTIVELY, WE ARE GOING TO 
HAVE TO GRAPPLE TO PUT THIS 
VERY GRAVE DECISION THAT IS 
WAITING AND IT WILL GET HARD 
AND IT IS HARD IN PROPORTION TO 
ITS IMPORTANCE TO OUR GREAT 
REPUBLIC. 
A REPUBLIC IF WE CAN KEEP IT. 
I YELLED BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE NOW 
FAMOUS TRANSCRIPT, BOTTOM OF 
PAGE 3, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THIS, I HEARD YOU HAD A 
PROSECUTOR THAT WAS SHUT DOWN. 
THAT IS UNFAIR. 
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DO YOU 
THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 
LESHCHENKO OR SHOKIN ? 
>> THANK YOU, THAT IS WHAT I 
THOUGHT AS WELL. 
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED 
YOU HAD ISSUES WITH COLONEL 
VEND MEANT'S JUDGMENT. 
>> YES OR. 
>> YOU HAD CONCERN WITH HIM 
EXERCISING APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT 
AS TO WHO HE SAID WHAT? 
>> YES OR. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED DR. HILL, YOUR 
PREDECESSOR HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S JUDGMENTS AS 
WELL. 
>> YES OR. 
>> COLONEL BEN DID NOT ALWAYS 
ADHERE TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE SO, YES OR. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED COLONEL 
VINDMAN TRY TO ACCESS 
INFORMATION OUTSIDE HIS LANE? 
>> SIR, I BELIEVE I STATED I 
WAS AWARE THERE WERE THOSE WHO 
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, YES 
OR. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> COLONEL BEN WAS NOT INCLUDED 
ON CERTAIN TRIPS. 
>> YES OR. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED COLLEAGUES 
EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT 
COLONEL BEN LEAKING 
INFORMATION. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES OR. 
>> WHEN I ASKED COLONEL VINDMAN 
WHY HE DID NOT GO TO YOU WITH 
HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL, 
EVEN THOUGH YOU, HIS BOSS HAD 
NO CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING 
BEING, YOUR LANGUAGE WAS 
NOTHING IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL ON 
THE CALL, I ASKED COLONEL 
VINDMAN THIS MORNING WHY HE DID 
NOT GO TO YOU  AND INSTEAD 
TALED TO THE LAWYERS, HIS 
BROTHER, SECRETARY KENT AND ONE 
OTHER PERSON HE WOULD NOT TELL 
US AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WOULD 
NOT ALLOW US TO TELL US. 
WHEN I ASKED HIM WHY HE DID 
THAT, HE INDICATED THE LAWYERS 
HAD INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT, 
HE TRIED TO GET A HOLD OF YOU. 
IS THAT FAIR? 
>> SIR, I WATCHED PART OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING, I 
HEARD HIM SAY THAT, YES OR. 
>> ONE THING CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
BROUGHT UP AT THE END OF THIS 
MORNING'S HEARING, HE BROUGHT 
UP YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN'S BOSS, 
ALSO WENT TO THE LAWYERS. 
BUT YOUR REASON FOR GOING TO 
THE LAWYERS WAS A LITTLE 
DIFFERENT, WASN'T IT? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> YOU HAD A FEW THINGS YOU AND 
MR. CASTOR TALKED ABOUT EARLIER,
THE TOP OF YOUR LIST, YOU WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF 
THE CALL LEAKING OUT. 
IS THAT FAIR? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED, ISN'T IT? 
>> SIR, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE 
CONTENT LEAKED OUT, THERE WAS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, THE 
PRESIDENT CHOSE TO DECLASSIFY 
THE MELANCON. 
>> IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WERE 
PROPHETIC, MR. MORRISON. 
BECAUSE YOU SAID IN YOUR 
STATEMENT TODAY, AS I STATED 
DURING MY DEPOSITION, I FEARED 
DURING MY TIME ON THE CALL JULY 
25, HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF THE 
CONTENTS OF THE CALL WOULD PLAY 
IN WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL 
CLIMATE, MY FEARS HAVE BEEN 
REALIZED. 
IT SEEMS TO ME YOU SAW WHAT 
MIGHT HAPPEN AND IT SURE ENOUGH 
DID. 
FAIR TO SAY? 
>> YES SIR. 
>> WE DID ALL THIS AND THAT IS 
THE PART THAT GETS ME. 
WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, OVER 
THE WEEKS, IN THE BUNKER OF THE 
BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, THE 
FOUR FACTS WE KEEP COMING BACK 
TO HAVE NEVER CHANGED, WILL 
NEVER CHANGE WE HEARD FROM BOTH 
OF YOU TODAY, CONFIRMED THESE 
FUNDAMENTAL FACTS, GOT THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT AS HE BOTH SAID, NO 
LEAKAGE TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
DOLLARS AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, WE HAVE A 
TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ON THE 
CALL, THEY SAID NO LINKAGE, NO 
PRESSURE, NO PUSHING. 
THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW AGE 
WAS WITHHELD UNTIL AUGUST 29 
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE 
UKRAINIANS DID NOTHING AS FIRST 
PROMISING TO START, ANNOUNCING 
THEY WERE GOING TO START 
INVESTIGATIONS, DID NOTHING AND 
THE AID GOT RELEASED. 
I BELIEVE IT GOT RELEASED 
BECAUSE OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT, GOOD WORK OF 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS. 
I BELIEVE THAT IS WHY IT 
HAPPENED, AND HERE WE ARE. 
YOU CALLED IT ALL, YOU SAW IT 
COMING, THAT IS WHY YOU WENT TO 
THE LAWYERS, WHY YOU WANTED 
THAT, WHY THE CONCERN WAS THERE.
THAT IS THE PART THAT IS MOST 
TROUBLING. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ON DAILY 
MAIL, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE THIS 
HEADLINE, UKRAINE SPECIAL ENVOY 
KURT VOLKER WALKS BACK IS 
CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY AND SAYS 
HE "HAS NOW LEARNED THERE WAS A 
LINK BETWEEN U.S. MILITARY AID 
AND BIDEN PROBE. 
THAT IS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY
? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS MY 
TESTIMONY. 
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. WELCH. 
>> THANK YOU. 
FOLLOWING UP ON MR. JORDAN, THE 
EASIEST WAY TO AVOID 
INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT DO 
ANYTHING WRONG. 
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT 
ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE, OFFICIAL 
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CANNOT BE 
TRADED FOR HELPING A POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN. 
LET ME GIVE AN ANALOGY AND ASK 
IF YOU AGREE? 
COULD A MAYOR OF A CITY 
WITHHOLD FUNDING FOR THE POLICE 
DEPARTMENT BUDGET UNLESS THE 
POLICE CHIEF AGREED TO OPEN UP 
AN INVESTIGATION ON A POLITICAL 
RIVAL. 
MR. MORRISON. 
>> IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, NO, I 
DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT. 
>> MR. VOLKER, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, I'M SURE YOU AGREE. 
THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR 
GOVERNOR WITHHOLDING THE BUDGET 
REQUEST OF THE STATE POLICE 
UNLESS THE STATE POLICEBUDGET R 
UNLESS THE STATE. 
áR. 
IS IT THE SAME FOR A MEMBEROVER 
CONGRESS? 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS THE SAME 
OBLIGATION AS THE MAYOR AS THE 
GOVERNOR, AS THE MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS TO NOT WITHHOLD AID 
UNLESS HE GETS AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL, MR. 
MORRISON. 
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT 
HYPOTHETICAL. 
>> I WOULD AGREE. 
>> WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION 
ABOUT HOW TO READ WHAT'S BEFORE 
US IN A PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THE 
ADVICE OF THE ADVISORS AND 
SECURITY ADVISOR ABOUT TALKING 
POINTS AND INSTEAD CHOSE TO 
TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS AND 
TALKED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND 
ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION. 
SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO 
DEBATE THAT. 
ISN'T THE PRINCIPLE INCLUDING 
THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW 
ISN'T ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AND 
WORTH THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE 
THAT WE CONTINUE TO GUARANTEE, 
AMBASSADOR MORRISON. 
I'M SORRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER. 
>> YES. 
>> AND MR. MORRISON. 
>> THE RULE OF LAW IS ESSENTIAL 
TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 
>> IT'S SO TRUE. 
WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AND 
CHALLENGE FROM THE OTHER SIDE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
AUTHORITY IN POLICY TO DO WHAT 
HE LIKES AND IN FACT, HE DOES. 
A RECENT PRESIDENT BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO TAKE OUR TROOPS OUT OF 
SYRIA AND ALLOW THE TURKISH 
FORCES TO GO IN. 
LITERALLY MEANT THAT SOME 
KURDISH FAMILIES WENT TO BED 
FRIDAY NIGHT AND WOKE UP 
SATURDAY MORNING PACKED UP 
THEIR KIDS AND FLED FOR THEIR 
LIVES. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES 
OF THE AISLE DISAGREE WITH THAT 
BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE 
AUTHORITY TO DO IT IMPULSIVE AS 
THAT DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN ON 
UNWISE AS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, 
AS THREATENING AS IT IS TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY. 
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT 
HERE. 
AMBASSADOR, I HAVE LISTENED TO 
YOUR TESTIMONY AND I THANK YOU 
FOR MAKING EFFORTS TO TRY TO 
ADVANCE WHAT HAD BEEN A 
BIPARTISAN UKRAINE POLICY. 
HELP UKRAINE GET RID OF 
CORRUPTION. 
HELP RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
WHAT YOU CAME TO LEARN IS THERE 
WAS A SIDE BAR UKRAINE POLICY 
WITH GIULIANI AS THE ADVOCATE 
AND SONDLAND IS VERY MUCH 
INVOLVED ISN'T THAT CORRECT. 
>> I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING 
ABOUT THAT, SIR. 
>> BUT AS YOU HAVE BEEN úINVOLV 
OF HINDSIGHT WHILE YOU WERE 
WORKING ON WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS 
STOPPING AGGRESSIVE AND 
ELIMINATING CORRUPTION, THERE 
WAS A SIDE DEAL HERE TO GET 
INVESTIGATIONS GOING, CORRECT. 
>> YEAH, SO, YES. 
IS THIS MY OBJECTIVE WAS PURELY 
FOCUSED ON SECURITY FOR 
UKRAINE. 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND I NOW 
HAVE LEARNED THROUGH OTHER 
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATING 
BIDEN AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS I 
DID NOT KNOW ABOUT. 
>> RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR 
ABOUT BIDEN'S INTEGRITY AND 
SERVICE. 
WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THAT 
REQUEST FOR THE FAVOR. 
AND HOW IT REPUTEUATED THE 
POLICY THAT WAS THE BIPARTISAN 
EFFORT IN UKRAINE AND RAISES 
QUESTIONS ABOUT HE AND THAT 
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE I GAVE OF 
THE MAYOR. 
HELD HIMSELF TO BE ABOVE THE 
LAW. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. MALONEY STRUCK BY YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT. 
MOVED A LONG WAY FROM THE 
TESTIMONY YOU PRESENTED TO US 
IN OCTOBER. 
AND I KNOW YOU GAVE A REASON 
FOR THAT. 
THAT YOU WERE IN THE DARK. 
IS THAT FAIR TO SAY. 
>> THAT'S ONE THING THAT I 
LEARNED A LOT OUT OF THE 
TESTIMONY. 
>> YOU LEARNED A LOT. 
YOU LEARNED A LOT. 
>> YEAH. 
>> AND I'M REFERRING TO THE 
PAGE YOU GAVE THIS MORNING, I'M 
SORRY THIS AFTERNOON. 
YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS QUOTING, 
THAT I DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD 
POSSIBLE CORRUPTION WITH INVEST 
INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BARISMA 
MEANT BIDEN. 
>> I HAD SEPARATED THE TWO. 
>> I GOT IT. 
WELL YOU DIDN'T KNOW. 
RIGHT. 
DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT, 
SIR. 
YOU WERE THERE ON MAY 23rd FOR 
THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT 
WHEN HE SAIDTALK TO RUDY AND 
RUDY SURE CARED ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW 
KNOW MEANT BIDEN. 
BUT YOU MISSED IT ON THE 23rd. 
>> NO, SIR. 
I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN AND FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD BEEN A 
MEMBER. 
>> BUT YOU DID NOT READ IT AS 
BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU WERE IN NOT ONE BUT 
TWO MEETINGS WHERE SONDLAND 
BROUGHT UP THE INVESTIGATION 
BUT YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS 
ABOUT THE BIDENS. 
THAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY. 
>> I DID NOT HEAR HIM SAY 
ANYTHING SPECIFIC. 
>> YOU SAID IT'S BECAUSE I 
DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THE BIDENS I 
JUST THOUGHT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
WHEN THEY WERE IN THE WAR ROOM 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLANT BROUGHT 
UP BARISMAS AND THE BIDENS YOU 
MISSED THAT TOO AS I UNDERSTAND 
IT. 
>> 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU LEARNED THAT AID HAD 
BEEN WITHHELD AND YOU SPENT 
SOME TIME WITH RUDY GIULIANI. 
YOU WERE THE GUY MAKING THE 
CHANGES AND INTERACTING WITH 
THE UKRAINIANS. 
YOU WERE PUTTING IN RUDY'S 
CHANGES INCLUDING PUTTING IN A 
CALL FOR INVESTIGATING BARISMA 
AND THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH YOU 
NOW KNOW MEANT THE BIDENS. 
YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME 
BUT YOU KNOW NOW. 
AND YOU WERE IN WARSAW, YOU 
WERE AT EVERY POINT OF THIS. 
YOU WERE IN WARSAW AND YOU WERE 
THERE WHEN THEY TOLD HE WAS NOT 
GOING TO GET SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OR A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING UNLESS THERE WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
I UNDERSTAND YOU MISSED THAT 
YOU WERE OUT OF THE LOOP THEN. 
>> THAT'S NOT CORRECT. 
I WAS NOT IN WARSAW AT THESE 
MEETINGS. 
>> OH YOU WERE NOT IN WARSAW 
BUT YOU HEARD ABOUT IT 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER FROM 
SONDLAND. 
>> NO IT WAS SOME TIME LATER. 
>> I GOT IT. 
BUT NOW YOU KNOW. 
NOW I KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT. 
AND I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT 
CONNECTION AND HAD I DONE SO I 
WOULD HAVE RAISED THE CORRECT 
OBJECTIONS. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT OBJECTIONS WOULD YOU 
HAVE RAISED. 
>> THAT THEY'RE BRINGING UP THE 
BIDENS FOR AN INVESTIGATION. 
>> BUT IF YOU KNEW IT WAS THE 
BIDENS YOU WOULD HAVE RAISE 
KWROURD OWN OBJECTION. 
>> IF I KNEW IT WAS ABOUT 
INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT T JOE BIDEN AND HIS 
SON THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 
INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD HAVE 
OBJECTED TO THAT. 
>> IF YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD HIM 
ASK FOR IT IN THE CALL. 
IT WOULD YOU SAY BEEN CONFUSING 
RIGHT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IS CONFUSING THE RIGHT WORD  
S SIR. 
IT WOULD HAVE PUT THEM IN A 
POSITION TO DO SOMETHING 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. 
>> I THINK CONFUSING WOULD HAVE 
BEEN THE RIGHT WORD. 
HEARING SOMETHING FROM THE 
PRESIDENT AN DIFFERENT FROM ME. 
>> THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT 
INVESTIGATING BARISMA AND 
INVESTIGATING 2016 MEANT THE 
BIDENS EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T. 
AT TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO. 
YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED YOUR OWN 
OBJECTIONS. 
>> IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE 
WERE HAVING WITH UKRAINIANEN WE 
WERE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO 
THAT. 
EVEN AT THAT POINT UKRAINIANS 
PERHAPS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF 
THIS PHONE CALL WHICH I DID NOT 
HAVE KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME SAID 
THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO THERE. 
>> SO IN  RETROSPECT YOU WOULD 
HAVE RAISED OBJECTION. 
IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DO 
THIS. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> I'M STUCK ON THIS ISSUE OF 
YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG 
WITH THE CALL BUT YOU WENT 
STRAIGHT TO NSE LEGAL TO REPORT 
IT. 
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TO US 
TODAY? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU SIR. 
>> YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR.MORRISON TO BOTH OF YOU, 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR 
SERVICE. 
THANKS FOR BEING HERE. 
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. 
MR.MORRISON JUST TO FOLLOW UP 
ON THE QUESTION FROM MY 
COLLEAGUE, YOU RESPONDED EARLY 
TORE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE CALL. 
AND BASICALLY SAW NOTHING WRONG 
WITH IT. 
YET YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF 
COMMAND TO GO TO LEGAL COUNSEL 
TO FIND OUT I GUESS TO FIND OUT 
WHAT TO DO BECAUSE YOU WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL 
FALL OUT. 
NOT ABOUT ANYTHING BEING 
INAPPROPRIATE OR WRONG WITH THE 
CALL IS THAT CORRECT. 
>> MA'AM I DON'T AGREE WITH THE 
PREMISE NO. 
>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU FELT 
THE NEED. 
YOU SAW NOTHING BASICALLY WRONG 
WITH THE CALL, YET YOU SKIPPED 
YOUR CHAIN IN COMMAND TO GO TO 
COUNSEL BECAUSE OF WHAT? 
WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I, AGAIN I 
DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE 
MAN. 
I DON'T THINK I SKIPPED MY 
CHAIN OF COMMAND IF I WOULD 
HAVE SEEN SOMETHING WRONG I 
WOULD HAVE -- 
>> WHO'S YOUR DIRECT REPORT? 
>> THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR. 
>> AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON. 
>> DR. CHARLES CUPERMAN. 
>> DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM 
BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO LEGAL 
COUNSEL. 
>> NO MA'AM. 
>> BUT YOU DON'T FEEL YOU SKIP 
KWROURD CHAIN OF COMMAND IN -- 
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN DOING 
SO BY GOING TO COUNSEL. 
>> I VIEW MY RELATIONSHIP AS 
ONE LARGELY FOCUSED ON 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. 
I WAS INTERESTED IN LOCKING 
DOWN THE TRANSCRIPT. 
AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER. 
I WAS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE 
THE LEGAL ADVISOR WAS AWARE OF 
THE CALL. 
>> WHY WERE YOU SO CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE LEGAL ADVISOR BEING 
AWARE OF THIS CALL THAT YOU SAW 
NOTHING BASICALLY WRONG WITH 
THE SUBSTANCE OR CONTENT OF THE 
CALL? 
>> BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE 
ANYBODY FROM THE LEGAL ADVISORS 
OFFICE IN THE LISTENING ROOM 
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE 
SOMEONE FROM THE LEGAL ADVISORS 
OFFICE WAS AWARE AND I WANTED 
TO MAKE SURE IT WAS A SENIOR 
PERSON. 
>> WHAT IS IT YOU WANTED THEM 
TO BE AWARE OF. 
>> I WANTED THEM TO BE AWARE OF 
THE CALL BECAUSE I WANTED THEM 
TO KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. 
>> WHAT CONCERNED YOU TO THE 
POINT WHERE YOU WANTED THEM TO 
KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED THAT 
YOU WENT DIRECTLY TO LEGAL 
COUNSEL TO INFORM THEM OF? 
>> MY EQUIVALENT OF THE HEAD OF 
NSC LEGAL WAS AND IS ISENBERG. 
I WOULDN'T GO TO SOMEBODY 
SUBORDONANT TO HIM. 
HOW LONG HAVE YOU ADVISED? 
>> SINCE 2014. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BEING 
RELEASED, DO YOU STILL STAND BY 
THAT TESTIMONY TODAY? 
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT. 
I MET WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE ARMED SERVICES 
COMMITTEE, I THEN SAW THE 
LETTER THAT SEVERAL SENATORS 
SIGNED AND SENT TO CHIEF OF 
STAFF MULVANEY AND I WAS 
BRIEFED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY 
OF A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS FROM 
SOME SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE AS WELL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR.CHAIRMAN I YIELD MY 
REMAINING TIME TO YOU. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING. 
I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON 
UKRAINIANS NOT BEING AWARE OF 
THE AID BEING  WITHHELD. 
YOU'RE AWARE I'M SURE THAT 
VINMAN HE WAS CONTACTED BY 
SOMEONE WITHIN THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY. 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BUT I 
TAKE THAT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF 
TRANSCRIPTS THAT HAVE BEEN 
RELEASED THAT UKRAINIANS FOUND 
OUT QUITE QUICKLY AFTER THE 
HOLD WAS SET ASIDE. 
AND THAT UKRAINIANS HAD A 
REASON TO KEEP IT SILENT. 
>> I SAW THAT ON HER TESTIMONY. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO 
QUESTION IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS 
CORRECT. 
>> NO I DON'T. 
>> NEVERTHELESS, THE UKRAINIANS 
CERTAINLY FOUND OUT IT WAS 
PUBLIC WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 
THE NEWSPAPER RIGHT. 
>>S  THAT CORRECT AUGUST 29th. 
>> AT THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT 
FROM THE NEWSPAPER, THEY STILL 
HAD NOT HAD THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING AND THEY STILL DIDN'T 
HAVE THE AID. 
AND AT THAT POINT, THEY HAD 
ALREADY HAD THE CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT IN WHICH HE 
ASKED THEM TO  INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS CORRECT. 
>>S  THAT CORRECT. 
>> MR. CHRISTIAN MURPHY. 
>> GOOD EVENING TO BOTH OF YOU 
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER ON PAGE SEVEN 
OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY 
YOU SAID, SINCE EVENTS 
SURROUNDING YOUR EARLY 
TESTIMONY ON AUGUST 3rd, QUOTE 
UNQUOTE A GREAT DEAL OF 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
PERSPECTIVES HAVE COME TO 
LIGHT. 
I HAVE LEARNED MANY THINGS I 
DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE 
EVENTS IN QUESTION, CORRECT. 
>>S  THAT CORRECT. 
>> THAT INCLUDES CONVERSATIONS 
AND MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED OF 
WHICH YOU WEREN'T A PART 
CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SIR, YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT 
A PART OF THE JULY 25th CALL. 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A CALL 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 
26th IS THAT CORRECT. 
>> 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE 
SIDE BAR MEETING BETWEEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
EVERYTHING A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING AS WELL AS MILITARY AID 
WERE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INVESTIGATION 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT. 
>>S  THAT CORRECT. 
>> CERTAINLY YOU WEREN'T PART 
OF THE PHONE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 
7th BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WHICH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP INSISTED THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MIC 
AND ANNOUNCE. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WOW WERE NOT PART OF A 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP INSISTS 
THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVE TO 
HAPPEN. 
>> 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT A 
WITNESS TO QUID PRO QUO AND 
INVESTIGATIONS WHAT SOMEONE 
CALLED MISSILES FOR 
MISINFORMATION TODAY ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> BUT SIR, YOU WERE PRESENT 
FOR MANY PHONE CALL WHERE IS 
THESE ALLEGED INSTANCES OF QUID 
PRO QUO TOOK PLACE. 
CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> LET ME TURN YOUR ATTENTION 
TO ANOTHER TOPIC THAT CAME UP 
TODAY. 
OR IT CAME UP LAST FRIDAY. 
I PRESUME YOU WERE AWARE THAT 
AS THE AMBASSADOR WAS 
TESTIFYING PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ACTUALLY TWEETED VERY 
DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HER. 
>> I SAW THAT MOMENT. 
>> I PRESUME YOU DISAPPROVE OF 
THOSE TYPE OF TWEETS. 
>> YES, I DON'T THINK THAT'S 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> YOU HAVE SOUP VISED MANY 
MANY PEOPLE DURING YOUR CAREER 
-- SUPERVISED MANY MANY PEOPLE. 
>> YES I HAVE. 
>> AND YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT 
TO ANYONE WHO WORKED IN YOUR 
ORGANIZATION. 
>> NO I WOULD NOT. 
>> IT'S JUST WRONG. 
>> EVEN WHEN YOU FEEL YOU NEED 
TO CRITICIZE. 
CRITICIZE IS PRIVATE. 
PRAISE IS PUBLIC. 
>> I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE A 
MAN OF HONOR AND YOU WOULD NOT 
ATTACK A VETERAN, YOU WOULD NOT 
ATTACK SOMEONE WHO IS CURRENTLY 
SERVING IN THE MILITARY WHO'S 
DOING THEIR DUTY CORRECT. 
>> I RESPECT THE SERVICE OF OUR 
MEMBERS IN UNIFORM. 
>> IN FACT, THERE'S A CERTAIN 
MAN THAT WE BOTH ADMIRE, THE 
LATE SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN. 
>> YES. 
>> WHO UNFORTUNATELY WAS 
ATTACKED NOT ONLY WHEN HE WAS 
ALIVE, BUT AFTER HE DIED BY THE 
CURRENT PRESIDENT ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> I PRESUME YOU WOULD 
DISAPPROVE OF ALL OF THOSE 
ATTACKS ON JOHN MCCAIN IS THAT 
RIGHT. 
>> I KNEW JOHN MCCAIN VERY, 
VERY WELL FOR A VERY LONG TIME. 
HE'S AN HONORABLE MAN AND VERY 
MUCH A WAR HERO FOR THIS 
COUNTRY. 
>> WELL TODAY, SIR. 
AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMEN 
WAS TESTIFYING, THE PRESIDENT 
USED THE OFFICIAL TWITTER 
ACCOUNT OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO ATTACK LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINMEN'S CREDIBILITY. 
I PRESUME YOU DON'T APPROVE OF 
THOSE TYPES OF TWEETS EITHER, 
DO YOU. 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT AND 
WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, 
IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. 
>> I WILL YIELD. 
>> AS THIS TV MARATHON DRAWS TO 
A CLOSE I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT WE'RE 
WATCHING. 
THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THE 
CULMINATION OF THREE YEARS OF 
INCESSANT DEMOCRAT EFFORTS TO 
THE IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. 
FIRST THEY TRIED TO CREATE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA. 
THAT DOSSIER WAS ASSEMBLED FROM 
UKRAINE SOURCES  THAT THE 
DEMOCRAT CONTRACTORS WORKED 
WITH WITH. 
THEN THEY PRIMED THEIR HOMES ON 
THE WORK OF MUELLER. 
MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS AND TAX 
DOLLARS TO SEEK A CRIME THAT WE 
KNOW WASN'T COMMITTED. 
MUELLER'S FAILURE WAS A 
DEVASTATING BLOW TO DEMOCRATS 
WHO CLEARLY HOPED HIS WORK TO 
BE THE BASIS FOR THE REMOVAL OF 
THE PRESIDENT. 
TODAY WE'RE WITNESSING THE 
UKRAINE HOAX. 
THE DIRECT TO TV SEQUEL TO THE 
RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX. 
THE PLOT OF THEIR UKRAINE HOAX 
IS HARD TO FOLLOW. 
IT SHIFTS FROM DAY-TO-DAY FIRST 
THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEY HAD 
EVIDENCE OF  QUID PRO QUO NOW 
EXTORTION AND NOW BRIBERY. 
LIKE ANY GOOD HOLLYWOOD 
PROTECTION, DEMOCRATS NEEDED A 
SCREEN TEST BEFORE RELEASING 
THEIR ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT. 
THEY INTERVIEWED A CAST OF 
CHARACTERS IN PREPARATION FOR 
THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
WITH THE MEDIA'S ENTHUSIASTIC 
SUPPORT THEY BUILD A NARRATIVE 
BASED ON SELECTIVELY LEAKED 
TESTIMONY. 
SPEAKER PELOSI AND THE 
DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE 
SEEKING THE TRUTH THEY WOULD 
WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THE 
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THAT THEY 
REFUSE TO ASK. 
TO WHAT EXTEND DID THE WHISTLE 
BLOWER COORDINATE WITH THE 
DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND 
OR HIS STAFF. 
WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF 
MEDDLING IN 2016. 
WHY DID BARISMA HIRE HUNTER 
BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR 
THEM AND DID HIS POSITION 
IMPACT ANY ACTIONS UNDER THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE 
PROMISED A GRAVE AND SOMBER 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INSTEAD 
THEY GOT THE SALACIOUS SPICE 
SCREEN COMEDY THAT THEY'VE BEEN 
WORKING ON FOR THREE YEARS. 
GOOD NIGHT, SEE YOU IN THE 
MORNING. 
>>  I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY. 
I WOULD HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF 
THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD 
THIS AFTERNOON. 
FIRST, AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOUR 
WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN WHICH YOU 
SAY IN HINDSIGHT I NOW 
UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS SAW THE 
IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING UKRAINIAN 
BARISMA AS INVESTIGATING FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
I SAW THEM AS VERY DIFFERENT. 
IN RETROSPECT YOU SAY I SHOULD 
HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION 
DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I I WOULD 
HAVE BROUGHT UP MY OBJECTION. 
WE THANK YOU FOR CHANGING YOUR 
TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU 
NOW KNOW. 
KNOWING WHAT YOU DO TODAY IN 
FACT, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT AN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT 
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTENANCED 
ANY EFFORT TO TAKE PART IN ANY 
ACTION. 
I APPRECIATE ALSO THAT YOU WERE 
ABLE TO DEBUNK I HOPE FOR THE 
LAST TIME THE IDEA THAT JOE 
BIDEN DID SOMETHING WRONG WHEN 
HE IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. 
POLICY SOUGHT TO REPLACE A 
CORRUPT PROSECUTOR. 
SOMETHING THAT NOT ONLY THE 
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT WANTED, 
NOT ONLY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
WANTED AND NOT ONLY THE IMF 
WANTED BUT WAS THE CONSENSUS 
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES 
NATIONAL SECURITY 
INFRASTRUCTURE. 
YOU DIDN'T GET A LOT OF 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TODAY AS 
OTHER WITNESSES DID BECAUSE I 
THINK YOU EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT 
WAS ALL NONSENSE. 
WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR ABOUT 
THAT. 
MR.MORRISON I THINK WHAT IS 
MOST REMARKABLE ABOUT YOUR 
TESTIMONY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN WARSAW YOU 
WITNESSED SONDLAND MEETING WITH 
ANDRE YURMAK AND THEN 
IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER SONDLAND 
TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD INFORMED 
THE UKRAINIANS THAT IF HE 
WANTED THAT 400 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AID THEY WERE GOING TO 
HAVE TO DO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. 
AND YOU WERE LATER INFORMED AND 
THIS IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT AS 
YOU'VE TESTIFIED HERE TODAY 
THAT THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAD A SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND INFORM 
YOU THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE 
ENOUGH FOR THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, PRESIDENT 
SHRáEUPBS  ZELENSKY HAD TO DO 
IT HIMSELF. 
YOU WERE
