
Spanish: 
>>>
BUENOS DÍAS A TODOS
>>> VAMOS A ESTAR VIENDO LO QUE 
PASE HOY LOS TESTIGOS VAN A C
COMENZAR PRONTO CON EL CÉNTIMO 
TESTIMONIO. LA PREGUNTA DESDE 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP ABUSÓ DE SU 
PODER? SOBRE TODO AL PRESIONAR A
UN GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO PARA QUE 
INVESTIGARSE A JOE BIDEN? ADEMÁS
RETUVO AYUDA MILITAR PARA 

English: 
. 
THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
HERE'S LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH 
GUTHRIE.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO NBC NEWS LIVE 
COVERAGE OF TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING OF PRESIDENT DONALD 
TRUMP.
THERE IS THE COMMITTEE ROOM, 
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LET IN A 
MOMENT AGO AND MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL BE 
TAKING THEIR PLACES.
WE'LL BE UNDER WAY QUITE SOON.
THEY'LL BE HEARING TESTIMONY ON 
THE CONTINUING QUESTION, DID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSE THE POWERS
OF HIS OFFICE BY MEDDLING IN THE
2020 ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL 
POLITICAL BENEFIT, PRESSURING A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY, UKRAINE, TO 
INVESTIGATE A 2020 POLITICAL 
RIVAL, JOE BIDEN, AND DID HE 
IMPROPERLY WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BADLY 
NEEDED CONGRESSIONALLY 
AUTHORIZED MILITARY AID AND A 
PROMISED WHITE HOUSE MEETING. 

Spanish: 
AUMENTAR ESA PRESIÓN.
>>> ESO LO QUE ESTAMOS VIENDO LA
INVESTIGACIÓN ESTA ES UNA SEMANA
MUY AJETREADA DURANTE LOS 
PRÓXIMOS TRES DÍAS, TENDREMOS A 
DIFERENTES TESTIGOS PARTIREMOS 
CON CUATRO HOY. PRIMERO TENEMOS 
A WILLIAM QUE HA SIDO LA 
ASISTENTA DE MIKE PENS, LUEGO 
TENDREMOS AL TENIENTE CORONEL 
BIN MAN ÉL ES EL DIRECTOR DE LA 
CASA BLANCA. EN 2004 VOLVIÓ CON 
HONORES LUEGO DE SER HERIDO EN 
LA GUERRA. NO HAY EVIDENCIA DE 
QUE ESTÉN EN CONTRA DEL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP. SE SABE QUE 
ELLOS ESTABAN ESCUCHANDO LA 
LLAMADA ENTRE EL PRESIDENTE Y EL

English: 
>> THIS IS THE THIRD HEARING IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IT KICKS OFF A BUSY WEEK IN 
WASHINGTON.
NINE WITNESSES SCHEDULED TO 
TESTIFY, INCLUDING FOUR PEOPLE 
TODAY.
IT STARTS TODAY WITH JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS.
A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE MEMBER 
DETAILED TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
WORKING FOR VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
PENCE AT THE TIME IN QUESTION.
APPEARING ALONGSIDE HER TODAY, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN.
HE'S AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN, 
AWARDED THE PURPLE HEART AFTER 
BEING INJURED BY A ROADSIDE BOMB
IN 2004.
BOTH WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN HAVE 
BEEN ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT 
AS NEVER-TRUMPERS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THIS 
HEARING TODAY, THEY WERE 
ACTUALLY LISTENING ON THAT 
FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
>> THAT'S KEY BECAUSE THEY 
COMPLAINED OTHER WITNESSES DID 

English: 
NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF 
THAT CALL. 
>> JOINING US IS CHUCK TODD AND 
ANDREW WEISSMANN, AN NBC NEWS 
ANALYST.
LET'S START WITH JEFF BENNETT ON
CAPITOL HILL. 
>> Reporter: THE POINT YOU MAKE 
IS A PERFECT ONE.
YOU HAVE BOTH OF THESE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, 
WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN, BOTH OF 
WHOM LISTENED IN ON THIS KEY 
JULY 25th CALL IN QUESTION AND 
BOTH OF WHOM, BASED ON THEIR 
PRIOR CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY, 
DISAGREED.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL DETAILED TO 
MIKE PENCE'S NATIONAL SECURITY 
TEAM.
SHE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INTERACTION WITH HIS UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPART WAS INAPPROPRIATE 
AND UNUSUAL.
AND THEN VINDMAN, THE ARMY 
OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
HE WAS SO ALARMED BY WHAT HE 
HEARD ON THAT CALL THAT HE 
FLAGGED THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL LAWYER, HE SAYS, OUT OF 
A SENSE OF DUTY.
BOTH OF THESE TESTIMONIES REALLY
BRING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, 
LESTER, CLOSER TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAN EVER BEFORE.
>> GEOFF, THANK YOU. 
>> WE TURN TO PETER ALEXANDER ON

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI.
>>> HOY CON NOSOTROS ESTARÁN LOS
MODERADORES CHUCK TODD Y NUESTRO
ANALISTA LEGAL. CONVERSAREMOS 
O
CON NUESTRO ANALISTA JEFF
>> ÉL . QUE HACEN ES PERFECTO 
LOS OFICIALES QUE Y ESTUVIERON  
ESTA LLAMADA ESTAR EN EL 
TESTIMONIO Y HAN REACCIONADO CON
VARIOS GRADOS DE DESAPROBACIÓN. 
TAMBIÉN ESTA UNA DEL EQUIPO DE 
ASISTENTES DEL VICEPRESIDENTE 
DICE ELLA QUE LA LLAMADA ERA I
A
INAPROPIADA E INUSUAL  LUEGO 
TENEMOS ALEXANDER BIN MAN UN 
OFICIAL. DIJO QUE LE DIJO AL 
ABOGADO LEGAL DEBIDO A UN 

English: 
DUTY AT THE WHITE HOUSE THIS 
MORNING.
PETER, WE ALWAYS ASK AT THE 
START OF THESE HEARINGS IF THE 
PRESIDENT PLANS TO WATCH.
WE KNOW HE DID THE OTHER DAY 
BECAUSE HE TWEETED IN REAL-TIME 
TALKING ABOUT THE WITNESS ON THE
STAND AT THE MOMENT, AMBASSADOR 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH. 
>> Reporter: SOME OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ALLIES ON HIS 
PREFERRED CABLE CHANNEL, FOX 
NEWS, HAVE ENCOURAGED HIM 
PUBLICLY NOT TO TWEET DURING 
TODAY'S TESTIMONY, NOT TO 
MENTION ANY OF THESE WITNESSES.
FOR THE FIRST TWO JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND ALEXANDER VINDMAN, 
HE SAID BOTH OF THEM ARE 
NEVER-TRUMPERS WITHOUT ANY 
EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP.
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS HERE ARE 
SAYING IT IS LIKELY THE 
PRESIDENT WILL BE ENGAGED TODAY.
EVEN AS EARLY AS THIS MORNING, 
THOUGH, THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE
SOME FORM OF COUNTERPROGRAMMING,
SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS LIKELY 
TO BE DOING LOCAL RADIO 
INTERVIEWS WITH STATIONS AROUND 
THE COUNTRY, TRYING TO FOCUS ON 
THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY, TO 
FOCUS ON THE USMCA, THAT TRADE 
DEAL, AMONG OTHER TOPICS, IN AN 
EFFORT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS 
NOT FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF 
UKRAINE, EVEN IF THE CAPITOL 
CLEARLY IS TODAY.

Spanish: 
SENTIDO DE DEBER  .
>>> GRACIAS JEFF.
>>> AHORA HABLAREMOS CON PETER 
ALEXANDER. NO SABEMOS EL 
PRESIDENTE QUIERE VER ESTAS 
AUDIENCIAS PERO SI ESTUVO 
HABLANDO DE UNO DE LOS TESTIGOS 
MIENTRAS ESTABA EN EL PODIO . 
QUÉ ESPERABAN?
>>> FOX NEWS INCLUSO LE HA 
PEDIDO QUE NO TWEET DURANTE VOY 
CONTRA CUALQUIERA DE ESTOS 
TESTIGOS. SE DEBEMOS QUE LE HA 
DICHO QUE ESTOS AMBOS TESTIGOS 
HAN SIDO SIEMPRE COMPOSITORES 
INCLUSO ESTA MAÑANA SABEMOS QUE 
HAY UN CONTRA PROGRAMAS, Y ES 

English: 
>> PETER, AS WE SPEAK, AS YOU 
SPEAK, WE JUST SAW THE TWO 
WITNESSES WHO WILL BEGIN THIS 
MORNING'S PROCEEDINGS, COLONEL 
VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
TAKE THEIR STANDS -- EXCUSE ME, 
TAKE THEIR PLACES AND THEY'LL BE
SWORN IN IN JUST A MOMENT.
AS WE TURN TO OUR PANEL, CHUCK 
TODD AND ANDREW WEISSMANN WITH 
US. 
>> CHUCK, WE'LL HEAR -- WE'VE 
SEEN TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS 
TESTIMONY ALREADY.
WE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID LAST WEEK.
HAS THE CASE IN MANY WAYS BEEN 
MADE?
IF SO, WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT?
>> WELL, I THINK THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE MADE THE CASE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT APPEARED TO TIE ALL 
THIS UKRAINIAN, BOTH THE MEETING
AND ASSISTANCE TO THIS.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY 
HAVE MADE THE CASE THAT IT HITS 
THIS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH BARTHA
SAYS, YOU KNOW, DISQUALIFY HIM 
FROM EVEN SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
THAT HAS TO BE THE BAR THEY HIT 
AT SOME POINT IF THEY'RE GOING 
TO -- YOU KNOW, IF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT CASE SEES ITS WAY 
THROUGH.

Spanish: 
POSIBLE QUE EL PRESIDENTE ESTÉ 
EN ALGUNA NARADIO NACIONAL. 
HABLARÁ DE DISTINTOS TÓPICOS 
ENTRE ELLOS DE ECONOMÍA .
>>> Y AHORA LOS DOS TESTIGOS V
M
VAMOS A COMENZAR CON LOS 
PROCEDIMIENTOS  VAN A SENTAR SE 
IBAN A DAR SU JURAMENTO EN UNOS 
MOMENTOS VAMOS HABLAR CON 
NUESTRO PANEL AHORA CHUCK VAMOS 
A ESCUCHAR ELTESTIMONIOS, COMO 
LOS DE LA SEMANA PASADA. DE QUÉ 
SE TRATA TODO LO DE HOY?
>>> CREO QUE LOS DEMÓCRATAS HAN 
HECHO EL CASO  DEL PRESIDENTE 
CON UCRANIA LA PREGUNTA HOY ES 
SI DE VERDAD HAN CREADO UN CASO 
DE QUE ESTO SE PUEDE ENJUICIAR 
QUE ESTO LO DESCALIFICA PARA LAS
ELECCIONES POR EJEMPLO. ESTA 
SIGUE SIENDO LA BARRA QUE HAY 

English: 
TODAY IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING
TO SEE HOW AGGRESSIVE 
REPUBLICANS GET, PARTICULARLY 
WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.
HE'S SOMEBODY THAT RON JOHNSON, 
WHO THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM 
WISCONSIN, HAS PUT OUT -- IS 
GOING TO BE QUOTED, IT LOOKS 
LIKE, BY SOME REPUBLICAN MEMBERS
TODAY IN QUESTIONING VINDMAN BY 
SAYING, HE GOT THE SENSE THAT 
VINDMAN WAS SPEAKING ON HIS OWN.
WASN'T NECESSARILY SPEAKING ON 
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT.
I'LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW 
AGGRESSIVE -- 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, BY THE WAY, 
YOU SEE --

Spanish: 
QUE GOLPEAR EN ALGÚN MOMENTO. 
ESTA IMPEACHMENT ES ALGO QUE SE 
PUEDE SEGUIR. HOY SERÁ 
INTERESANTE VER LO QUE PASE 
SOBRE TODO CON EL CORONEL. ÉL ES
ALGUIEN QUIEN HA SIDO PARTE DEL 
SENADO Y PARA ALGUNOS 
REPUBLICANOS VA SER CUESTIONADO 

Spanish: 
Y LE DIRÁN QUE ESTÁ HABLANDO POR
SÍ MISMO Y NO HPOR EL PRESIDENT.
EL PRESIDENTE Y LE DICE QUE POR 
FAVOR NO HABLE SOBRE LOS BIDEN Y
SOBRE LAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 Y 
SABEMOS QUE ESO ES DE LO QUE 
HABLA EL PRESIDENTE DE HECHO LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN QUE LLAMAMOS DE LA
LLAMADA NO MUESTRA QUE SE HABLE 
DEMASIADO DE LOS BIDEN O DE 
PURÍSIMA COMO EN REALIDAD FUE LA
LLAMADA.
>>> CREO QUE VAMOS A ESCUCHAR  
DE VINDMAN QUÉ FUE LO QUE 
ESCUCHÓ LA LLAMADA Y QUE NO E
ESTABA LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN.
>> VA SER FASCINANTE VER LO QUE 
WILLIAMS DICE TAMBIÉN . VOLKER 
ADEMÁS YA SE HA ARREPENTIDO LO 
QUE HA DICHO UNA VEZ Y ESPERAMOS

English: 
>> HE HAS A STELLAR MILITARY 
RECORD.
THE BIDENS, BURISMA, THE 2016 
ELECTION.
AND YET THAT -- WE KNOW THAT IS 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT.
AND THEN THE ACTUAL READOUT OF 
THE CALL, THE SO-CALLED 
TRANSCRIPTS, IS BEREFT OF ANY 
SIGNS OF BURISMA OR BIDENS 
TALKED ABOUT.
THERE WILL BE --
>> YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S AN 
IMPLICATION THAT SOME OF THIS 
STUFF THAT WOULD HAVE LOOKED BAD
WAS LIFTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE?
YOU THINK THAT TESTIMONY 
SUGGESTS THAT?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE 
GOING TO HEAR FROM VINDMAN, THIS
IS WHAT HE HEARD ON THE CALL AND
YET IT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT. 
>> AND LATER WITH SONDLAND, HOW 
FASCINATING WILL THAT BE?
>> IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE
WHAT HE DOES BECAUSE HE'S 
ALREADY BACKTRACKED ONCE.
SIGNS ARE, I THINK, THAT HE'LL 
HAVE TO BACKTRACK AGAIN.
HIS CREDIBILITY IS CERTAINLY 
GOING TO BE AT ISSUE IN TERMS OF
WHETHER HE CAN REALLY BE 
BELIEVED. 
>> THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN AN 
INTERESTING SPOT HERE.
WE CERTAINLY HEARD IT FROM THE 
PRESIDENT, WE HEARD IT FROM 
ADVISERS.

English: 
THESE WITNESSES ARE SAYING FROM 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE 
DEEP STATERS OR THEY DON'T HAVE 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE SAID OF 
THESE TWO WITNESSES TODAY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE 
THOSE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, 
LIKE MICK MULVANEY, FORMER CHIEF
OF STAFF, OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS BLOCKING 
THEIR TESTIMONY.
SO, THEY CAN ONLY GO SO FAR WITH
THAT ARGUMENT. 
>> RIGHT.
THIS IS WHY I THINK IT'S -- IT'S
LIKE HOW THEY'RE TRYING TO USE 
RON JOHNSON.
WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HIM AND
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HIS 
OBSERVATIONS.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A DEPOSITION.
KNOWING THIS PRESIDENT, EVEN 
HE'LL GO AGAINST HIS OWN 
COUNSEL, I WON'T --
>> MORNING, EVERYONE.
>> THE HEARING BEGINS. 
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING
AS PART OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES' IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS 
AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS 
AT ANY TIME THERE IS A QUORUM 
PRESENT.
WE'LL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME 
FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING.
I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT 
AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES WILL 
HAVE A CHANCE FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.

Spanish: 
QUE LO HAGA BIEN ASÍ QUE SU C
CREDIBILIDAD ESTÁ EN DUDA.
>> NO DETERMINÓ CONTAMOS DEL 
PRESIDENTE URGENTE QUE RODEA AL 
PRESIDENTE Y ESTÁN DISTRAYENDO 
QUE ES PARTE DE EL DEPARTAMENTO 
DE ESTADO, QUE ESTÁN DICIENDO 
COSAS QUE NO SON CLARAS PERO , 
POR EJEMPLO ALGUIEN COMO MICK 
MULVANEY U OTROS EMPLEADOS, 
QUIENES HAN CAMBIADO SUS 
TESTIMONIOS SI ME SE PUEDE 
COMENZAR CON ESE ARGUMENTO
>> BUENO AHORA TENEMOS LOS 
TESTIMONIOS CONOCIDOS DE 
PRESIDENTE  Y SU PROPIO CONSEJO
>> BUENOS DÍAS A TODOS
>> COMIENZA LA AUDIENCIA
>> VAMOS A COMENZAR EN EL RECESO
EL COMITÉ SE PUEDE HACER EN 
CUALQUIER MOMENTO. VAMOS A 
PROCEDER DE LA MISMA FORMA QUE 
LA PRIMERA AUDIENCIA VOY HACER 

English: 
WE'LL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR 
THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS AND 
THEN TO QUESTIONS.
FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME
YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN
BEING HERE.
IN TURN WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT 
AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S 
HEARING.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE 
COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT 
DISRUPTIONS.
AS CHAIRMAN, I'LL TAKE ALL 
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS 
TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
AND ENSURE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS
RUN IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE
RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO 
GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD 
J. TRUMP, THE 45th PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
LAST WEEK WE HEARD FROM THREE 
EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS WHO 
TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S SCHEME TO CONDITION 
OFFICIAL ACTS WITH HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF U.S. MILITARY AID TO
FIGHT RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE 
BY NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO POLITICLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED 
WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN.

Spanish: 
UNA  APERTURA Y LUEGO TODOS 
PODRÁN HACER ES SU TESTIMONIO DE
APERTURA Y LUEGO PODRÁN HACE 
PREGUNTAS MIEMBROS DE LA 
AUDIENCIA LES REGRESEMOS ESTÁN 
AQUÍ POR FAVOR LES PEDIMOS QUE 
TENGAN RESPETO A MEDIDA QUE 
AVANCE LA AUDIENCIA. QUEREMOS 
CONTINUAR SIN INTERRUPCIONES . 
TOMARÉ TODOS LOS PASOS PARA 
MANTENER EL ORDEN Y ASEGURARNOS 
DE QUE LAS RESOLUCIONES Y CAUSAS
SEIS 60 SE CUMPLAN. VAMOS A 
COMENZAR CON LA INVESTIGACIÓN DE
IMPEACHMENT PARA EL PRESIDENTE 
46 DONALD TRUMP. LA SEMANA 
PASADA SE TESTIFICÓ SOBRE LOS 
ACTOS DEL PRESIDENTE SOBRE LA 
RETENCIÓN DE AYUDA A LAS EL PAÍS
DE UCRANIA. SE LE PIDIÓ AL 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO ZELENSKI 
QUE LLEVA SECADO UNA IN
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA LOS BIDEN Y
LA OTRA UNA TEORÍA CONSPIRATIVA 
QUE DECÍA QUE UCRANIA ERA LA 
RESPONSABLE DE LAS ELECCIONES 
0
2016.
LUEGO DE HABLAR CON EL 
PRESIDENTE NO DIO , AQUÍ USA UNA
MALA PALABRA, NINGÚN INTERÉS S
B
SOBRE  UCRANIA. SOLO LIME LE 
INTERESABA LA INVESTIGACIÓN 
CONTRA LOS BIDEN. SE ANUNCIÓ UNA
INVESTIGACIÓN Y ESO ERA LO QUE 
TRONCO QUERÍA, EERA SU INTERÉS 
POLÍTICO. HA MINADO NUESTRO 
APOYO MILITAR A NUESTROS ALIADOS
CLAVES Y NUESTRA LUCHA CONTRA LA
CORRUPCIÓN EN UCRANIA. LE PIDIÓ 

English: 
ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS 
INVOLVED THE BIDENS AND THE 
OTHER INVOLVED A DISCREDITED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE 
AND NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE 
FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 
ELECTION.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD 
LATER TELL DAVID HOLMES 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO 
THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT 
GIVE A -- HE THEN USED AN 
EXPLETIVE -- ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF 
THAT 
BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE
BIDEN INVESTIGATION.
TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS
ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION.
HE UNDERMINED OUR MILITARY AND 
DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY 
ALLY AND UNDERCUT U.S. 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE.
W COULD OUR DIPLOMATS URGE 
UKRAINE TO REFRAIN FROM 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ITS 
OWN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS URGING 
UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN PRECISELY 

English: 
THE SAME KIND OF CORRUPT AND 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE 
OF OUR OWN CITIZENS.
AT THE WHITE HOUSE, CAREER 
PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AN 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT INVOLVED 
HIS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK 
MULVANEY, EU AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI, WAS 
PUSHING A POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE
AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO OF
THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE 
OF THOSE EFFORTS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN,
WHOSE FAMILY FLED OPPRESSION IN 
THE SOVIET UNION WHEN HE WAS A 
TODDLER IS A CAREER ARMY 
OFFICER, AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN WHO
WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND 
AN EXPERT IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE 
WHO HAS WORKED AT THE HIGHEST 
LEVELS OF THE PENTAGON.
IN JULY 2018 HE WAS DETAILED TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE, IN PART, TO 
COORDINATE POLICY ON UKRAINE.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS A CAREER 
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO IS 

Spanish: 
A UCRANIA QUE NO INVESTIGARSE 
CIUDADANOS UCRANIANOS EN CO
CORRUPCIÓN  PERO SE ESTABA 
ENTRANDO AL MISMO TIPO 
INVESTIGACIÓN CORRUPTA EN NO 
CONTRA DE NUESTROS CIUDADANOS. 
LOS PROFESIONALES DE CARRERA DE 
LA CASA BLANCA SE PREOCUPARON 
DEL CANAL IRREGULAR EN EL QUE 
TRABAJABA MICK MULVANEYM GORDON 
SONDLAND Y GIULIANI CONTRA LOS 
INTERESES NACIONALES. HOY 
ESCUCHAREMOS A DOS PROFESIONALES
QUE SUPIERON DE ESTOS ESFUERZOS.
TENIENTE CORONEL ALEX BATEMAN. 
ÉL ES UN OFICIAL DE CARRERA DE 
EL EJÉRCITO ES UN VETERANO DE 
GUERRA Y UN EXPERTO EN RUSIA Y 
UCRANIA QUE HA TRABAJADO LOS 
NIVELES MÁS ALTOS DEL PENTÁGONO.
EN JULIO 2016 VUELVE LA CASA 
BLANCA PARA COORDINAR LA 
POLÍTICA SOBRE UCRANIA.

Spanish: 
 JENNIFER WILLIAM MACYES UN 
OFICIAL ASISTENTE QUE HA 
TRABAJADO LA OFICINA DEL 
VICEPRESIDENTE Y ES RESPONSABLE 
DE LAS RELACIONES EURO ASI
S
ASIÁTICAS. EESTUVIERON PRESENTES
EN LA LLAMADA EL 26 U ABRIL. LA 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS TRABAJO EN LA 
LOGÍSTICA DE LOS VIAJES  Y MANÓO
UNA FUERTE SEÑAL DE APOYO PARA 
NUEVO PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA. SIN
EMBARGÓ RUDY GIULIANI QUERÍA QUE
SE SIGUIESEN LOS INTERESES DEL 
PRESIDENTE PARA INVESTIGAR A LOS
BIDEN. ESTE VIAJE LUEGO SE 
VOLVIÓ PÚBLICO, MESES DESPUÉS 
GIULIANI CULPÓ A LA GENTE QUE 
RODEABA AL PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO 
PARA CANCELAR LA REUNIÓN. TRES 

English: 
CURRENTLY DETAILED TO THE OFFICE
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE AND 
EURASIA ISSUES.
FOLLOWING HIS CONGRATULATORY 
CALL WITH VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO 
COME TO HIS UPCOMING 
INAUGURATION.
PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED 
ATTENDEE, SECOND IN SIGNIFICANCE
ONLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD 
HAVE SENT AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF
SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT.
IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER, RUDY 
GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLANNING TO GO
TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTERESTS IN HAVING 
THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED, BUT HAD
TO CALL OFF THE TRIP AFTER IT 
BECAME PUBLIC.
AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI BLAMED 
PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR 
HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED 
THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO TRUMP.
INSTEAD A LOWER-LEVEL DELEGATION

English: 
WAS NAMED, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK
PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THE 
THREE AMIGOS.
SENATOR RON JOHNSON AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD
ALSO ATTEND.
AFTER RETURNING FROM THE 
INAUGURATION, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE DELEGATION BRIEFED TRUMP ON 
THEIR FIRST ENCOURAGING 
INTERACTIONS WITH ZELENSKY.
THEY URGED TRUMP TO MEET WITH 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, BUT 
TRUMP INSTEAD CRITICIZED UKRAINE
AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH
JUDY -- WORK WITH RUDY.
A FEW WEEKS LATER ON JULY 10th, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE WITH A GROUP OF U.S.
AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, 
INCLUDING COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
FORMED THE GROUP, ACCORDING TO 
CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE 
MEETING WITH ZELENSKY WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD TAKE PLACE
IF THEY DID CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID 
HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER
DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY 

Spanish: 
DÍAS DESPUÉS EL PRESIDENTE LLAMA
AL PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO EN SU 
INAUGURACIÓN. EN VEZ DE ESTO SE 
GENERÓ UNA PEQUEÑA DELEGACIÓN 
CON DISTINTOS EMBAJADORES Y 
MINISTRO DE ENERGÍA LOS LLA
S
LLAMADOS"TRES AMIGOS". EELLOS 
TAMBIÉN ATENDIERON ESTA REUNIÓN 
. LUEGO SIETE MIEMBROS DE 
DELEGACIÓN HABLARON DE LAS 
INTERACCIONES DEL PRESIDENTE CON
ZELENSKI. PERO TRUMP CRITICÓ A 
OTRA UCRANIA Y TAMBIÉN LOS 
OBSTRUYÓ PARA TRABAJAR CON RUDY 
GIULIANI. UNAS POCAS SEMANAS 
DESPUÉS EL 10 DE JULIO, SON 
GRANDES SE UNIÓ CON LOS OFI
E
OFICIALES INCLUYENDO A VINDMAN Y
C
Y MULVANEY. HABLARON DE LÔ QUÉ 
PASARÍA SI UCRANIA LLEGÓ A 
SECADO CIERTAS INVESTIGACIONES. 
TERMINARON LA REUNIÓN Y DIJERON 

English: 
ARE COOKING UP ON THIS.
I'M DETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT 
THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWN TO
ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT, ACCORDING
TO WITNESSES.
UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE 
THE BIDENS OR BURISMA IF THEY 
WERE TO GET A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING WITH TRUMP.
AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH 
VINDMAN WITHNESSED, HE WENT TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S 
TOP LAWYER TO REPORT THE MATTER.
HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN WITH ANY 
CONCERNS.
HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO 
DO SO.
A WEEK LATER ON JULY 18th A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ANNOUNCED 
ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT 
MULVANEY, AT TRUMP'S DIRECTION, 
WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION
IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED 
BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE 
SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT.
ONE WEEK AFTER THAT TRUMP WOULD 
HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY.
DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP 
COMPLAINED THAT THE U.S. 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD 
NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL.

Spanish: 
LUEGO QUE NO SERÍA PARTE DE E
E
ESTE"TRATO DE DROGAS" QUE SUN 
LINE Y MULVANEY ESTÁN CREANDO. 
LUEGO SIGUIÓ ESTA CONVERSACIÓN 
OTRA PARTE DE LA CASA BLANCA Y 
FUE MÁS EXPLÍCITA SEGÚN LOS 
TESTIGOS. TENÍA QUE INVESTIGAR A
LOS BIDEN YYBYRISMA. LUEGO ESA 
DISCUSIÓN HABLARON CON SU 
ABOGADO PRINCIPAL SOBRE ESTE 
ASUNTO. HABLARON DEL FUTURO SIN 
NINGUNA PREOCUPACIÓN, UNA SEMANA
DESPUÉS EL 18 DE JULIO 
ANUNCIARON EN UNA CONFERENCIA DE
VÍDEO QUÉ MULVANEY SEGUÍA LA 
DIRECCIÓN DE RETENER LA 
ASISTENCIA MILITAR A UCRANIA QUE
HABÍA SIDO APROBADA POR EL 
CONGRESO A FAVOR DEL LA 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL. Y DESDE 
ENTONCES LLEGÓ LA LLAMADA INFAME
CON EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI, 
DDURANTE ESA LLAMADA DEL PRE
E

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE SE QUEJÓ DE QUE LAS 
RELACIONES NO HABÍA SIDO 
RECÍPROCAS. LUEGO ZELENSKI LE 
AGRADECE SU AYUDA EN LA DEFENSA 
Y LE DICE QUE UCRANIA ESTÁ LISTA
PARA COMPRAR MÁS JABALINAS, UN 
ARMA ANTITANQUE QUE ES LA MÁS 
IMPORTANTE CONTRA LA ACCIÓN 
RUSA.  LA INMEDIATA RESPUESTA 
DEL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP FUE 
QUISIERA QUE NOS HICIERAS UN 
FAVOR SI?
ESTO DESCRITA LA TEORÍA DE 
CONSPIRACIÓN Y PIDE TAMBIÉN QUE 
SE INVESTIGUE A LOS BIDEN. ESTO 
ERAN INTERÉS PERSONAL DE DONALD 
TRUMP PARA SU CAMPAÑA DE 
REELECCIÓN DE 2020. SONDLAND 
DIODOS  HAN PRESIONADO UCRANIA 
HACE SEMANAS PARA QUINES 
LLEGASEN LAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 
LOS BIDEN Y BURISMA.

English: 
LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR 
HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF 
DEFENSE AND SAYS UKRAINE WAS 
READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS,
AN ANTI-TANK WEAPON, THE MOST 
IMPORTANCE DETERRENCE OF FURTHER
RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION.
TRUMP'S RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE 
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY 
INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016
CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE 
OMINOUSLY LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.
NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL
PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE 
CALL, BUT THEY WERE IN DONALD 
TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST AND IN
THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW 
ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE 
SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN 
PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION, BURISMA AND THE 
BIDENS.
BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS 
WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL.
VINDMAN TESTIFIED DUE TO THE 
UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION OF 

Spanish: 
ESTAS PERSONAS ESTUVIERON EN ESA
LLAMADA Y MUESTRAN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP TENÍA UN
PODER SUPERIOR EN LA LLAMADA. EL
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP DE V
VERDAD LE PREGUNTÓ SI IBA Y 
SEGUIR LA DEMANDA. LUEGO DE LA 
LLAMADA MUCHOS INDIVIDUOS ESTÁN 
PREOCUPADOS POR LA LLAMADA DE 
HABLARON CON LOS ABOGADOS DE LA 
CASA BLANCA. POR SEGUNDA VEZ EN 
UNA SEMANA VINDMAN HABÍA HABLADO
DE SUS PREOCUPACIONES. TTAMBIÉN 
CREEN QUE ES INAPROPIADO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE PIDIESE ESTA AYUDA DE
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA LOS BEIDEN 
EL CORONEL VINDMAN Y LA SEÑORA 
WILLIAMS TOMARON NOTA DE LA 
PALABRABURI BURISMA  DICHA POR  
PRESIDENTEZELENSKI, QUE LUEGO NO
APARECÍA LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN. 
ENTONCES PUDIERON HACER LA 
CONEXIÓN ENTRE ESTA EMPRESA Y 

English: 
THE TWO LEADERS AND UKRAINE'S 
DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S., THE 
FAVOR TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY WAS 
REALLY A DEMAND.
AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE 
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING VINDMAN, 
WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT 
IT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER.
IT WAS THE SECOND TIME IN TWO 
WEEKS THAT VINDMAN RAISED 
CONCERNS WITH NSC LAWYERS.
FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO 
BELIEVED ASKING ZELENSKY TO 
UNDERTAKE THESE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN 
SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHE HAD 
BECOME AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE 
INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. 
MILITARY AID.
VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS TOOK 
NOTE OF THE WORD BURISMA BY 
ZELENSKY.
A FACT CONSPICUOUSLY LEFT OUT OF
THE CALL NOW LOCKED AWAY ON AN 
ULTRASECURE SERVER.
COLONEL VINDMAN BELIEVED 
ZELENSKY MUST HAVE BEEN PREPPED 
FOR THE CALL TO MAKE THE 
CONNECTION BETWEEN BIDEN AND 
BURISMA, A FACT OTHER WITNESSES 
HAVE NOW CONFIRMED.

English: 
IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE 
JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN 
CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR A RELEASE 
OF THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE 
AND STRUGGLED TO LEARN WHY IT 
WAS BEING WITHHELD.
MORE DISTURBING, WORD OF THE 
HOLD REACHED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC.
BY MID-AUGUST THE DEPUTY 
AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE
UNITED STATES WAS WITHHOLDING 
THE AID.
VINDMAN DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
THEY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY COMMIT 
TO THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF 
THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID.
MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE 
PRESIDENT'S TWEET ABOUT YOU ON 
SUNDAY AFTERNOON.
AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST 
FRIDAY.
YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN 
MORE ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER 
AND WATCHED CERTAIN 
PERSONALITIES ON FOX QUESTION 
YOUR LOYALTY.

Spanish: 
LOS BIDEN PARA EL PRESIDENTE. EN
LAS SEMANAS QUE SIGUIERON EN LA 
INDIA A LA LLAMADA, VINDMAN 
SIGUIÓ PIDIENDO QUE SE LIBERASEN
LA AYUDA UCRANIA Y TUVO 
PROBLEMAS PARA SABER POR QUÉ SE 
RETENÍA. PARA MEDIADOS DE AGOSTO
EL EMBAJADOR LE PREGUNTÓ POR QÉE
ESTADOS UNIDOS NO DABA LA AYUDA,
A PESAR DE NO TENER UN AYUDA 
SONDLAND DEJÓ MUY EXPRESO QUE 
NECESITABAN DE MANERA PÚBLICA 
O
COMPROMETERSE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 
SI QUERÍAN OBTENER ESTA AYUDA 
MILITAR. SEÑORA WILLIAMS TODOS 
VIMOS EL TWEET QUE EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE HIZO SÓLO CONTRA 
USTED Y LOS INSULTOS. EESTÁ 
USTED AQUÍ HOY, Y LA GENTE ESTÁ 
AGRADECIDA. CORONEL VINDMAN 
HEMOS VISTO TAMBIÉN LOS ATAQUES 
CONTRA USTED Y HEMOS VISTO CI
T
CIERTAS PERSONALIDADES EN FOX 
CUESTIONAR SU LEALTAD. SÉ QUE 

English: 
I KNOW YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR 
AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU AN 
IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE.
I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE 
BACKS PART OF THOSE ATTACKS.
TODAY'S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE 
WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK, ARE 
HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBPOENAED
TO HERE, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE 
FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.
THAT QUESTION IS FOR CONGRESS, 
NOT THE FACT WITNESSES.
IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, 
COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY 
INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS 
TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING 
OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY 
AID, IT WILL BE UP TO US TO 
DECIDE WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE 
COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO MAKE. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW 
WORDS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WATCHING AT HOME.

Spanish: 
USTED HA DERRAMADO SANGRE POR 
NUESTRO PAÍS Y LE DÉ ME DEBEMOS 
GRATITUD. ESPERO QUE NADIE EN 
ESTE COMITÉ SEA PARTE DE ESOS 
ATAQUES.
 LOS TESTIGOS DE HOY, COMO 
QUIENES TESTIFICARON LA SEMANA 
PASADA ESTÁN AQUÍ PORQUE FUERON 
CITADOS. NO PORQUE ESTÁ EN 
CONTRA O A FAVOR DEL IMPEA
T
IMPEACHMENT, ESA PREGUNTA ES DE 
LECH PARA EL CONGRESO NO LOS 
TESTIGOS. SI EL PRESIDENTE ABUÓO
DE SU PODER, SÍ BUSCÓ 
EXTORSIONAR A UNO DE NUESTROS 
ALIADOS PARA OBTENER ESTA 
INVESTIGACIÓN Y AYUDAR A SU 
REELECCIÓN Y UTILIZÓ LOS MILES 
DE MILLONES DE DÓLARES QUE 
HABÍAN SIDO RETENIDOS COMO AYUDA
MILITAR SERÁ LO QUE NOSOTROS 
DECIDIREMOS, PERO ESTOS ACTOS 
SON COMPARABLES CON CRÍMENES LA 
EL CARGO DE LA PRESIDENCIA.
>> QUISIERA DECIR ALGO BASTANTE 

English: 
IF YOU WATCHED THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS LAST WEEK, YOU MAY HAVE
NOTICED A DISCONNECT BETWEEN 
WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW AND THE 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACCOUNTS 
DESCRIBING IT.
WHEN YOU SAW THREE DIPLOMATS, 
WHO DISLIKED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
UKRAINE POLICY, DISCUSSING 
SECONDHAND AND THIRDHAND 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEIR 
OBJECTIONS WITH THE TRUMP 
POLICY.
MEANWHILE, THEY ADMITTED THEY 
HAD NOT TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT THESE MATTERS.
AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY
ANY CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED.
BUT WHAT YOU READ IN THE PRESS 
WERE ACCOUNTS OF SHOCKING, 
DAMNING AND EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY 
THAT FULLY SUPPORTS THE 
DEMOCRATS' ACCUSATIONS.
IF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE A 
FAMILIAR RING IT'S BECAUSE THIS 
IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS 
REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR 
THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX.
THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA 
REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE 
NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, 

Spanish: 
RÁPIDO A LOS AMERICANOS QUE 
ESTÁN VIENDO ESTO EN CASA. SI 
BIEN, LLAS AUDIENCIAS DE LA 
SEMANA PASADA Y LA SIGUIERON 
VERÁN QUE UNA DESCONEXIÓN ENTRE 
LO QUE PASÓ Y LO QUE DIJO LADOS 
MEDIOS. SE DIO COMO SE ESCONDIÓ 
CONVERSACIONES DE SEGUNDA MANO 
SOBRE LAS OBJECIONES CONTRA LAS 
POLÍTICAS DE TRUMP, MIENTRAS 
TANTO ADMITIERON QUE NO LA 
PRESIENTE ESTOS ASUNTOS Y NO 
PUDIERON IDENTIFICAR NINGÚN 
CRIMEN U OFENSA ENJUICIADA VALE.
LO QUE LEYERON EN LA PRENSA  
FUERON TESTIMONIOS QUE APOYAN 
LAS ACUSACIONES DEMÓCRATAS PERO 
ESTO SUENA BASTANTE FAMILIAR 
PORQUE ES LO MISMO QUE SE HA 
DICHO DE LADOS MEDIOS Y QUE HAN 
DADO DURANTE TRES AÑOS DURA 
SOBRE LA FARSA DE RUSIA.  ESTA 

Spanish: 
NUEVA REVELACIÓN BOMBA MUESTRA 
AL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP Y A 
TODOS QUIENES LO RODEAN COMO 
AGENTES RUSOS. DE VERDAD NO 
FUESE TANTO QUE ES LEÍAMOS ESTOS
TITULARES, DDESDE CNN "EL 
CONGRESO INVESTIGA A LOS OFI
L
OFICIALES DE TRUMP" ESTO ES 
FALSO
NEW YORK TIMES "REPETIDO 
CONTACTO CON ÉL LA INTELIGENCIA 
RUSA"TAMBIÉN FALSO
>>UN SERVER DE TRUMP SE 
COMUNICABA CON RUSIA"FALSO
>>> SE ENCONTRABA CON SU 
CONTRAPARTE"
FALSO
EL GUARDIÁN "CONVERSACIONES 
SECRETAS CON LA EMBAJADA DE 
ECUADOR" TAMBIÉN FALSO
VA 

English: 
SHOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE 
RUSSIAN AGENTS.
IT REALLY WASN'T LONG AGO WE 
WERE READING THESE HEADLINES.
FROM CNN, CONGRESS, 
INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INVESTMENT
FUND WITH TIES TO TRUMP 
OFFICIALS.
THIS WAS FALSE.
"NEW YORK TIMES," TRUMP CAMPAIGN
AIDES REPEATED CONTACTS WITH 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
ALSO FALSE.
SLATE, WAS A TRUMP SERVER 
COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA?
THIS WAS FALSE.
12K3W4R50ISHGSDZ
"NEW YORK "MAGAZINE, THIS IS 
FALSE.
"THE GUARDIAN," THEY HELD SECRET
TALKS WITH AN ECUADORAN EMBASSY.
ALSO FALSE.
BUZZFEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO 
CONGRESS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TOWER 
PROJECT.

English: 
ALL OF THESE WERE FALSE.
THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVITY OR 
FAIRNESS IN THE MEDIA RUSSIA 
STORIES JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH 
TO TARNISH A PRESIDENT WHO 
PRETEND THE MEDIA IS SOMETHING 
DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT THEY REALLY
ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY.
WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON 
THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE MEDIA LOST 
CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF 
AMERICANS AND BECAUSE THEY 
REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY 
THEY BOTCHED THE STORY, THEY 
LEARNED NO LESSONS AND SIMPLY 
EXPECT AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE 
THEM AS THEY TRY TO STOKE YET 
ANOTHER PARTISAN FRENZY.
IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS I'VE 
OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE 
DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA DON'T WANT 
ASKED OR ANSWERED.
INSTEAD OF SHEDDING LIGHT ON 
THESE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS, THE 
MEDIA ARE TRYING TO SMOTHER AND 
DISMISS THEM.
THOSE QUESTIONS START WITH, WHAT
IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION 
WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO 
ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH?
THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED 

Spanish: 
"SE LE PIDE AL PRESIDENTE QUE 
MIENTA SOBRE MOSCÚ" FALSO
>>> NO HABÍA OBJETIVIDAD Y CIA 
EN LO QUE SE DECÍA LOS 
TITULARES. LOS MEDIOS NO SON 
ALGO DISTINTO LO QUE REALMENTE 
SE VE SON TÍTERES DE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS. CON SU IDEA DE QUE 
EL LEAL ENGAÑO DE RUSIA ERA 
CIERTO HAN HECHO ESTAS HISTORIAS
Y NO HAN APRENDIDO NADA ESPERAN 
QUE LOS CIUDADANOS LES CREAN. 
ENTRE AUDIENCIAS ANTERIORES HE 
PUESTO TRES PREGUNTAS QUE NOS 
HAN QUERIDO PREGUNTAR 
PREGUNTARON RESPONDER. SON 
PREGUNTAS CRUCIALES QUE DE LOS 
MEDIOS TRATAN DE BORRAR. YY 
COMIENZAN CON: CON LA 

English: 
THE DEMOCRATS' STUNNING REVERSAL
ON THE NEED FOR THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY TO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE 
INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY, THE 
MEDIA WANTED IT, TOO.
BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT
BECAME CLEAR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC
QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE -- 
WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S PRIOR 
COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF, HIS STAFF AND ANY PEOPLE
HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE HE 
PREPARED THE COMPLAINT?
WHAT ARE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECTIONS
TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS?
HOW DOES THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE 
COMPLAINT?
WHAT CONTACT DID THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER HAVE WITH THE 
MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE 
ONGOING?
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S INFORMATION?
WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO?
AND WAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM RECEIVING

Spanish: 
COORDINACIÓN Y LA EXTENSIÓN DE 
ESTA DE LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y EL 
ESFUERZO DE EL DELATOR? CUÁL ERA
LA NECESIDAD DE QUE EL DELATOR 
NO ESTUVIESE AQUÍ. LOS MEDIOS 
QUERÍAN ESTO, PERO LAS COSAS HAN
CAMBIADO YA QUE ESTÁ CLARO QUE 
EL DELATOR TENDRÁ QUE RESPONDER 
PREGUNTAS PROBLEMÁTICAS  QUE 
INCLUYEN ESTAS: CUÁL ERA SU 
COORDINACIÓN CON EL PRESIDENTE 
DEL COMITÉ MIENTRAS PREPARABA LA
QUERELLA? CUÁLES ERAN SUS 
CONEXIONES POLÍTICAS CON LOS 
POLÍTICOS DEMÓCRATAS? COMO 
EXPLICA LAS IMPRECISIONES EN SU 
QUERELLA? QUÉ CONTACTO TENÍA CON
LOS MEDIOS, QUE PARECÍA ESTAR 
SIENDO CONTINUA? CUÁLES ERAN LAS
FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN DE ESTA 

Spanish: 
PERSONA? CON QUIÉNES HABLÓ? Y 
POR QUÉ SE LE PROHIBIÓ POR LEY 
DAR ESA INFORMACIÓN? 
LOS MEDIOS SE HAN UNIDO A LOS 
DEMÓCRATASPPARA NO CUESTIONAR A 
ESTE TESTIGO CLAVE. ESTA PERSONA
COMENZÓ DEL IMPEACHMENT Y AHORA 
DESAPARECIÓ DE LA HISTORIA YA 
QUE SE ELLOS LO HAN PUESTO EN EL
PROGRAMA DE PROTECCIÓN DE TE
TESTIGOS PROPIOS DE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS.  CUÁL FUE LA REAL 
METIDA DE LOS DUCRANIANOS EN 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 PARA
OPONERSE A LA CAMPAÑA DE DONALD 
TRUMP? HAY MUCHAS FUENTES DE 
PRIMERA FUENTE Y DOCUMENTOS DE 
ELLOS QUE MUESTRAN QUE AQUÍ HAY 

English: 
OR CONVEYING ANY OF THAT 
INFORMATION?
THE MEDIA HAVE JOINED THE 
DEMOCRATS IN DISMISSING THE 
IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINING 
THIS CRUCIAL WITNESS NOW THAT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS 
SUCCESSFULLY KICKSTARTED 
IMPEACHMENT, HE HAS DISAPPEARED 
FROM THE STORY, AS IF THE 
DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
IN THEIR OWN WITNESS PROTECTION 
PROGRAM.
MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE
FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S 
ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN?
IN THESE DEPOSITIONS AND 
HEARINGS, REPUBLICANS HAVE CITED
NUMEROUS INDICATIONS OF UKRAINE 
MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO
OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE 
REPORTED INCLUDING THE POSTING 
OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS
BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE 
JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON.
SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED 
FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FOR THEIR
IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, SOLOMON'S 
REPORTING ON BURISMA, HUNTER 

English: 
BIDEN AND UKRAINE ELECTION 
MEDDLING HAS BECOME INCONVENIENT
SO THE MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY 
SMEARING AND LIBELING SOLOMON.
THE PUBLICATION "THE HILL" SAID 
IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF 
SOLOMON'S REPORTING.
COINCIDENTALLY THE DECISION 
COMES THREE DAYS AFTER A 
DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD 
A "HILL" WRITER SHE WOULD STOP 
SPEAKING TO "THE HILL" BECAUSE 
IT HAD RUN SOLOMON'S STORIES.
AND SHE URGED THE WRITER TO 
RELAY HER CONCERNS TO "HILL'S" 
MANAGEMENT.
NOW THAT SOLOMON'S REPORTING FOR
THE DEMOCRATS IS A PROBLEM FOR 
THE DEMOCRATS, IT'S A PROBLEM 
FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER SOLOMON'S 
STORY ABOUT UKRAINE'S 
INTERFERENCE.
I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO 

Spanish: 
UNA CRUZADA. SONDLAND HABLÓ 
CONTRA BIDEN IDO DE LAS ELE
ELECCIONES QUE FUERON 
FRAUDULENTAS DEBIDO UCRANIA.
DE HECHO LA PUBLICACIÓN DE HILL 
MUESTRA QUE LOS REPORTES DE 
UCRANIA SON FALSOS  Y ESTO VIENE
TRES DÍAS DESPUÉS DE QUE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS EN ESTE COMITÉ DI
DIJESEN QUE LLEVA DEJAR DE 
HABLAR CON EL CAPITOLIO PORQUE 
HABÍA CAMBIADO LAS HISTORIAS DE 
SONDLAND, LE PIDIERON QUE 
HABLASE DE LAS PREOCUPACIONES 
QUE LE CAUSABA HILL. ASÍ QUE 
AHORA SONDLAND ES UN PROBLEMA 
PARA LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y TAMBIÉN 
LOS MEDIOS. QUIERO ESTAR EN LOS 
RÉCORDS QUE SONDLAND PUSO UNA 
HISTORIA EEN LA QUE HE LLAMADO A
LA IMPERFECCIÓN INTERFERENCIA DE
UCRANIA. QUIERO QUE LEAN ESTA 

English: 
READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR 
OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE 
EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED.
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE PUT 
THIS INTO THE RECORD, MR. CHAIR.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY THE
MEDIA DISCREDIT AND DISOWN SOME 
OF THEIR OWN COLLEAGUES IS 
SHOCKING.
AND WE SEE IT AGAIN IN THE 
SUDDEN DENUNCIATIONS OF "NEW 
YORK TIMES" REPORTER KEN VOGEL 
AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AFTER 
HE COVERED SIMILAR ISSUES, 
INCLUDING A 2017 POLITICO PIECE 
ENTITLED "UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO 
SABOTAGE TRUMP BACKFIRE."
MY THIRD QUESTION, WHY DID 
BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN?
WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM?
DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
WE HAVE NOW HEARD TESTIMONY FROM
THE DEMOCRATS' OWN WITNESSES 
THAT DIPLOMATS WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
INVOLVING HUNTER BIDEN.

Spanish: 
HISTORIA Y SAQUEN SUS PROPIAS 
CONCLUSIONES SOBRE LA EVIDENCIA 
QUE SON MAN HA REUNIDO.
>>> DIO SU CONSENTIMIENTO PARA 
QUE ESTUDIEN REGISTROS
>>> NO HAY OBJECIÓN
>>> ALGUNOS DE SUS COLEGAS 
IMPACTAN CON LO QUE HAN HECHO Y 
LO VAMOS DE NUEVOS EN LOS 
INFORMES DEL NEW YORK TIMES, 
TEORÍAS DE CONSPIRACIÓN LUEGO DE
ASUNTOS SIMILARES QUE INCLUYEN A
UNA PIEZA POLÍTICA TITULADA "
"ESFUERZOS UCRANIANOS PARA 
SABOTEAR OTRO, SALIERON MA " 
PORQUE SE CONTRATÓ A BIDEN, 
SUPOSICIÓN AFECTÓ A CUALQUIERA 
BAJO LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE OBAMA?
AHORA ESCUCHAMOS TESTIMONIO DE 
LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y SUS PROPIOS 

English: 
THAT'S BECAUSE HE HAD SECURED A 
WELL-PAID POSITION DESPITE 
HAVING NO QUALIFICATIONS ON THE 
BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER WAS 
VICE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH 
OVERSEEING UKRAINIAN ISSUES.
AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL 
DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE RECENTLY SETTLED ON 
BRIBERY.
ACCORDING TO WIDESPREAD REPORTS,
THEY REPLACED THEIR QUID PRO QUO
ALLEGATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T 
POLLING WELL.
IF THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA 
ARE SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
BRIBERY, YOU THINK THEY WOULD 
TAKE INTEREST IN BURISMA PAYING 
HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH.
AND THINK THEY WOULD BE 
INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN 
THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. 
LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE 
UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR 
WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BURISMA.
THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE

Spanish: 
TESTIGOS DE QUE DIPLOMA ENTRAN 
ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS UN CONFLICTO 
DE INTERÉS CON HUNTER BIDEN , YY
ESO ES PORQUE TENÍA UNA POSICIÓN
ASEGURADA A PESAR DE NO TENER 
CALIFICACIONES Y ESTABA EN UNA 
COMPAÑÍA CORRUPTA UCRANIANA 
MIENTRAS SU PADRE ERA 
VICEPRESIDENTE A CARGO DE VER 
S
ASUNTOS UCRANIA. HUGO FUE VARIAS
SUS ACUSACIONES CONTRA DONALD 
TRUMP PERO SE LLEVÓ FINALMENTE  
A REPORTES EN LOS QUE RE
REEMPLAZARON EL CAMBIO DE 
FAVORES EN EL ALEGATO, POR QUÉ 
NO ESTABA FUNCIONANDO BIEN. LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS DE LOS MEDIOS 
RÁPIDAMENTE ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS 
POR ALGO QUE TRAERÍAN MÁS 
INTERÉS. BIDEN GANABA 3000 

English: 
OF BRIBERY.
THE MEDIA, OF COURSE, ARE FREE 
TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS AND 
FREE TO LURCH FROM THE RUSSIA 
HOAX TO THE UKRAINE HOAX.
THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO REASONABLY
DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF 
THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR THE 
PRESIDENT THEY'RE TRYING TO 
EXPEL.
AMERICANS ARE LEARNED TO 
RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THIS HE
SEE IT.
IF MAINSTREAM PRESS WON'T GIVE 
IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, THEY'LL GO 
ELSEWHERE TO FIND IT, WHICH IS 
EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ARE DOING.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN IS AN ACTIVE DUTY 
MILITARY OFFICER WHO JOINED THE 
ARMY AFTER COLLEGE AND SERVED 
MULTIPLE TOURS OVERSEAS.
SERVING IN SOUTH KOREA, GERMANY 
AND IRAQ.
HE WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AT A 

Spanish: 
MMILLONES AL MES.
>> ESTE SER UN EJEMPLO CLARO DE 
SOBORNO. LOS DEMÓCRATAS TIENEN 
SUS TÍTERES Y ESTO SE VE TAMBIÉN
EN LA FARSA RUSA. PERO NO PUEDEN
ESPERAR QUE GENERAR ESTO SIN 
ALIENAR A LA MITAD DEL PAÍS QUE 
VOTÓ POR EL PRESIDENTE. YA SE 
PUEDEN RECONOCER LAS NOTICIAS 
FALSAS APENAS SE VEN  Y ESO LO 
SABEN LOS CONSTITUYENTES . ÉSTOS
EXACTAMENTE LO QUE NUESTROS 
CIUDADANOS ESTÁN HACIENDO. SOLA 
PALABRA
>> LE AGRADEZCO AL CABALLERO. 
HOY ESTAMOS CON EL CORONEL 
TENIENTE CORONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN, Y JENNIFER WILLIAMS.

English: 
TIME OF HEAVY FIGHTING WAS 
AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AFTER 
BEING WOUNDED BY A ROADSIDE 
BOMB.
SINCE 2008 COLONEL VINDMAN HAS 
SERVED AS A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER
SPECIALIZING IN EURASIA, SERVING
AT HOME AND EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE
AND RUSSIA.
HE HAS SERVED AS A POLITICO 
AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR THE CHAIRMAN
JOINT CHIEF OF STAFFS.
HE JOINED THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION IN 2018 WHEN HE 
WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS BEGAN HER 
CAREER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 
2005 AFTER GRADUATING COLLEGE 
JOINING HOMELAND SECURITY DURING
THE GEORGE W. BUSH 
ADMINISTRATION AND WORKING ON 
THE BUSH/CHENEY PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN.
PRIOR TO JOINING THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT, SHE SERVED 

Spanish: 
VINDMAN ESTUVO EN VARIOS TUBOS 
EN EL EXTRANJERO SIRVIÓ EN COREA
DEL NORTE ALEMANIA E IRAK. 
ESTUVO ALEGATO CUANDO DE LA 
GUERRA ESTABA EN SU PUNTO MÁS 
ALTO Y LUEGO GANÓ UN CORAZÓN 
PÚRPURA. DE 2000 OCHO ÉL HA 
ESTADO EN NEUR YA SAYA SSYA A S.
SE UNIÓ A LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE 
TRUMP  EN 2019 CUANDO SE LE 
PIDIÓ QUE FUESE PARTE DEL 
CONSEJO. JENNIFER WILLIAMS C
COMENZÓ SU CARRERA EN 2005, 
LUEGO DE RE GRADUARSE. ESTO 
ORGANIZACIÓN DE GEORGE W BUSH Y 
FUE REPRESENTANTE DE SU CAMPAÑA.
SE UNIÓ AL SERVICIO EXTRANJERO 

English: 
AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON AS
A PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER.
IN APRIL 2019 MISS WILLIAMS WAS 
DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT, MIKE PENCE, 
WHERE SHE SERVES AS A SPECIAL 
ADVISER ON HIS FOREIGN POLICY 
TEAM COVERING EUROPE AND RUSSIA 
ISSUES.
IN THAT CAPACITY SHE KEEPS THE 
VICE PRESIDENT AWARE OF FOREIGN 
POLICIES IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA 
AND PREPARES HIM FOR FOREIGN 
POLICY ENGAGEMENTS AND MEETINGS 
WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.
TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR 
WITNESSES ARE SWORN.
FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS 
PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE 
UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL 
OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD 
AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL.
ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH 
TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL 
BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.
SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT 
TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF
REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE
AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE 
CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY 
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.
IF YOU WOULD BOTH PLEASE RISE 
AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I'LL 
BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE 

Spanish: 
AL AÑO SIGUIENTE  ESTUVO ENTRE 
AL
ENTRE OTROS PAÍSES EN EL LÍBANO.
SIRVIÓ EN LONDRES COMO OFICIAL 
PÚBLICO EN ABRIL DE 2019 LA 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS FUE A LA OFICINA
DEL VICEPRESIDENTE DONDE HA 
SERVIDO COMO ASISTENTE ESPECIAL 
EN LA POLÍTICA EXTRA  EXTERNA
A
TEMAS COMO RUSIA HA Y ASIA. QUE 
LOS TESTIGOS YA HAN JURADO Y EN 
ESTA AUDIENCIA ABIERTA TAMBIÉN 
SE LLEVARÁ A CABO AL NIVEL 
JUDICIAL. CUALQUIER INFORMACIÓN 
ESTA SE VERÁ DE MANERA SEPARADA.
NO SE PUEDE ACEPTAR NINGÚN 
CAMBIO 1001 ATAQUE A LOS 
TESTIGOS INCLUYENDO LOS DE 
VOLVER A SUS COLEGAS SI POR 

Spanish: 
FAVOR PUEDEN AMBOS PARARSE Y 
LEVANTAR SU MANO VOY A COMENZAR 
CON EL JURAMENTO.
 QUE ESTIMULA JURO QUE EL 
TESTIMONIO QUE VOY A DARLA 
VERDAD NADA MÁS DE LA VERDAD 
TESTIGO RESPONDIDO CON UNA GESTO
AFIRMATIVO
.SEÑORA WILLIAMS AHORA USTEDES 
HARÁ RECONOCIDA POR SU 
DECLARACIÓN.
>>> GRACIAS PRESIDENTE, SEÑOR-Y 
POR LA POSIBILIDAD DE REALIZAR 
ESTA DECLARACIÓN. LO HARÉ LO 
MEJOR QUE PUEDA.
HE TENIDO EL PRIVILEGIO DE 

English: 
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO 
HELP YOU GOD?
LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.
THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, 
SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO 
THEM.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF 
THE RECORD.
WITH THAT, MISS WILLIAMS, YOUR 
RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT.
WHEN YOU'RE CONCLUDED, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU RANKING MEMBER 
SCHIFF FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
GIVE THIS STATEMENT.
I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF 
WORKING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER FOR NEARLY 14 YEARS, 
WORKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT 
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS.
TWO REPUBLICAN AND ONE 
DEMOCRATIC.
I JOINED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN

Spanish: 
TRABAJAR EN EL GOBIERNO DURANTE 
14 AÑOS, EN DOS GOBIERNOS 
DEMOCDE
REPUBLICANOS Y UNO DEMOCRÁTICO. 
CON MUCHO ORGULLO DIGO QUE 
TRABAJE CON CON DOLLYLA SEÑORICE
HE SIDO ANIMADA Y MOTIVADA POR 
MUCHOS OFICIALES PÚBLICOS, 
MILITARES Y VARIAS OTRAS 
AGENCIAS. HE TRABAJADO EN JA
JAMAICA EL LÍBANO Y EN LONDRES. 

English: 
2006 AFTER SERVING IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
UNDER SECRETARY MICHAEL 
CHERDOFF.
I SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION 
ADMINISTERED BY A PERSONAL HERO 
OF MINE, FORMER SECRETARY OF 
STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE.
AS A CAREER OFFICER I'M 
COMMITTED TO SERVING THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ADVANCING 
AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD IN 
SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.
I'VE BEEN INSPIRED AND 
ENCOURAGED IN THAT JOURNEY BY 
THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER DEDICATED
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO I'M PROUD TO
CALL COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE 
FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE, 
MILITARY AND FEDERAL LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
I HAVE SERVED OVERSEAS TOURS IN 
KINGSTON, JAMAICA.
AND SERVED AS AN ADVISER ON 
MIDDLE EAST ISSUES TO THE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF STATE.
THIS SPRING IT WAS THE GREATEST 
HONOR OF MY CAREER TO BE ASKED 

Spanish: 
HE TRABAJADO EN PROGRAMAS 
HUMANITARIOS. Y ESTA PRIMAVERA 
TUVE EL HONOR DE SERVIR COMO 
CONSEJERA DEL VICEPRESIDENTE. EN
LOS ÚLTIMOS MESES HE PODIDO 
TRABAJAR CON HOMBRES Y MUJERES 
DE LA OFICINA DEL VICEPR
E
VICEPRESIDENTE. TAMBIÉN TRABAJO 
CON COLEGAS TALENTOSOS EN 
DIFERENTES DE DEPARTAMENTOS Y 
CON DIFERENTES AGENCIAS. HE 
ACONSEJADO AL BEASTIE PRE 
VICEPRESIDENTES EN SU TRABAJO EN
UCRANIA. EL 7 DE NOVIEMBRE 
APARECÍ DEBIDO A UNA CITACIÓN. 
ME GUSTARÍA DECIR LO QUE RE

English: 
TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL ADVISER TO
THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR EUROPE 
AND RUSSIA.
OVER THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, I 
HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK 
WITH THE DEDICATED AND CAPABLE 
MEN AND WOMEN OF THE OFFICE OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT.
TO ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
AGENDA.
I HAVE ALSO WORKED CLOSELY WITH 
TALENTED AND COMMITTED 
COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, STATE 
DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE AND OTHER AGENCIES TO 
ADVANCE AND PROMOTE U.S. FOREIGN
POLICY OBJECTIVES.
IN THIS CAPACITY, I HAVE ADVISED
AND PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT 
FOR ENGAGEMENTS RELATED TO 
UKRAINE.
AS YOU ARE AWARE ON NOVEMBER 
7th, I APPEARED BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEE FOR A CLOSED-DOOR 
DEPOSITION PURSUIT TO THE 
SUBPOENA.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE
MY RECOLLECTION OF SOME OF THE 
EVENTS I EXPECT THE COMMITTEE 
MAY ASK ME ABOUT.
ON APRIL 21st, VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
ON APRIL 23rd, THE VICE 

Spanish: 
RECUERDO RESPECTO ALGUNOS HECHOS
QUE ESTÁ SIENDO INVESTIGADOS. EL
23 DE ABRIL EL PRESIDENTE LLAMÓ 
PARA FELICITAR AL PRESIDENTE 
UCRANIANO, EN ESA LLAMADA EL 
PRESIDENTE DIJO QUE PODRÍA VENIR
A LA CEREMONIA DE INAUGURACIÓN 
SI PUDIERA HACERLO. PERO NO PUDO
HACERLO. TAMPOCO SABÍA MASÍA DEL
VICEPRESIDENTE DE PODRÍA ASI
R
ASISTIR. HICIMOS PREPARACIONES 
DE MAYO EL 13 DE MAYO UN 
ASISTENTE. NOS LLAMÓ PARA 
DECIRNOS DE QUÉ EL VICEP
VICEPRESIDENTE NO PODRÍA ASISTIR
A LA INAUGURACIÓN EN UCRANIA. NO

English: 
PRESIDENT CALLED TO CONGRATULATE
PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY.
DURING THE CALL, WHICH I 
PARTICIPATED IN, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ACCEPTED AN INVITATION
TO ATTEND PRESIDENT-ELECT 
ZELENSKY'S UPCOMING INAUGURATION
PROVIDING THAT THE SCHEDULING 
WORKED OUT.
THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ONLY A 
NARROW WINDOW OF AVAILABILITY AT
THE END OF MAY, AND THE 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT 
MEET TO SET A DATE FOR THE 
INAUGURATION UNTIL AFTER MAY 
14th.
AS A RESULT, WE DID NOT EXPECT 
TO KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE -- COULD 
ATTEND UNTIL MAY 14th, AT THE 
EARLIEST.
WE MADE ONLY PRELIMINARY TRIP 
PREPARATIONS IN EARLY MAY.
ON MAY 13th, AN ASSISTANT TO THE
VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF 
CALLED AND INFORMED ME THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DECIDED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND 
THE INAUGURATION IN UKRAINE.
SHE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER 
EXPLANATION.
I RELAID THAT INSTRUCTION TO 
OTHERS INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE 
POTENTIAL TRIP.
I ALSO INFORMED THE NSC THAT THE

Spanish: 
NOS ENTREGARON MÁS INFORMACIÓN. 
EMPEZAMOS A PLANEAR EL VIAJE Y 
LE INFORMÉ A LA AGENCIA QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE VICEPRESIDENTE NO 
ESTARÍA EN LA INAUGURACIÓN. EL 3
DE JULIO SUPE QUE HUBO UN AGENTE
HABÍA PUESTO UNA REVISIÓN DE LOS
FONDOS PARA UCRANIA. EN LAS 
REUNIONES EN LAS QUE ÉL SE D
DISCUTIERON ESOS FONDOS DEFENDÍ 
QUE ESOS FONDOS DEBERÍAN 

English: 
VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE 
ATTENDING SO IT COULD IDENTIFY A
HEAD OF DELEGATION TO REPRESENT 
THE UNITED STATES AT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.
ON JULY 3rd I LEARNED THE OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAD 
PLACED A HOLD ON TRANCHE OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DESIGNATED 
TO UKRAINE.
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I 
RECEIVED OMB WAS REVIEWING 
WHETHER THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED 
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
PRIORITIES.
I SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED MEETINGS
OF THE POLICY COORDINATION 
COMMITTEE WHERE THE HOLD ON 
UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
WAS DISCUSSED.
DURING THOSE MEETINGS, 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE AND
DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS ADVOCATED 
THAT THE HOLD SHOULD BE LIFTED.
AND OMB REPRESENTATIVES REPORTED
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF 
STAFF HAD DIRECTED THAT THE HOLD
SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE.
ON SEPTEMBER 11th, I LEARNED 
THAT THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE HAD BEEN 
RELEASED.
I HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT 
PROMPTED THAT DECISION.
ON JULY 25th, ALONG WITH SEVERAL
OF MY COLLEAGUES, I LISTENED TO 

Spanish: 
MANTENERSE. EL 11 DE SEPTIEMBRE 
SUPE QUE LOS FONDOS DE LIBERARON
PERO NO SUPE PORQUE. EL 25 DE 
JULIO JUNTO A VARIOS COLEGAS 
ESCUCHÉ UNA LLAMADA ENTRE EL 
PRESIDENTE TRANQUE PRESIENTE 
ZELENSKI CUYOS INFORMACIÓN HA 
SIDO PUBLICADA DURANTE MI 
DECLARACIÓN A PUERTAS CERRADAS 
ME PREGUNTARON ACERCA DE MI 
VISIÓN Y SI TENÍA ALGUNA 
PREOCUPACIÓN ACERCA DE ESTA 
LLAMADA, COMO LO ATESTIGUA EN 
ESE MOMENTO LO ENCONTRÉ INUSUAL,
PORQUE EN OTRAS COLLAMADAS 
PRESIDENCIALES SÓLO HABÍAN 
ASUNTOS POLÍTICOS ESTA VEZ 
PARECÍA HABER OTROS ASUNTOS. SE 

English: 
A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS SINCE 
BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED.
PRIOR TO JULY 25th, I HAD 
PARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN 
OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS.
DURING MY CLOSED-DOOR 
DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY 
PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I HAD
ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25th
CALL.
AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE
JULY 25th PHONE CALL UNUSUAL 
BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD 
OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION
OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.
AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, I 
PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S DAILY BRIEFING BOOK 
INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM 
TRANSCRIBING THE CALL WAS ALSO 
INCLUDED IN THE BOOK.
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR 
THE TRANSCRIPT.
I DID NOT DISCUSS THE JULY 25th 
CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT OR ANY 
OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE OFFICE 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE 

English: 
NSC.
ON AUGUST 29th, I LEARNED THAT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE 
TRAVELING TO POLAND TO MEET WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 
1st.
AT THE SEPTEMBER 1st MEETING, 
WHICH I ATTENDED, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ASKED THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT NEWS ARTICLES 
REPORTING A HOLD ON U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.
THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPONDED 
THAT UKRAINE HAD THE UNITED 
STATES' UNWAVERING SUPPORT AND 
PROMISED TO RELAY THEIR 
CONVERSATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THAT NIGHT.
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1st 
MEETING, NEITHER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS DISCUSSED DURING 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS 
STATEMENT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY 
QUESTIONS.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING 
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO UKRAINE 
AND MY ROLE IN THE EVENTS UNDER 
INVESTIGATION.

Spanish: 
INCLUYÓ UNA COPIA DE LA LLAMADA 
Y TAMBIÉN HICE UNA DECLARACIÓN, 
NO COMENTÉ ESTA LLAMADA CON 
OTROS COLEGAS. EL 29 DE AGOSTO 
SUPE QUE EL DICES DEL V
VICEPRESIDENTE ESTARÍA VIAJANDO 
A POLONIA, LUEGO DE LA REUNIÓN 
EL PRESIDENTE LE PREGUNTÓ ACERCA
DE LOS FONDOS CONGELADOS PARA 
UCRANIA. RESPONDIÓ QUE UCRANIA 
TENÍA TODO EL APOYO DE LOS 
ESTADOS UNIDOS. DURANTE LA 
REUNIÓN DEL 1 DE SEPTIEMBRE NI 
EL PÉSIMO PRESIDENTE NI EL PR
I
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI MENCIONARON 
LA INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA LLAMADA 
DEL 25 DE JULIO. AGRADEZCO LA 
OPORTUNIDAD DE DAR MI 
DECLARACIÓN Y ESTARÉ 
RESPONDIENDO PREGUNTAS.

Spanish: 
SEÑOR P
>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE GRACIAS POR 
LA OPORTUNIDAD DE HABLAR DE ESTA
SITUACIÓN. HE DEDICADO MI VIDA A
SERVIR A ESTADOS UNIDOS. DURANTE
DOS DÉCADAS HA SIDO MI HONOR 
SERVIR COMO MILITAR EN 
DIFERENTES PAÍSES DESDE EL 2008 
ME ESPECIALICE ASUNTOS DE 
POLÍTICA EXTRANJERA. EN 
WASHINGTON FUE EL AGENTE 
ASOCIADO A RUSIA PARA 
CONTRARRESTAR LAS AGRESIONES R
S
RUSAS. EL 29 DE JULIO SE LE 

English: 
I'VE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE 
PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES IT HAS
BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE AS AN 
OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES 
ARMY, AS AN INFANTRY OFFICER I 
SERVED MULTIPLE OVERSEAS TOURS, 
INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND 
GERMANY, AND I WAS DEPLOYED TO 
IRAQ FOR COMBAT OPERATIONS.
SINCE 2008 I HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN
AREA OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN 
EURASIA, AND I SERVED IN 
EMBASSIES IN KIEV AND MOSCOW, 
RUSSIA.
IN WASHINGTON, D.C., I WAS THE 
POLITICAL AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR 
RUSSIA FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WHERE I 
DRAFTED THE ARMED GLOBAL 
CAMPAIGN TO COUNTER RUSSIA AND 
RUSSIA MALIGNED INFLUENCE.
IN JULY 2018 I WAS ASKED TO 
SERVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
AT THE NSC, I'M THE PRINCIPAL 
ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER ON UKRAINE AND OTHER 
COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO.
MY ROLE AT THE NSC IS TO 
DEVELOP, COORDINATE AND 

Spanish: 
PIDIÓ QUE SIRVIERA LA CASA 
BLANCA EN EL CONCEJO DE 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL.
MI Y FUNCIONA ACTUAL ES 
COORDINAR TEMAS DE DIFERENTES 
AGENCIAS. UCRANIA ES IMPORTANTE 
POR SU RELACIÓN CON RUSIA. ES 
IMPORTANTE APOYAR LA SOBERANÍA 
DE UCRANIA, Y QUE SE MANTENGA 
LIBRE Y PROTEGERLA DE AGRESIONES
EXTRANJERAS. ESE HA SIDO NUESTRO
OBJETIVO, REPUBLICANO Y DEM
T
DEMÓCRATA.

English: 
IMPLEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES TO 
MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF 
DIPLOMATIC INFORMATIONAL 
MILITARY AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL 
SECURITY ISSUES OF THE COUNTRIES
IN MY PORTFOLIO.
MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO 
COORDINATE POLICY WITH 
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.
THE COMMITTEE HAS HEARD FROM 
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE 
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE 
AS A BULWORK.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW, 
PROMOTING UKRAINE PROSPERITY, A 
FREE AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE 
AGAINST RUSSIAN HAS BEEN 
STRATEGY ACROSS VARIOUS 
ADMINISTRATIONS, BOTH DEMOCRATIC
AND REPUBLICAN AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ELECTION IN APRIL 
2019 CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED 
OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE OUR 
STRATEGY -- A STRATEGIC 
OBJECTIVE.
IN THE SPRING OF 2019 I BECAME 
AWARE OF TWO DISRUPTIVE ACTORS, 
PRIMARILY UKRAINE'S THEN 

Spanish: 
EN PRIMAVERA DEL 2018 ME DI 
CUENTA DE QUE HABÍAN ALGUNOS 
PROBLEMAS, ME DI CUENTA DE QUE 
EL ABOGADO PERSONAL DEL 
PRESIDENTE ESTABA PROPAGANDO 
INFORMACIÓN FALSA, HABÍA 
PREOCUPACIÓN ACERCA DEL IMPACTO 
DE LA INTROMISIÓN QUE ESTÁBAMOS 
TENIENDO PARA LOGRAR NUESTRO 
OBJETIVO. LUEGO DE QUE SE ELIGÓO
AL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI EN 
UCRANIA EMPEZÓ UN TRABAJO 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN. EN ABRIL EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP LLAMÓ AL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI PARA F
FELICITARLO POR HABER GANADO LA 
ELECCIÓN. LA LLAMADA FUE 
POSITIVA, Y SE LE ENTREGÓ UNA 

English: 
PROSECUTOR LUTSENKO AND MAYOR 
RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, PROMOING 
FALSE NARRATIVES THAT UNDERMINED
THE U.S./UKRAINE POLICY.
THE NSC AND INTERAGENCY 
DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE STATE
DEPARTMENT, GREW INCREASINGLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT SUCH INFORMATION
WAS HAVING ON OUR COUNTRY'S 
ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OBJECTIVES.
ON APRIL 21, 2019, VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE IN A LANDSLIDE 
VICTORY ON UNITY REFORM AND 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21, 2019 TO 
CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS VICTORY.
I WAS THE STAFF OFFICER WHO 
PRODUCED THE CALL MATERIALS AND 
WAS ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS 
WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL.
THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS 
DESIRE TO WORK WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED AN 
INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
IN MAY I ATTENDED THE 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION LED BY 
SECRETARY PERRY.
FOLLOWING THE VISIT, THE MEMBERS
OF THE DELEGATION PROVIDED 

Spanish: 
HÁBIL INVITACIÓN PARA VISITAR LA
CASA BLANCA EN LA VISITA A LOS 
MIEMBROS DE LA DELEGACIÓN 
OFRECIERON UNA EVALUACIÓN 
POSITIVA DEL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI
SU EQUIPO. LUEGO DE ESO EL 
PRESIDENTE FIRMÓ UNA CARTA DE 
FELICITACIÓN, Y EXTENDIÓ OTRA 
INVITACIÓN PARA VISTA LA CASA 
BLANCA. EL EMBAJADOR VOLKER Y 
SONDLAND Y EL SEÑOR PERRY TA
TAMBIÉN HICIERON A UNA REUNIÓN. 
ANTICIPÁBAMOS LA INTENCIÓN DE 
UCRANIA DE VISITAR EN LOS 

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING 
OFFERING A POSITIVE ASSESSMENT 
OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS 
TEAM.
AFTER THIS DEBRIEFING, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SIGNED A CONGRATULATORY 
LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO 
VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.
ON JULY 10, 2019, UKRAINE'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WHO 
VISITED WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR A 
MEETING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER BOLTON.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND 
SONDLAND -- AMBASSADORS VOLKER, 
SONDLAND AND SECRETARY RICK 
PERRY ALSO ATTENDED THE MEETING 
I ATTENDED WITH DR. HALE.
WE FULLY ANTICIPATED THE 
UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE
OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENTS.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE 
MEETING SHORT WHEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND STARTED TO SPEAK ABOUT 
THE REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE 
DELIVER SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS 
IN ORDER TO SECURE THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, THERE 
WAS A SHORT DEBRIEFING DURING 
WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF 
UKRAINE DELIVERING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND 
BURISMA.

Spanish: 
ESTADOS UNIDOS. PERO SE LE 
CONDICIONÓ A UNA INVESTIGACIÓN
P
PARA EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. LE 
DIJE AL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND QUE 
ESO ERA INAPROPIADO Y NO TENÍA 
NADA QUE VER CON LA SEGURIDAD 
NACIONAL. OTRA PERSONA TAMBIÉN 
DIJO QUE ESOS COMENTARIOS NO 
ERAN APROPIADOS. EL 21 DE JULIO 
EL PRESIDENTE GANÓ  EL EL 
PARLAMENTO TAMBIÉN, EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP LO LLAMÓ PARA 
FELICITARLO. EL 25 DE JULIO 
OCURRIÓ UNA LLAMADA QUE YO 
ESCUCHÉ CON OTROS COLEGAS. ME 
PREOCUPÓ ESA LLAMADA. LO QUE 
ESCUCHÉ FUE INAPROPIADO. Y LE 
INFORMÉ INFORMÉ DE MIS 
PREOCUPACIONES. NO ESTÁ BIEN 

English: 
I STATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
THAT THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND 
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED HIS 
COMMENTS WHEN PROPER.
AFTERWARDS, DR. HALE AND I 
AGREED TO REPORT IT TO JOHN 
EISENBERG.
ON JULY 21, 2019, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WON A PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTION IN ANOTHER LANDSLIDE 
ELECTION.
ON JULY 25th, 2019, THE CALL 
OCCURRED.
I LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN THE
SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE HOUSE 
COLLEAGUES.
I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.
WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE 
AND I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO 
MR. EISENBERG.
IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE
PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION, IT WAS

Spanish: 
PEDIRLE A UN GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO
QUE INVESTIGUE A UN OPONENTE 
POLÍTICO. SI UCRANIA INVESTIGADA
LAS ELECCIONES DEL 2016, LOS 
BIDEN Y PORBURISMA, HABRÍA ALGU 
PROBLEMAS ESTRATÉGICOS EN LA 
REGIÓN. CUANDO O EXPRESÉ MIS 
PREOCUPACIONES, LO HICE POR UN 
SENTIDO DEL DEBER INFORMÉ MIS 
PREOCUPACIONES POR LOS CANALES 
APROPIADOS, PORQUE TENÍA 
IMPLICACIONES NACIONALES. NUNCA 
PENSÉ QUE ESTARÍA SENTADO AQUÍ 
ATESTIGUANDO FRENTE A ESTE  
COMITÉ FRENTE AL PAÍS . CUANDO 
LÔ INFORMÉ SÓLO PENSÉ QUE ESTABA

English: 
ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE 
PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS 
AND BURISMA, IT WOULD BE 
INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY.
THIS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN
UK LOSING BIPARTISAN SECURITY 
AND ADVANCING RUSSIA'S 
STRATEGYTIC OBJECTIVES IN THE 
REGION.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE 
COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED 
MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10th 
RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND THEN JULY 25th RELATING TO 
THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A
SENSE OF DUTY.
I PRIVATELY REPORTED MY CONCERNS
IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE 
PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND.
MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE 
CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I'D BE 
SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY 
ACTIONS.
WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY 
ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY
AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY.
FOLLOWING EACH OF MY REPORTS TO 
MR. EISENBERG, I IMMEDIATELY 
RETURNED TO WORK TO ADVANCE THE 

Spanish: 
HACIENDO MI DEBER. LUEGO DE 
INFORMAR MIS PREOCUPACIONES 
INMEDIATAMENTE VOLVÍ A MI 
TRABAJO. ME ENFOQUÉ EN LO QUE 
SIEMPRE ME HE ENFOCADO EN 
PROMOVER LOS INTERESES DE 
SEGURIDAD DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS.
QUIERO DECIR QUE LAS 
PERSONALIDADES DE ESTAS PERSONAS
SON REPRENSIBLES. MI TRABAJO HOY
ES EN EL EJÉRCITO DE LOS ESTADOS
UNIDOS, QUE ESTÁ HECHO DE MUCHAS
PERSONAS REGIONES Y ESTATUS 
SOCIOECONÓMICOS, QUE DEFENDER LA

English: 
PRESIDENT'S AND OUR COUNTRY'S 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES.
I FOCUSED ON WHAT I HAVE DONE 
THROUGHOUT MY MILITARY CAREER, 
PROMOTING AMERICA'S NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
RECOGNIZE THE COURAGE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE APPEARED AND
ARE SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO SAY THAT THE CHARACTER
ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED 
AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS 
AND REPREHENSIBLE.
IT IS NATURAL TO DISAGREE AND 
ENGAGE IN SPIRITED DEBATE, AND 
THIS HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF OUR 
COUNTRY SINCE THE TIME OF OUR 
FOUNDING FATHERS, BUT WE ARE 
BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS.
THE UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT
OF A UNITED STATES ARMY -- IS 
THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.
THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL-VOLUNTEER
FORCE ARE MADE UP OF A PATCH 
WORK OF PEOPLE FROM ALL 
ETHNICITIES, REGIONS, 
SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS WHO 
COME TOGETHER UNDER A COMMON 
OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFENDS THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
WE DO NOT SERVE ANY POLITICAL 
PARTY.
WE SERVE THE NATION.
I AM HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU 
TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SERVE 

English: 
IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND 
ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD.
THE ARMY IS THE ONLY PROFESSION 
I HAVE EVER KNOWN.
AS A YOUNG MAN I DECIDED I 
WANTED TO SPEND MY LIFE SERVING 
THIS NATION THAT GAVE MY FAMILY 
REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN 
OPPRESSION.
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IT HAS 
BEEN AN HONOR TO REPRESENT AND 
PROTECT THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
NEXT MONTH WILL MARK 40 YEARS 
SINCE MY FAMILY ARRIVED IN THE 
UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES.
WHEN MY FATHER WAS 47 YEARS OLD,
HE LEFT BEHIND HIS ENTIRE LIFE 
AND THE ONLY HOME HE HAD EVER 
KNOWN TO START OVER IN THE 
UNITED STATES SO HIS THREE SONS 
COULD HAVE A BETTER AND SAFER 
LIVES.
HIS COURAGEOUS DECISION INSPIRED
A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE IN MY 
BROTHERS AND MYSELF AND 
INSTILLED IN US A SENSE OF DUTY 
AND SERVICE.
ALL THREE OF US HAVE SERVED OR 
ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE 
MILITARY.
MY LITTLE BROTHER SITS BEHIND ME
HERE TODAY.
OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE 

Spanish: 
CONSTITUCIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS, NO SERVIMOS NINGUNA RAMA
POLÍTICA, SINO A NUESTRO PAÍS. 
EL EJÉRCITO ES EL ÚNICO 
INSTITUCIÓN QUE CONOCÍ, ESTO LE 
DIO UN REFUGIO A MI FAMILIA. D
R
DURANTE LOS ÚLTIMOS 20 AÑOS HA 
SIDO UN HONOR REPRESENTAR ESTE 
GRAN PAÍS. EL PRÓXIMO MES SE 
CUMPLIRÁ 40 AÑOS DE QUE MI 
FAMILIA LLEGÓ A LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS COMO REFUGIADOS. MI 
ABUELO LLEGÓ AQUÍ CON TRES HIJOS
PARA QUE SUS FAMILIA TUVIERA UNA
MEJOR VIDA. SU DECISIÓN VALIENTE
INSPIRÓ UN SENTIDO DEL DEBER Y 

Spanish: 
SERVICIO EN MÍ Y MIS HERMANOS. 
UNO DE MIS HERMANOS ESTÁ AQUÍ 
CONMIGO ES PARTE ESPECIAL DE LOS
SERVICIOS DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS,
TAMBIÉN ME DOY CUENTA DE QUE 
APARECER AQUÍ COMO TAMBIÉN LA 
VALENTÍA DE MIS COLEGAS NO SERÁ 
TOLERADA EN MUCHOS LUGARES DEL  
MUNDO. VÍA TO DE PRESTARME EN 
RUSIA SE ENTENDERÍA RE
REPERCUSIONES SERIAS, Y HABLAR 
DEL PRESIDENTE ME COSTARÍA MI 
VIDA. ESTOY AGRADECIDO POR LA 
VALENTÍA QUE ME ENSEÑÓ MI PADRE.
TENGO MIEDO POR MÍ Y MI FAMILIA.
PAPÁ ESTOY SENTADO AQUÍ EN LA 
CAPITAL DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS 

English: 
IS A SPECIAL PART OF OUR 
FAMILY'S HISTORY, A STORY IN 
AMERICA.
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT MY SIMPLE 
ACT OF APPEARING HERE TODAY, 
JUST LIKE THE COURAGE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES, WHO HAVE ALSO 
TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE, WOULD NOT BE 
TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND 
THE WORLD.
IN RUSSIA, MY ACT OF EXPRESSING 
CONCERN TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND 
IN AN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE 
CHANNEL, WOULD HAVE SEVERE 
PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL 
REPERCUSSIONS AND OFFERING 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD SURELY COST ME 
MY LIFE.
I'M GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER -- FOR
MY FATHER'S BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40
YEARS AGO AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE 
OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND
PUBLIC SERVANT WHERE I CAN LIVE 
FREE FEAR FOR MY AND MY FAMILY'S
SAFETY.
DAD, I'M SITTING HERE TODAY IN 
THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO OUR 
ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING 
TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS IS 
PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT 
DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE 

English: 
THE SOVIET UNION AND COME TO THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR 
FAMILY.
DO NOT WORRY.
I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE 
TRUTH.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COLONEL.
THANK YOU, MISS WILLIAMS.
COLONEL, YOUR BROTHER AND FAMILY
ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE.
GRATEFUL TO HAVE THEM WITH US.
WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE FIRST 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS AS DETAILED 
IN THE MEMO PROVIDED TO 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS 
CONDUCTED BY CHAIRMAN OR 
MAJORITY COUNSEL, FOLLOWED BY 45
MINUTES FOR RANKING MEMBER OR 
MINORITY COUNSEL UNDER HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660.
THAT TIME MAY NOT BE DELEGATED 
TO OTHER MEMBERS.
UNLESS I EXPRESS ADDITIONAL 
EQUAL TIME FOR QUESTIONING, 
WE'LL PROCEED UNDER THE 
FIVE-MINUTE RULE AND EVERY 
MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK
QUESTIONS.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR 
MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST 
45 MINUTES.
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE
OF YOUR TESTIMONY, MISS 

Spanish: 
HABLANDO CON PROFESIONALES 
ELEGIDOS, ELEGISTE BIEN HACE 40 
AÑOS PARA VENIR A LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS PARA UNA MEJOR VIDA PARA 
TU FAMILIA. NO TENGAS MIEDO TIRA
EL LA VERDAD GRACIAS. Y ESTARÉ
DISPUESTO A RESPONDER PREGUNTAS.
>>> GRACIAS Y USTED Y SU FAMILIA
SON BIENVENIDOS EN ESTE PAÍS.
>>> HABRÁN 45 PREGUNTAS 
DIRIGIDAS A LOS TESTIGOS LUEGO
H
HAREMOS UN CAMBIO LUEGO HABRÁ 
MÁS TIEMPO PARA PREGUNTAS 
EXTENDIDAS . TODOS TENDRÁN 
POSIBILIDAD PARA DAR RESP

English: 
WILLIAMS, I WANT TO ASK YOU 
ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE ON SEPTEMBER
18th.
WERE YOU ON THAT CALL?
>> I WAS.
>> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THE
CALL?
>> YES, SIR.
>> IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT
CALL THAT YOU THINK MAY BE 
RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTIGATION?
>> CHAIRMAN, AS WE PREVIOUSLY 
DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMITTEE, 
THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT 
SEPTEMBER --
>> SIR, COULD YOU MOVE THE 
MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO 
YOU?
>> AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED 
WITH BOTH MAJORITY/MINORITY 
STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE, THE 
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE 
SEPTEMBER 18th CALL IS 
CLASSIFIED.
AS A RESULT WITH RESPECT TO THE 
CALL, I'D REFER THE COMMITTEE TO
THE PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH 
INCLUDES MISS WILLIAMS' NOVEMBER
7th TESTIMONY, WHICH HAS BEEN 
PUBLICLY RELEASED, AS WELL AS 
THE PUBLIC READOUT OF THAT CALL,
WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED
BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
BEYOND THAT, GIVEN THE POSITION 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE 

Spanish: 
RESPURESPUESTAS.
ANTES DE ENTRAR EN LA SUSTANCIA 
DE SU TESTIMONIO, ME GUSTARÍA 
PREGUNTARLE ACERCA DE UNA 
LLAMADA ENTRE EL VICEPRESIDENTE 
PENCE Y EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI 
EN SEPTIEMBRE, ESTABA USTED P
PRESENTE?
>>>.  SI.
>>> HAY ALGO QUE LE INTERESE 
COMENTAR RESPECTO A ESA LLAMADA?
>>> LA OFICINA DEL 
VICEPRESIDENTE DICE QUE LA L
LLAMADA DEL 18 DE SEPTIEMBRE 
CONFIDENCIAL, LO QUE INCLUYE EL 

Spanish: 
TESTIMONIO QUE YA HA SIDO 
PUBLICADO. MÁS ALLÁ DEBIDO A LA 
POSICIÓN  DEL PRESIDENTE 
VICEPRESIDENTE, EL ACONSEJÓ A LA
SEÑORA WILLIAMS NO HACER CO
COMENTARIOS RESPECTO A ELLA.
>>> TIENE USTED ALGUNA OCUPACIÓN
AL RESPECTO ESA LLAMADA? EN ESE 
CASO PODRÍA HACER UNA 
DECLARACIÓN CONFIDENCIAL.
>>> SI ESTARÉ FELIZ DE PODER 
APARECER PARA DAR ALGUNAS 
RESPUESTAS EN DUEÑA CONFIDENCIAL
TO
>>> QUIZÁS NO ES NECESARIO QUE 
PAREZCA, PODRÍA HACERLO DE 
MANERA ESCRITA.
>>> GRACIAS .
>>> EN LA PELEA LLAMADA ENTRE 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP Y EL PRESIDENTE
ZELENSKI, USTED LE PREPARÓ UNA 

English: 
ON CLASSIFICATION, I'VE ADVISED 
MISS WILLIAMS NOT TO ANSWER 
FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT 
CALL IN AN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING.
>> THANKS, COUNSEL.
MISS WILLIAMS, I ONLY ASK YOU IN
THIS SETTING WHETHER YOU THINK 
THERE'S SOMETHING RELEVANT TO 
OUR INQUIRY IN THAT CALL AND IF 
SO, IF YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE
A CLASSIFIED SUBMISSION TO THE 
COMMITTEE?
>> I WOULD ALSO REFER TO MY 
TESTIMONY THAT I GAVE IN THE 
CLOSED SESSION AND I'M VERY 
HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR A CLASSIFIED
SETTING DISCUSSION AS WELL.
>> IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO 
APPEAR IF YOU'LL BE WILLING TO 
SUBMIT THE INFORMATION IN 
WRITING TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO DO SO. 
>> THANK YOU.
COLONEL VINDMAN, IF I COULD TURN
YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21st
CALL, THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, DID YOU PREPARE 
TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT
TO USE DURING THAT CALL?
>> YES, I DID.
>> AND DID THOSE TALKING POINTS 
INCLUDE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION 

English: 
IN UKRAINE?
>> YES.
>> THAT WAS SOMETHING THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE 
IN THE CONVERSATION WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
>> THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED 
TALKING POINTS THAT WERE CLEARED
THROUGH THE NSC STAFF FOR THE 
PRESIDENT, YES.
>> DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THAT 
CALL?
>> YES, I DID.
>> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW 
RELEASED THE RECORD OF THAT 
CALL.
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION
CORRUPTION IN THE APRIL 21st 
CALL?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, HE DID NOT.
>> ON THE APRIL 21st CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD SEND A 
HIGH-LEVEL U.S. DELEGATION TO 
THE INAUGURATION.
FOLLOWING THAT CALL, MISS 
WILLIAMS, WAS IT YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT
WANTED THE VICE PRESIDENT TO 
ATTEND THE INAUGURATION IN KIEV?
>> YES, THAT WAS MY 
UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND DID THE PRESIDENT 
SUBSEQUENTLY TELL THE VICE 
PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND THE 
INAUGURATION?

Spanish: 
MINUTA?
>>> SÍ LO HICE TÚ
>>> INCLUYA ESO O TEMAS DE C
CORRUPCIÓN.
>>> .
>>> ESTÁ USTED ESCUCHANDO ENSADA
LLAMADA?
>>> SÍ HACIA.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE MENCIONÓ 
CORRUPCIÓN EN LA LLAMADA DEL 
PRIMERO DE ABRIL?
>>> CREO QUE NO.
>>> EN UNA DE LAS LLAMADAS EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP DIJO QUE VA 
ENVIAR UNA DELEGACIÓN A LA 

English: 
>> I WAS INFORMED BY OUR CHIEF 
OF STAFF'S OFFICE, BY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF 
OFFICE, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD 
TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO 
ATTEND.
I DID NOT WITNESS THAT 
CONVERSATION.
>> AND AM I CORRECT THAT YOU 
LEARNED THIS ON MAY 13th, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT THE 
INAUGURATION DATE HAD NOT BEEN 
SET BY MAY 13th?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT ACCOUNTED 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
INSTRUCT THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT 
TO ATTEND?
>> I DO NOT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE A 
MEMBER OF THE U.S. DELEGATION TO
THE INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, CHAIRMAN.
>> AND DURING THAT TRIP, DID YOU
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ANY
ADVICE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
>> YES, CHAIRMAN. 
>> WHAT WAS THE ADVICE YOU GAVE 
HIM?
>> DURING A BILATERAL MEETING IN
WHICH THE WHOLE DELEGATION WAS 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
AND HIS TEAM, I OFFERED TWO 

Spanish: 
INAUGURACIÓN. EL VICEPRESIDENTE 
QUERÍA ASISTIR LA INAUGURACIÓN.
>>> ASÍ PARECE.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE LE DIJO QUE NO
LO HICIERA.
>>> SI LE DIJERON AL 
VICEPRESIDENTE QUE NO ASISTIERA,
PERO YO NO FUI TESTIGO DE ESA 
CONVERSACIÓN .
>>> USTED SU JUEGO EL 13 DE M
O
MAYO?
>>>
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> TODAVÍA NO SE HABÍA FIJADO 
UNA FECHA PARA EL 13 DE MAYO?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>>, CORONEL US
O
>>> USTED ESTUVO DE VIAJE QUE 

Spanish: 
CONSEJO LE DIO AL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI?
>>> LE OFRECÍ DOS CONSEJOS, QUE 
TUVIERA CUIDADO CON UCR¿RUSIA.  
DESEO DE PROVOCAR A UCRANIA. LO 
SEGUNDO ERA MANTENERSE LEJOS DE 
LA POLÍTICA DOMÉSTICA DE LOS 
ESTADOS UNIDOS .
>>> POR SÍ LE PARECIÓ NECESARIO 
HACER ESA SEGUNDA COMENTARIO?
>>> EN MARZO Y ABRIL NOS DIMOS 
CUENTA QUE HABÍA ACTORES EN LOS 
ESTADOS UNIDOS, ACTORES PÚBLICOS
NO GUBERNAMENTALES QUE ESTABAN 
PROMOVIENDO LA IDEA DE LA 

English: 
PIECES OF ADVICE.
TO BE PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS WITH
REGARDS TO UKRAINE -- TO BE 
PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS WITH 
REGARDS TO RUSSIA AND ITS DESIRE
TO PROVOKE UKRAINE.
AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO STAY 
OUT OF U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY.
>> DO YOU MEAN POLITICS?
>> POLITICS, YES. 
>> WHY DID YOU FEEL IT WAS 
NECESSARY TO ADVISE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO STAY AWAY FROM U.S. 
DOMESTIC POLITICS?
>> CHAIRMAN, IN THE MARCH AND 
APRIL TIME FRAME, IT BECAME 
CLEAR THAT THERE WERE -- THERE 
WERE ACTORS IN THE U.S. -- 
PUBLIC ACTOR, NONGOVERNMENTAL 
ACTORS, THAT WERE PROMOTING THE 
IDEA OF INVESTIGATIONS, AND 2016
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE, AND IT 
WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY 
TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY, ALL THE 

Spanish: 
INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA INTE
INTERFERENCIA UCRANIANA EN LAS 
ELECCIONES DEL 2016. NINGÚN PAÍS
TIENE QUE PARTICIPAR DE LAS 
POLÍTICAS DOMÉSTICAS DEL PAÍS, 
POR ESO ME PARECIÓ IMPORTANTE 
E
RECORDARLO.
>>> RESPECTO A LA ASISTECIA 
MILITAR QUE FUE CONGELADA, HUBO 
ALGUNA RAZÓN POR QUÉ EL 
PRESIDENTE CONGELÓ ES ASIS
A
ASISTENCIA?
>>>  ME DIJERON QUE ESTABAN 
REVISANDO O ESOS FONDOS PARA QUE
VI
ESTUVIERAN N ORDEN PERO NO SUPE 
MÁS QUE ESO .

English: 
COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO, ANY 
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, TO NOT 
PARTICIPATE IN U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLITICS.
SO, I WAS PASSING THE SAME 
ADVICE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY.
>> MR. GOLDMAN WILL HAVE MORE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT WHEN I TURN
TO HIM.
LET ME TURN, IF I CAN, TO THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
WHICH I THINK YOU BOTH TESTIFIED
YOU LEARNED ABOUT IN EARLY JULY.
NEITHER OF YOU WERE GIVEN A 
REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT PUT A 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT OMB
WAS REVIEWING THE ASSISTANCE TO 
MAKE SURE IT WAS IN LINE WITH 
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES, BUT 
IT WAS NOT MADE MORE SPECIFIC 
THAN THAT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> THAT IS CONSISTENT -- OR THE 
REVIEW WAS -- REMAINED  
CONSISTENT WITH ADMINISTRATION 
POLICIES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ATTENDED
A MEETING IN JOHN BOLTON'S 
OFFICE ON JULY 10th WHERE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INTERJECTED 
TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION BY 

Spanish: 
>>> YO ESCUCHÉ LO MISMO.
>>> USTED ESCUCHOÓ UNA REUNIÓN 
CON JOHN BOLTON, ACERCA DE UNA 
VISITA A LA CASA BLANCA. QUE SE 
DIJO EN ESE MOMENTO?
>>> LO QUE YO RECUERDO ES QUE EL
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND POR QUÉ PARA 
TENER UNA REUNIÓN EN LA CASA 
BLANCA LOS UCRANIANOS DEBÍAN 
ENTREGAR ALGO QUE ERA INVESTIGAR
>>> CUÁL FUE LA RED ACCIÓN DE 
JOHN BOLTON?
>>> EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON TERMINÓ 
LA REUNIÓN ABRUPTAMENTE.
>>> USTED REPORTÓ ESE INCIDENTE?
SI LO HICE
>>> LOS UCRANIANOS ENTENDIERON 
QUE TE VERÍAS REALIZAR LAS 

English: 
SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT
A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.
WHAT DID HE SAY AT THAT TIME?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID THAT IN ORDER TO 
GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE 
UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE
A DELIVERABLE, WHICH IS 
INVESTIGATIONS, SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> AND WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S RESPONSE OR REACTION TO
THAT COMMENT?
>> THE -- WE HAD NOT COMPLETED 
ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AND WE 
STILL HAD TIME FOR THE MEETING, 
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE MEETING.
>> DID YOU REPORT THIS INCIDENT 
TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
LAWYERS?
>> YES, I DID.
>> BASED ON AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S REMARK AT THE JULY 
10th MEETING, WAS IT YOUR CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD 
TO COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED IN ORDER 
TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

Spanish: 
INVESTIGACIONES PARA TENER UNA 
REUNIÓN EN LA CASA BLANCA?
>>> QUIZÁS NO ERA COMPLETAMENTE 
CLARO EN ESE MOMENTO, EL 
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND ESTÁ DADA  
INTERESADO EN UNA REUNIÓN, HABÍA
DICHO QUE TENÍA UNA REUNIÓN CON 
MICK MULVANEY, PERO LA CONEXIÓN 
CON EL PRESIDENTE NO ESTÁ 
MARCARAN ESE MOMENTO .
>>> EL SEÑOR SONDLAND DIJO QUE 
AL HABÍA UN ACUERDO CON MICK 
MULVANEY QUE ZELENSKI TENDRÍA 
ESA REUNIÓN REALIZABA LAS 
INVESTIGACIONES?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> HUBO UNA SEGUNDA LLAMADA DEL

English: 
>> IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY
CLEAR AT THAT MOMENT.
CERTAINLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS CALLING FOR THE MEETINGS AND
HE HAD -- HE HAD STATED THAT 
HIS -- HE HAD THIS -- THIS WAS 
DEVELOPED PER CONVERSATION WITH 
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MR. MICK 
MULVANEY, BUT THE CONNECTION TO 
THE PRESIDENT WASN'T CLEAR AT 
THAT POINT.
>> BUT THE IMPORT OF WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID DURING 
THAT MEETING IS THAT THERE WAS 
AN AGREEMENT WITH MICK MULVANEY 
THAT ZELENSKY WOULD GET THE 
MEETING IF THEY WOULD UNDERTAKE 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT 
JULY 10th MEETING, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD
THEIR SECOND CALL, THE NOW 
INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL.
COLONEL ZELENSKY, WHAT WAS YOUR 
REAL-TIME REACTION TO HEARING 
THAT CALL?

Spanish: 
25 DE JULIO, CÓMO REACCIONÓ ESTE
FRENTE HACE LLAMADA?
>>> PRESIDENTE, SIN TITUBEAR 
SABÍA QUE TENÍA QUE INFORMAR E
T
ESTO AL CONSEJO, ERA MI DEBER 
REPORTAR MIS PREOCUPACIONES A 
LAS PERSONAS ADECUADAS EN LA 
CABINA DE MANDO.
>>> CUÁL ERA SU PREOCUPACIÓN?
>>> COMO LÔ DIJE EN MI D
DECLARACIÓN FUE INAPROPIADO QUE 
EL PRESIDENTE PIDIERA, EXIGIERA 
UNA INVESTIGACIÓN EN UN OPONENTE
POLÍTICO, ESPECIALMENTE A UN 
PODER POLÍTICO EXTRANJERO. ME 
PARECÍA QUE ESA INVESTIGACIÓN 

English: 
>> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION,
I KNEW THAT I HAD TO REPORT THIS
TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
I HAD CONCERNS, AND IT WAS MY 
DUTY TO REPORT MY CONCERNS TO 
THE PROPER -- PROPER PEOPLE IN 
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
>> AND WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN?
>> WELL, CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN 
MY STATEMENT, IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE -- IT WAS IMPROPER
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REQUEST -- 
TO DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
A POLITICAL OPPONENT, ESPECIALLY
A FOREIGN POWER WHERE THERE'S AT
BEST DUBIOUS BELIEF THAT THIS 
WOULD BE A COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL 
INVESTIGATION.
AND THAT THIS WOULD HAVE 
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS IF IT 
BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND IT 
WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN
PLAY.
IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE 
POLICY.
AND IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR 

Spanish: 
SERÍA POCO PARCIAL. ESTO PODRÍA 
ADEMÁS AFECTAR NUESTRA SEGURIDAD
NACIONAL .
>>> CORONEL, USTED DESCRIBE ESTA
DEMANDA, QUÉ PIENSA DE LA 
RELACIÓN ENTRE LOS PRESIDENTES 
QUE LO LLEVÓ A CONCLUIR QUE ESTO
ERA UNA EXIGENCIA?
>>> EN LA CULTURA MILITAR, 
CUANDO UN SUPERIOR PIDE ALGO 
AUNQUE SEA POCO AGRADABLE NO ES 
UN PEDIDO, ES UNA ORDEN. DEBIDO 
A LA DIFERENCIA ENTRE LOS 
LÍDERES, ME DI CUENTA DE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI TENDRÍA QUE 
RESPONDER  A LO QUE EL PRE

English: 
NATIONAL SECURITY. 
>> COLONEL, YOU'VE DESCRIBED 
THIS AS A DEMAND, THIS FAVOR 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ASKS A FAVOR LIKE THIS, 
IT'S REALLY A DEMAND?
>> CHAIRMAN, THE CULTURE I COME 
FROM, THE MILITARY CULTURE, WHEN
A SENIOR ASKS YOU TO DO 
SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S POLITE 
AND PLEASANT, IT'S NOT -- IT'S 
NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST.
IT'S TO BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER.
IN THIS CASE, THE POWER 
DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO 
LEADERS, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT 
IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> MISS WILLIAMS, I THINK YOU 
DESCRIBED YOUR REACTION IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION AS -- WHEN YOU 
LISTENED TO THE CALL AS YOU 

English: 
FOUND IT UNUSUAL AND 
INAPPROPRIATE.
BUT I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING 
ELSE YOU SAID IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION.
YOU SAID IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON 
POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS 
BEHIND A SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HOLD.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS ASKED 
DURING THE CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY
HOW I FELT ABOUT THE CALL.
AND IN REFLECTING ON WHAT I WAS 
THINKING IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS 
THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD 
INTERNALLY THE PRESIDENT 
REFERENCE PARTICULAR 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY I
HAD ONLY HEARD ABOUT THROUGH 
MR. GIULIANI'S PRESS INTERVIEWS,
IN PRESS REPORTING.
SO, IN THAT MOMENT IT WAS NOT 
CLEAR WHETHER THERE WAS A DIRECT
CONNECTION OR LINKAGE BETWEEN 
THE ONGOING HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT MAY BE ASKING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE 
IN REGARDS TO INVESTIGATIONS.
SO, IT WAS -- IT WAS NOTEWORTHY 
IN THAT REGARD.
I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH 
INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM 
CONCLUSION.

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP LE PEDÍA.
>>> CUANDO USTED ESCUCHÓ LA 
LLAMADA LE PARECIÓ INUSUAL EL 
INAPROPIADA, PERO TAMBIÉN ME 
SORPRENDIÓ ALGO MÁS QUE USTED 
I
HIJO,, SINO QUE HABÍA ALGUNA UNA
EXIGENCIA ESCONDIDA.
>>> LO QUE PENSÉ EN ESE MOMENTO 
ERA QUE ERA LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE 
YO ESCUCHABA INTERNAMENTE QUE EL
PRESIDENTE HABLABA DE UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN, PREVIAMENTE LO 
HABÍA ESCUCHADO DE PARTE DE RUDY
GIULIANI. EN ESE MOMENTO NO 
TENÍA CLARO SI HABÍA UNA 
CONEXIÓN DIRECTA ENTRE LA 
CONGELACIÓN DE FONDOS LA 

English: 
>> BUT IT RAISED THE QUESTION IN
YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THE TWO 
WERE RELATED?
>> IT WAS THE FIRST I HAD HEARD 
OF ANY REQUESTS OF UKRAINE, 
WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN 
NATURE, SO IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO 
ME IN THAT REGARD.
>> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION 
RAISING THE ISSUE OR MENTIONING 
BURISMA, DO YOU NOT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YET THE WORD BURISMA 
APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL 
RECORD THAT'S BEEN RELEASED TO 
THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT'S THE 
CASE, WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT?
>> I DO NOT.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
PRODUCTION OF THAT TRANSCRIPT.
>> I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FACT 
THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT IS 
BEING PRODUCED MAY NOT HAVE 
CAUGHT THE WORD, BURISMA.

Spanish: 
INVESTIGACIÓN. NO TENÍA 
SUFICIENTE INFORMACIÓN PARA 
PODER REALIZAR UNA CONCLUSIÓN.
>>> PERO A USTED LE PARECIÓ QUE 
ESTABAN RELACIONADOS?
>>> ERA LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE ES
C
ESCUCHABA QUE SE NOMBRABA 
UCRANIA EN RELACIÓN A ESE TEMA .
>>> AMBOS RECUERDAN QUE EL P
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI MENCIONÓ A
U
ABURUSMA, ES ESO CORRECTO?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> SABEN PORQUE ESO NO APARECE 
EN LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN.
>>> NO SÉ YO NO ESTUVE 

Spanish: 
ESCRIBIENDO LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN.
>>> YO PENSÉ QUE LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN NO HABÍA CAPTURADO
LA PALABRA BURISMA, Y APARECIÓ 
EN CAMBIO COMO EMPRESA AUTO
>>> LE PARECIÓ EXTRAÑO QUE SE 
UTILIZAR ESA PALABRA? Y QUE NO 
APARECIERA EN LOS REGISTROS QUE 
FUERON POCO ENTREGADOS AL 
PÚBLICO?
>>> ASÍ ES ME PARECIÓ QUE LAS 
PERSONAS QUE HACEN ESTAS TR
TRANSCRIPCIONES LO HACE LO MEJOR
QUE PUEDEN, DEBÍ ASEGURARME QUE 
LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN FUERA LO MÁS 
PRECISA POSIBLE .

English: 
AND IT WAS IN THE -- IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS RELEASED, IT
WAS RELEASED, THE COMPANY, WHICH
IS ACCURATE.
IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT OMISSION.
>> COLONEL, YOU POINTED OUT THE 
FACT THAT WORD WAS USED, DID YOU
NOT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YET IT WAS NOT INCLUDED 
IN THE RECORD RELEASED TO THE 
PUBLIC.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I'D SAY IT'S INFORMED 
SPECULATION THAT THE FOLKS THAT 
PRODUCE THESE TRANSCRIPTS DO THE
BEST THEY CAN, AND THEY JUST 
DIDN'T CATCH THE WORD.
THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO --
TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS 
POSSIBLE.
THAT'S WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO BY
PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN 
BECAUSE THAT WAS IN MY NOTES. 
>> I THINK, COLONEL, YOU 
TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION 
THAT YOU FOUND IT STRIKING THAT 
ZELENSKY WOULD BRING UP BURISMA.
THAT IT INDICATED TO YOU THAT HE
HAD BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL, 
TO EXPECT THIS ISSUE TO COME UP.

Spanish: 
>>> CORONEL, USTED LE PARECIÓ 
EXTRAÑÓ QUE ZELENSKI NOMBRARÁ A 
BURUSMAISMA. QUE LO LLEVÓ A ESA 
CONCLUSIÓN?
>>> ME PARECIÓ QUE ESTA LLAMADA 
ESTABA ARRASTRANDO EL TEMA O 
QUIZÁS LO HABÍAN PREPARADO PARÁ 
DECIR ESO.
>>> GRACIAS PRESIDENTE. BUENOS 
DÍAS A AMBOS EL 25 DE JULIO A 
LAS APROXIMADAMENTE LAS 9:00 DE 
LA MAÑANA USTEDES ESTABAN EN LA 
SALA DE SITUACIÓN. ESTABA 
PREPARANDO PARA UNA LLAMADA DEL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP Y EL PRESIDENTE
ZELENSKI.. DE LO QUE HABLARON 
ESE DÍA ESTÁ SEGURO QUE SUFRO 

English: 
WHAT LED YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION?
>> IT SEEMED UNLIKELY THAT HE 
WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH A SINGLE 
COMPANY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CALL
THAT HAD -- THAT WAS ON THE 
BROADER BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP 
AND IT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS 
EITHER TRACKING THIS ISSUE 
BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PRESS OR 
HE WAS OTHERWISE PREPPED.
>> MR. GOLD MAN?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU.
ON JULY 25th AT APPROXIMATELY 
9:00 A.M.
YOU BOTH WERE SITTING IN THE 
SITUATION ROOM, PROBABLY NOT TOO
MUCH FURTHER AWAY THAN YOU ARE 
RIGHT NOW AND YOU WERE PREPARING
FOR A LONG AWAITED PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
NOW, COLONEL VINDMANN ADVANCE OF
THIS PHONE CALL, DID YOU PREPARE
FOR THE PHONE CALL AS YOU DID 
THE APRIL 21st CALL?
>> YES, I DID.
>> WHAT WERE THE TALKING POINTS 
BASED UPON?

Spanish: 
LOS PUNTOS
>> SÍ
>> CUALES FUERON ESOS PUNTOS?
>> ESTO NO ESTÁN EN PÚEN LOS 
REGISTROS PÚBLICOS, PERO LAS 
ÁREAS DE LAS QUE HABLAMOS DE 
MANERA CONSISTENTE SON 
COOPERACIÓN PARA APOYAR LA 
AGENDA DE REFORMACIÓN, ESFUERZOS
ANTICORRUPCIÓN Y AYUDAR AL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI IMPLEMENTAR 
SU PLAN CONTRA LA GUERRA DE 
RUSIA UCRANIA.
ENTONCES ESTAS SON POLÍTICAS DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS?
SI
MI TRABAJO ES COORDINAR LA 
POLÍTICA EXTERNA ESTADOUNIDENSE.
EL AÑO QUE LLEVABA AL EMPLEADO 
ME LLEVE A CABO QUE LA POLÍTICA 
FUESE LLEGADO SEGUIDA DE MANERA 
COHERENTE.

English: 
>> THEY WERE -- THIS IS NOT IN 
THE PUBLIC RECORD AND I CAN'T 
COMMENT TOO DEEPLY, BUT WHAT 
IS -- THE AREAS THAT WE'VE 
CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT IN 
PUBLIC, IT WAS COOPERATION ON 
SUPPORTING REFORM AGENDA, 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS AND 
HELPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
IMPLEMENT HIS PLANS TO END 
RUSSIA'S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE BASED
ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND IS THERE A PROCESS TO 
DETERMINE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?
>> YES.
THAT IS MY JOB IS TO COORDINATE 
U.S. POLICY.
SO THROUGHOUT THE PRECEDING YEAR
THAT I HAD BEEN ON STAFF, I HAD 
UNDERTAKEN AN EFFORT TO MAKE 
SURE WE HAD A COHESIVE POLICY. 
>> AS YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, 
DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FOLLOWING 

English: 
THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?
>> COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT COULD 
CHOOSE TO USE THE TALKING POINTS
OR NOT.
HE'S THE PRESIDENT.
BUT THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT 
WITH WHAT I PROVIDED, YES. 
>>LET TAKE A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF
EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL.
RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE 
UNITED STATES' SUPPORT IN THE 
AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP
ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A 
FAVOR AND THEN RAISES THIS 
THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
HE SAYS IN THE HIGHLIGHTED 
PORTION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO 
US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR 
COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT 
AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT 
IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 

Spanish: 
USTED OBSERVÓ QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
TRUMP SEGUÍA LOS PUNTOS BASADOS 
EN LA POLÍTICA EXTERIOR DE LAS 
NACIONES UNIDAS?
EL PRESIDENTE DECIDÍA UTILIZAR 
LOS PUNTOS, PERO NO ERAN 
CONSISTENTES CON LO QUE YO 
ENTREGUÉ.
>> VEAMOS ALGUNOS EXTRACTOS DE 
ESTA LLAMADA, DESPUÉS DE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI LE AGRADECE 
EL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP B
BOOMER EL APOYO DE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS EN EL ÁREA DE DEFENSA, EL
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP LE PIDO 
UN FAVOR Y LUEGO COMIENZA LA 
TEORÍA DE LA INTERFERENCIA DE 
LAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 POR PARTE
UCRANIA. QUIERO QUE ESCUCHAMOS
U
UNA PARTE "PERO ME GUSTARÍA QUE 
NOS AGUS A FAVOR, QUIERO QUE 
USTED VEA QUÉ PASÓ CON ESTA 

Spanish: 
SITUACIÓN CON UCRANIA. USTEDES 
TIENEN DINERO, DICE QUE UCRANIA 
LO TIENE." CORONEL VINDMAN, ESÁA
ESTO BASADO EN LOS PUNTOS 
OFICIALES QUE USTED PREPARÓ PARA
LA CONVERSACIÓN?
>> NO
>> Y ESTA ESTABA RELACIONADO CON
LA INTERFERENCIA DE LAS 
ELECCIONES 2016 UCRANIA ESTADOS 
UNIDOS Y ERA PARTE DE LA 
POLÍTICA OFICIAL ESTADOUNIDENSE?
>> NO
>> EN EL MOMENTO DE ESTA LLAMADA
DE JULIO, SABÍA USTED DE UNA T
O
TEORÍA DE QUE UCRANIA HABÍA 
INTERVENIDO O INTERFERIDO EN LAS
ELECCIONES DE 2016?
>> SÍ
>> HAY ALGUNA EVIDENCIA CREÍBLE 
PARA APOYAR ESTA TEORÍA?
>> NO.
>> SABÍA QUE PUTIN HABÍA 
PROMOVIDO ESTA TEORÍA QUE LA 
PREGUNTA
>> SI LO SABÍA BIEN.

English: 
WEALTHY PEOPLE.
THE SERVER.
THEY SA UKRAINE HAS IT. 
>> WAS THIS BASED ON THE 
OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS THAT YOU
HAD PREPARED?
>> NO.
>> AND WAS THIS STATEMENT 
RELATED TO THE 2016 UKRAINE 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION PART OF THE OFFICIAL 
U.S. POLICY?
>> NO, IT WAS NOT.
>> NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS JULY
25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN, WERE
YOU AWARE OF A THEORY THAT 
UKRAINE INTERVENED OR 
INTERFEARED IN THE 2016 U.S. 
ELECTION?
>> I WAS. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY?
>> I AM NOT.
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT 
VLADIMIR PUTIN HAD PROMOTED THIS
THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> I'M WELL AWARE OF THAT FACT. 
>> AND ULTIMATELY, WHICH COUNTRY
DID U.S. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES 

English: 
DETERMINE TO HAVE INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE 
RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN THE U.S. 
ELECTIONS IN 2016. 
>> LET'S GO TO ANOTHER EXCERPT 
FROM THIS CALL WHERE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT, VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN.
HERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE 
OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF 
TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON THAT 
BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION 
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND
OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT.
IT SOUND HORRIBLE TO ME, HE 
SAID.
AGAIN, COLONEL VINDMAN, WAS THIS
INCLUDED IN YOUR TALKING POINTS?
>> IT WAS NOT.
>> SUCH A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE
A POLITICAL OPPONENT CONSISTENT 
WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?
>> IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH 

Spanish: 
>> FINALMENTE QUÉ PAÍS FUE EL 
QUE LE HIZO LOS SERVICIOS ES
ESTADOUNIDENSES LOS QUE IN
INTERVINIERON EN LAS ELECCIONES 
DE LA PREGUNTA
>> LA COMUNIDAD DE INTELIGENCIA 
NUESTRO PAÍS CONCLUYÓ QUE FUE 
RUSIA.
>> VEAMOS OTRO EXTRACTO ESTA 
LLAMADA, EL PRESIDENTE DONALD 
TRUMP LE PIDE A ZELENSKI QUE 
INVESTIGUE A SU OPONENTE 
POLÍTICO EL EX VICEPRESIDENTE 
JOE BIDEN. EL PRESIDENTE DONALD 
TRUMP DICE QUE" SE HABLA MUCHO 
DEL HIJO DE BIDEN Y QUE DETUVO 
UNA DEMANDA LO QUE SEA QUE 
PUEDEN HACER CON EL FISCAL 
GENERAL SERÁ GENIAL. BIDEN 
HABLABA DE QUE EL DETUVO ESTA 
FISCALÍA ASÍ QUE QUIERO QUE LO 
VEA." SUENA HORRIBLE. DE NUEVO 
CORONEL VINDMAN ESTO ERA PARTE 
DE LA CONVERSACIÓN?
>> NO
>> PEDIR QUE SE HICIESE ESTO ES 
CONSISTENTE CON ESTA POLÍTICA 
EXTERIOR?
>> NO NO ES CONSISTENTE CON 

English: 
THE POLICY AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.
>> NOW, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OR EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION THAT VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN DID SOMETHING 
WRONG OR AGAINST U.S. POLICY 
WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE?
>> I AM NOT.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU 
FAMILIAR WITH ANY CREDIBLE 
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY 
AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
>> NO, I'M NOT.
>> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS, PRIOR TO 
THE JULY 25th CALL, 
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CALLS 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND FOREIGN LEADERS HAD 
YOU LISTENED TO?
>> I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY A DOZEN.
>> HAD YOU EVER HEARD A CALL 
LIKE THIS?
>> AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I 
BELIEVE WHAT I FOUND UNUSUAL OR 
DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CALL WAS 
THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE TO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT
STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT THAN 
OTHER CALLS I HAD LISTENED TO. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL IN 
NATURE.

Spanish: 
NUESTRAS POLÍTICAS A SEGÚN CÓMO 
LAS ENTIENDO.
>> SABIOS DE ALGÚN ALEGATO 
CREÍBLE PARA APOYAR ESTA NOCIÓN 
DE QUE EL VICEPRESIDENTE HIZO 
ALGO ERRADO O CONTRA LA POLÍTICA
ESTADOUNIDENSE EN CUANTO 
UCRANIA.
>> NO
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS USTED CREE 
QUE HAY ALGUNA EVIDENCIA CREÍBLE
PARA APOYAR ESTO CON EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE BIDEN?
>> NO
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS ANTES DE LA 
LLAMADA. PRIMERO CUANDO LLAMADAS
ENTRE EL PRESIDENTE Y LÍDERES 
EXTERNOS HA ESCUCHADO USTED?
>> YO POR LO MENOS UNA DOCENA
>>  HA ESCUCHADO ALGUNA COMO E
T
ESTA?
>> COMO HE TESTIFICADO ANTES LA 
ENCONTRÉ INUSUAL Y DIFERENTE  
SOBRE TODO EN EL PRESIDENTE 
HABLASE ESPECÍFICAMENTE UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN. ESO ME PARECIÓ 
MÁ
DIFERENTE A LO QUE HABÍA VISTO 
ANTES.

English: 
WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?
>> I THOUGHT THAT THE REFERENCES
TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND 
INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON
STRUCK ME AS POLITICAL IN NATURE
GIVEN THAT THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S. 
>> SO YOU THOUGHT IT COULD 
POTENTIALLY BE DESIGNED TO 
ASSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
RE-ELECTION EFFORT?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION WAS IN 
REFERENCING IT, BUT I JUST NOTED
THAT THE REFERENCE TO BIDEN 
SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU SAID IN 
YOUR DEPOSITION THAT IT DOESN'T 
TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE 
THE POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT 
ROCKET SCIENTISTS, CAN YOU 
EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT?
>> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 
IT WAS THE CONNECTION TO 
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT
WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER.
I MADE THAT CONNECTION AS SOON 

Spanish: 
>> USTED DIJO QUE ERA POLÍTICO 
NATURALEZAS A QUE SE REFIERE?
>> CREE QUE LAS REFERENCIAS  A 
INDIVIDUOS ESPECÍFICOS EL 
INVESTIGACIÓN COMO EL EX 
VICEPRESIDENTE BIDEN Y SU HIJO 
ME PARECIÓ MÁS POLÍTICO EN SU 
NATURALEZA YA QUE EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE ES UN RIVAL 
POLÍTICO
>> ASÍ QUE CREE QUE ESTO ES PARA
AYUDAR EL ESFUERZO DE REELECCIÓN
DEL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP?
>>  NO SE PONEN LA MOTIVACIÓN 
E
DEL PRESIDENTE AL REFERENCIARLO,
PERO SE QUE LA REFERENCIA BIDEN 
ME SONÓ POLÍTICA.
>> CORONEL VINDMAN NOS DIJO 
USTED EN SU HUBO DECLARACIÓN QUE
VEÍA UNA VEN ES UN BENEFICIO 
POLÍTICO QUIENES NO SON 
CIENTÍFICOS POR FAVOR NO PODRÍA 
DECIR QUE SE REFIERE
>> SEGÚN CÓMO LO ENTIENDO LA 
CONEXIÓN EN INVESTIGARON 

English: 
AS THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE 
BIDEN INVESTIGATION.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT THE -- PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE 
CONSIDERED AS A DEMAND TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AFTER THIS CALL, DID YOU EVER 
HEAR FROM ANY UKRAIUKRAINIANS, R
IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE,
ABOUT ANY PRESSURE THAT THEY 
FELT TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED?
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
WITH OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY 
HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.?
>> YES, I DID. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS THE DEMAND 
FOR INVESTIGATIONS WITH THEM?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ALL AT ANY
POINT THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

Spanish: 
POLÍTICO OPUESTO ES ERRADO. LO 
DICE APENAS EL PRESIDENTE LO 
TRAJO A LA MESA SOBRE TODO LO DE
LA INVESTIGACIÓN.
LLO
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP LE PIDIÓ UN 
FAVOR AL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI, 
CREE QUE ESTO ES CONSIDERADO UNA
DEMANDA AL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI? 
LUEGO ESTA LLAMADA EN ALGÚN 
MOMENTO USTED ESCUCHÓ QUE ALGÚN 
UCRANIANO EN NUESTRO PAÍS BUEN 
UCRANIA  HABLASE DE ALGUNA 
PRESIÓN QUE SINTIERAN PARA 
LLEVAR A CABO ESTAS 
INVESTIGACIONES QUE DEMANDABA 
DONALD TRUMP?
>> NO QUE ME ACUERDE.
>> TUVO DISCUSIONES CON 
OFICIALES DE LA EMBAJADA AQUÍ 
UCRANIANA EN WASHINGTON?
>> SÍ
HABLÓ CON ELLOS DE LA INV
INVESTIGACIÓN SE RUTA
>> NO
>> HABLARON DE LA PREOCUPACIÓN 

Spanish: 
SOBRE LA RETENCIÓN DE LA AYUDA 
MILITAR SE RUTA
>> HASTA DONDE RECUERDO EN 
AGOSTO LA EMBAJADA UCRANIANA 
COMENZÓ ESTAR UN CONSCIENTE DE 
QUE HABÍA UNA RETENCIÓN. TUVE 
QUE COMENTAR SOBRE ELLO.
>> Y ESO FUE ANTES DE QUE FUESE 
PÚBLICO NO?
>> SÍ
>> QUÉ RESPONDE USTED
>> CREO QUE DIJE QUE... LA 
VERDAD NO LO RECUERDO. NO 
RECUERDO QUE DIJE, PERO DEBE 
HABER SIDO ALGO COMO NO ESTOY 
CONSCIENTE DE ELLO.
>> USTED TESTIFICÓ QUE UNA DE 
SUS PREOCUPACIONES SOBRE LA 
PETICIÓN DE INVESTIGACIÓN 
RELACIONADAS CON POLÍTICA 
INTERNA ESTADOUNIDENSE ERA QUE 

English: 
>> TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, IN THE AUGUST TIME
FRAME, THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY 
STARTED TO BECOME AWARE OF THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
THEY WERE ASKING IF I HAD ANY 
COMMENT ON THAT OR IF I COULD 
SUBSTANTIATE THAT.
>> AND THAT WAS BEFORE IT BECAME
PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> WHAT DID YOU RESPOND?
>> I BELIEVE I SAID THAT -- I 
DON'T RECALL, FRANKLY.
I DON'T RECALL WHAT I SAID.
BUT I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN 
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF I'M
NOT AWARE OF IT.
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT ONE OF 
YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE REQUEST 
FOR INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO 
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS WAS THAT 
UKRAINE MAY LOSE BIPARTISAN 

Spanish: 
EN UCRANIA SE PIERDE EL APOYO 
BIPARTITA . PORQUE LE PREOCUPA?
>> UCRANIA ESTÁN UNA GUERRA CON 
RUSIA. EL SISTEMA DE SEGURIDAD 
QUE LES HEMOS DADO A LOS 
UCRANIANOS  ES IMPORTANTE, DE 
HECHO ESA AYUDA ES INCLUSO MÁS 
IMPORTANTE EL SIGNO DEL APOYO 
PARA LA INTEGRIDAD DEL PAÍS. Y 
ESTO HARÍA QUE RUSIA TAL VEZ 
ESCALE MAYOR AGRESIÓN CONTRA LA 
DEMOCRACIA UCRANIANA.
>> EN OTRAS PALABRAS UCRANIA 
DEPENDE MUCHO  EN EL APOYO E
ESTADOUNIDENSE DE FORMA 
DIPLOMÁTICA FINANCIERA Y 
MILITAR?
>> CORRECTO
CUANTOS IDIOMAS HABLO USTED?
>> HABLÓ POCO DE INGLÉS 
UCRANIANO Y RUSO.

English: 
SUPPORT.
WHY WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS?
>> UKRAINE IS IN A WAR WITH 
RUSSIA, AND THE SECURITY SYSTEMS
THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE IS 
SIGNIFICANT.
ABSENT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
AND MAYBE EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY,
THE SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND 
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THAT 
WOULD LIKELY ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO
PURSUE POTENTIALLY ESCALATE, TO 
PURSUE FURTHER AGGRESSION 
UNDERMINING, FURTHER UNDERMINING
YU YAN CRAN SOVEREIGNTY, AND 
U.S. SECURITY.
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE IS
HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON UNITED 
STATES SUPPORT, BOTH 
DIPLOMATICALLY, FINANCIALLY AND 
ALSO MILITARILY?
>> CORRECT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT 
LANGUAGES DO YOU SPEAK. 
>> RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN AND A 
LITTLE BIT OF ENGLISH.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT -- DO YOU 
RECALL WHAT LANGUAGE PRESIDENT 

English: 
ZELENSKY SPOKE ON THIS JULY 25th
PHONE CALL?
>> I KNOW HE MADE A VALIANT 
EFFORT TO SPEAK ENGLISH.
HE HAD BEEN PRACTICING UP HIS 
ENGLISH, BUT HE ALSO SPOKE 
UKRAINIAN. 
>> I WANT TO LOOK AT THE THIRD 
EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25th CALL.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ADDRESSED THIS 
WITH YOU IN HIS QUESTIONING.
YOU SEE IN THE HIGHLIGHTED 
PORTION, IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY TO
THE COMPANY THAT YOU MENTIONED 
IN THIS ISSUE.
IS THAT THE PORTION OF THE CALL 
RECORD THAT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU
THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
ACTUALLY SAID BURISMA?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT 
HIS USE OF OR HIS UNDERSTANDING 
THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MENTIONED THE BIDENS, THAT THAT 
REFERRED TO THE COMPANY BURISMA 
SOUNDED TO YOU LIKE HE WAS 
PREPPED OR PREPARED FOR THIS 

Spanish: 
>>  SABE DE USTED EN QUÉ IDIOMA 
HABLÓ EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI O 
LO RECUERDAS?
>> SÉ QUE ÉL HIZO EL ESFUERZO 
VALIENTE DE HABLAR EN INGLÉS, NO
LO PRACTICA MUCHO, PERO TAMBIÉN 
HABLÓ EN UCRANIANO.
>> QUIERO VER ESTE TERCER 
EXTRACTO DE LA LLAMADA. HABLÓ DE
ESTO CON USTED EN SUS PREGUNTAS,
SE PUEDE VER AHÍ EN LA ZONA  EN 
AMARILLO DE LO QUE SE DIJO ESTA 
TEMAS. EN LA PORCIÓN DE LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN QUE USTED PENSÓ 
QUE EL EN LA QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI DIJO EL NOMBRE DE LA 
EMPRESA?
>> CORRECTOS
>> Y SEGÚN LO SU ENTENDIMIENTO, 
CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP 
MENCIONÓ LOS BIDEN YY A LA 
COMPAÑÍA BURISMA LE SONÓ USTED 
COMO SI ESTUVIESE PREPARADO PARA

English: 
CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT 
SLIDE, IF WE COULD, WHICH IS 
ACTUALLY A TEXT MESSAGE THAT 
NEITHER OF YOU IS ON.
BUT THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR KURT
VOLKER TO ANDRE -- WHO IS THIS 
PERSON?
>> HE'S A SENIOR ADVISER WITHIN 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION 
TO UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL 
ADMINISTRATION.
HE'S THE SENIOR ADVISER TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> THIS TEXT MESSAGE IS LESS 
THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL
ON JULY 25th.
AND SINCE NEITHER OF YOU ARE ON 
IT, I'LL READ IT.
IT SAYS FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
GOOD LUNCH, THANKS.
HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE.
ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES 
TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, 
QUOTE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT
HAPPENED, UNQUOTE, IN 2016.
WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT
TO WASHINGTON.
GOOD LUCK.
SEE YOU TOMORROW.
KURT.
NOW IS THIS THE SORT OF THING 
THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHEN 
YOU SAY THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE 

Spanish: 
ESTA LLAMADA?
>> CORRECTO
>> QUIERO ENTONCES AHORA HABLAR 
DE LA SIGUIENTE PARTE DE. ES UN 
MENSAJE DE TEXTO DEL EMBAJADOR 
VOLKER. CORONEL QUIENES LA OTRA 
PERSONA CON LA QUE HABLA? 
ÉL ES UNCONSEJERO DE LA 
PRESIDENCIA UCRANIANA
>> Y ESTE MENSAJE DE TEXTO LLEÓO
MEDIA HORA DESPUÉS DE LA LLA
A
LLAMADA. NO LADO SABE LEER 
PORQUE ESTÁ OBVIAMENTE EN OTRO 
PAÍS PERO LE DICE, QUE TENGA 
BUEN ALMUERZO. Y DICE QUE HAN 
CONVENCIDO AL PRESIDENTE DE 
INVESTIGAR Y QUE LLEGUE AL FONDO
DE LO QUE PASÓ  ENTRE CITAS  EN 
2016. BUENA SUERTE NOS VEMOS 
MAÑANA.

Spanish: 
>> EN EL TIPO DE COSA LA QUE 
USTED SE REFIERE CUANDO DICE QUE
SONABA COMO QUE ZELENSKI ESTABA 
PREPARADO PARA ESTA LLAMADA?
>> ESTA CONSISTENTE, SI.
>> Y AHORA HABLANDO DEL CUARTO 
EXTRACTO DE LA LLAMADA DONDE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI VINCULA A 
ESTA REUNIÓN CON LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN PEDIDA POR EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP. EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI DICE TAMBIÉN
LE QUIERO AGRADECER LA 
INVEINVE
INVITACIÓN PARA IR A WASHINGTON 
Y A LA CASA BLANCA. TAMBIÉN LE 
QUIERO ASEGURAR QUE VAMOS A SER 
MUY SERIOS EN EL CASO Y ESTAMOS 
TRATANDO LA INVESTIGACIÓN. 
CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI 
DICE POR OTRO LADO, ESTA ACUERDO
DE QUE ÉL HABLA DE QUE LA VISITA
QUE VISITEN QUE DIJO LA PRIMERA 
ORACIÓN ESTÁ VINCULADA LA SE

English: 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED 
FOR THIS CALL?
>> THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT, 
YES.
>> NOW, TURNING TO THE FOURTH 
EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25th CALL 
WHERE UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S LINKS THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTS, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, I ALSO 
WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED 
STATES, SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON,
D.C.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANTED
TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE 
VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND 
WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SAYS, ON THE OTHER 
HAND, WOULD YOU AGREE HE'S 
ACKNOWLEDGING A LINKAGE BETWEEN 
THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT HE 
MENTIONS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE 
AND THE INVESTIGATIONS HE 

English: 
MENTIONS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE?
>> IT COULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY.
I'M NOT SURE IF I -- IT SEEMS 
LIKE A REASONABLE CONCLUSION. 
>> IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT 
WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 
TEXT MESSAGE THAT AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER SENT TO ANDRE YAR MOCK 
BEFORE THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SEEMINGLY SO. 
>> YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT THE -- 
VISITING -- AN OVAL OFFICE VISIT
IS IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
WHY IS THAT?
>> THE SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STILL A BRAND
NEW PRESIDENT, FRANKLY, A NEW 
POLITICIAN ON THE UKRAINIAN 
POLITICAL SCENE, LOOKING TO 
ESTABLISH AS A REGIONAL AND 
MAYBE EVEN A WORLD LEADER, WOULD
WANT TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE 
UNITED STATES, THE MOST POWERFUL
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND 
UKRAINE'S MOST SIGNIFICANT 

Spanish: 
SEGUNDA ORACIÓN CON LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN SE PREGUNTA
>> PUEDE SER TOMADO ESA FORMA. 
PARECE UNA CONCLUSIÓN RAZONABLE
>> ESTO ES ASÍ ES CONSISTENTE 
CON EL MENSAJE DE TEXTO QUE EL 
MENS
VOLKER LE ENVIÓ A ESTA OTRA 
PERSONA
>> USTED TESTIFICÓ EN SU 
DECLARACIÓN QUE UNA VISITA LA 
CASA BLANCA LA SALA OVAL ES MUY 
IMPORTANTE PARA EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI POR QUÉ?
>> ESTO LE MUESTRA AL PRESIDENTE
ZELENSKI QUE AHORA SU PRESIDENTE
NUEVO, QUE SU NO POLÍTICO EN LA 
ESCENA POLÍTICA UCRANIANA, QUE 
ESTÁ TRATANDO DE ESTABLECER SE 
COMO UN LÍDER MUNDIAL O GLOBAL. 

Spanish: 
PPOR ESO ESTADOS UNIDOS EL PAÍS 
MÁS PODEROSO DEL MUNDO PUEDE SER
UN GRAN BENEFACTOR PARA 
IMPLEMENTAR SU AGENDA.
>> LE DARÍA DA ENTONCES MAYOR 
LEGITIMIDAD
>> SÍ
>>  ENTONCES PARA RESUMIR EN 
ESTA LLAMADA ENTRE EL PRESIDENTE
DE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y UCRANIA, EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP  LE 
PIDIÓ Y DEMANDÓ UN FAVOR AL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI PARA QUE 
LLEVASE A CABO UNA INVES
N
INVESTIGACIÓN, Y USTEDES DICEN 
QUE ESTA ES DE INTERÉS POLÍTICO 
Y NO NACIONAL. A CAMBIO DE ESTO 
SU PROMESA DE UN ENCUENTRO MUY 
DESEADO POR PRESENTE ZELENSKI LA
CASA BLANCA. AHORA ESTAMOS DE 
ACUERDO EN EL RESUMEN DE CÓMO 
DEBE?
>> SÍ
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS PERO PREGUNTA
>> SÍ
>> CORONEL VINDMAN, USTED 
INFORMÓ ESTA LLAMADA A UNO DE 

English: 
BENEFACTOR IN ORDER TO BE ABLE 
TO IMPLEMENT HIS AGENDA.
>> IT WOULD PROVIDE HIM WITH 
WITH ADDITIONAL LEGITIMACY AT 
HOME?
>> YEAH. 
>> JUST TO SUMMARIZE, IN THIS 
JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DEMANDED A FAVOR OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT BOTH OF YOU 
ACKNOWLEDGE WERE FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND IN 
RETURN FOR HIS PROMISE OF A MUCH
DESIRED WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, COLONEL 
VINDMAN IS THAT AN ACCURATE 
SUMMARY OF THE EXCERPTS WE JUST 
LOOKED AT?
>> YES. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS?
>> YES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THIS CALL 
TO THE NSC LAWYERS.
WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
>> AT THIS POINT, I HAD ALREADY 

Spanish: 
LOS ABOGADOS DE LA CASA BLANCA, 
POR QUÉ LO HIZO?
>> EN ESTE .PUNTO, LO QUE HE 
DESCRITO YA COMO UNA NARRATIVA 
ALTERNATIVA Y FALSA, YO SABÍA 
U
QUE SE IBA A REVERBERAN LA 
TRACCIÓN QUE IBA A TRAER ESTA 
LLAMADA DE JULIO Y QUE IBA A 
TERMINAR SIENDO  HABLADA ENTRE 
LOS OFICIALES PÚBLICOS. EL 
EMBAJADOR SON MAN ME LO ALERTÓ Y
GRACIAS A ESTE INFORME NO PUEDES
IR CON NINGÚN LA PREOCUPACIÓN.
PERO CUANDO TE DICE UNA FALSA 
NARRATIVA ALTERNATIVA, SE 
REFIERA LA INVESTIGACIÓN  A LA 
QUE SE REFIRIÓ EL PRESIDENTE 
DONALD TRUMP?
>> SÍ.
>> EN ALGÚN MOMENTO SE TAMBIÉN 
DISCUTIÓ COMO ESTE RESUMEN 
DEBERÍA SER MANEJADO CON LOS 

English: 
BEEN TRACKING THIS INITIALLY 
WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS 
ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE, FALSE 
NARRATIVE AND I WAS CERTAINLY 
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS 
STARTING TO REVERBERATE, GAIN 
TRACTION, THE FACT THAT THE JULY
10th CALL ENDED UP BEING 
PRONOUNCED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD ME 
ALERTED TO THIS AND I WAS 
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT REPORT, I WAS
INVITED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH ANY 
OTHER CONCERNS TO MR. IDENTIFY 
EN BERG.
>> WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT 
JULY 10th MEETING IN A MOMENT.
WHEN YOU SAY ALTERNATIVE FALSE 
NARRATIVES, ARE YOU REFERRING TO
THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED IN 
THE CALL?
>> YES.
>> NOW AT SOME POINT DID YOU 
ALSO DISCUSS HOW THE WRITTEN 
SUMMARY OF THE CALL RECORD 
SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE NSC 
LAWYERS?
>> THERE WAS -- FOLLOWING THE 
REPORT, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION 

Spanish: 
ABOGADOS DE LA CASA BLANCA?
>>  SIGUIENDO EL INFORME UNA 
DISCUSIÓN  SOBRE LA MEJOR FORMA 
DE MANEJAR LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN. SI
>> QUÉ LE PARECE LA CONCLUSIÓN A
LA QUE LLEGARON SE LE PREGUNTA
>>  SEGÚN CÓMO LO ENTIENDO ESTO 
SE DIO COMO UNA TRANSCRIPCIÓN 
INTELIGENTE PARA EVITAR 
FILTRACIONES ALGO EN LAS LÍNEAS 
DE PRESERVAR LA INTEGRIDAD DE LA
TRANSCRIPCIÓN. DEBERÍA SER 
SEGREGADA UN PEQUEÑO GRUPO DE 
GENTE.
>> PARA PRESERVAR LA INTEGRIDAD 
LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN, QUE QUIERE 
DECIR ESO?
>> PARECE UN TÉRMINO LEGAL NO 
ESTOY SEGURO. NO LO TOME COMO 
ALGO MISTERIOSO, LO ENTENDÍ COMO
QUE QUERÍAN MANTENERLO EN UN 
GRUPO PEQUEÑO.
>> SI DE VERDAD HABÍA UN INTERÉS
DE PERTH DE PRESERVAR LA 
INTEGRIDAD DEL TRANSCRITO PCIÓN 
CREE QUE DEBERÍA ESTAR EN LA EL 

English: 
IN THE LEGAL SHOP ON THE BEST 
WAY TO MANAGE A TRANSCRIPT, YES.
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THEY 
CONCLUDED?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS
WAS VIEWED AS A SENSITIVE 
TRANSCRIPT AND TO AVOID LEAKS 
AND, IF I RECALL THE TERM 
PROPERLY, SOMETHING ALONG THE 
LINES OF PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY 
OF THE TRANSCRIPT, IT SHOULD BE 
SEGREGATED TO A SMALLER GROUP OF
FOLKS.
>> TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE TRANSCRIPT, WHAT DID THAT 
MEAN?
>> I'M NOT SURE -- IT SEEMS LIKE
A LEGAL TERM.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
BUT IT WAS -- I DIDN'T TAKE IT 
AS ANYTHING NEFARIOUS.
I UNDERSTOOD THEY WANTED TO KEEP
IT IN A SMALLER GROUP.
>> IF THERE WAS REAL INTEREST IN
PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT, DON'T YOU THINK THEY
WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED YOUR 
CORRECTION THAT BURISMA SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED?
>> NOT NECESSARILY.
THE WAY THESE EDITS OCCUR, THEY 
GO THROUGH LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE,

English: 
AN APPROVAL PROCESS.
I MADE MY CONTRIBUTION.
IT WAS CLEARED BY MR. MORRISON, 
THEN WHEN I RETURNED IT, YOU 
KNOW, SOMETIMES THAT DOESN'T 
HAPPEN.
THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS,
I THINK IN THIS CASE, I DIDN'T 
SEE -- WHEN I FIRST SAW THE 
TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT THE TWO 
SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS I ATTEMPTED TO
INCLUDE, I DIDN'T SEE IT AS 
NEFARIOUS, I SAW IT AS OKAY, NO 
BIG DEAL.
MIGHT BE MEANINGFUL, BUT NO BIG 
DPEEL. 
>> YOU SAID TWO SUBSTANTIVE 
ISSUES.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE?
>> THERE WAS ONE IN A SECTION 
OF -- ON PAGE 4 THE TOP 
PARAGRAPH, LET ME FIND THE RIGHT
SPOT.
OKAY.
YES.
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT.
ELLIPSE, THERE ARE VIDEOS AS I 

Spanish: 
NOMBRE DE LA EMPRESA QUE USTED 
QUERÍA INCLUIR?
>> NO NO NECESARIAMENTE. ES UN 
PROCESO APROBADO YO HICE MI 
CONTRIBUCIÓN AL SEÑOR MORRISON. 
>> ALGUNA VEZ EN ESO NO PASA. EN
ESTE CASO CREO, CCUANDO POR 
PRIMERA VEZ VI LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN 
SIN ESTOS DOS ÍTEM ES QUE YO 
HABÍA INCLUIDO LO VI COMO QUE NO
ERA IMPORTANTE, PUEDE QUE SEA 
SIGNIFICATIVO PERO NO ES TAN 
IMPORTANTE.
>>  CUÁL ERA LA OTRA INSTANCIA?
>>  EN LA SECCIÓN... UN SEG
.

English: 
RECALL OR RECORDINGS.
>> INSTEAD OF AN ELLIPSE, IT 
SHOULD HAVE SAID TO WHAT YOU 
HEARD THAT THERE ARE RECORDINGS?
>> CORRECT.
>> DID YOU ULTIMATELY LEARN 
WHERE THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT?
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS 
BEING SEGREGATED INTO A SEPARATE
SYSTEM, SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM.
>> WHY WOULD IT BE PUT ON THE 
SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM?
>> THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT 
UNPRECEDENTED.
BUT AT TIMES IF YOU WANT TO 
LIMIT ACCESS TO A SMALLER GROUP 
OF FOLKS, YOU PUT IT ON THE 
SECURE SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT A 
SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH 
ACCESS TO THE SECURE SYSTEM HAD 
IT. 
>> CAN'T YOU ALSO LIMIT THE 
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN ACCESS 
IT ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM?
>> YOU CAN DO THAT.
BUT TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION, THE DECISION WAS 
MADE FRANKLY, ON THE FLY AFTER 

Spanish: 
SEGUNDO...
SE PUEDE, HAY VÍDEOS, HHAY 
GRABACIONES PERDÓN. EN VEZ DE 
UNA ELIPSIS DEBERÍA HABER DICHO 
LO QUE USTED ESCUCHÓ QUE 
INFORMES?
>> SÍ CORRECTO.
>> SUPO DESPUÉS USTED  DÓNDE 
QUEDÓ EL REGISTRO DE LA LLAMADA?
>>  ENTENDÍ QUE SE ESTABA 
SEGREGANDO A UN SISTEMA SEPARADO
DE SEGURIDAD.
>>  Y PORQUE EN UNOS SEPARADOS 
SE REÚNA
>> DEFINITIVAMENTE NO ES ALGO 
SIN PRECEDENTES. SI UNO QUIERE 
LIMITAR EL ACCESO PARA UN GRUPO 
PEQUEÑO SE PONEN UN SISTEMA 
SEGURO PARA ASEGURARSE QUE UN 
GRUPO PEQUEÑO TENGA ACCESO A 
ESTE  SISTEMA.
>> PERO SE PUEDE LIMITAR TAMBIÉN
EL NÚMERO DE GENTE QUE PUEDE 
ENTRAR UN SISTEMA REGULAR SE 
REÚNA
>> SE PUEDE HACER, PERO LO QUE 

Spanish: 
ENTIENDO ES QUE LANE DECISIÓN SE
TOMA CADO DE LA NADA LUEGO DE 
QUE HABLE DE MI PREOCUPACIÓN. 
EENTRE GENTE QUE NO HABÍA 
ESCUCHADO LA CONVERSACIÓN 
COMPLETA DE LA HABITACIÓN Y 
CUANDO SE LE MENCIONÓ QUE PODÍA 
SER COMPROMETEDORAS EDIFICIO 
RÁPIDAMENTE PONERLO EN EL 
SISTEMA SEGURO.
>> SEGÚN LO QUE USTED ENTIENDE 
ESTO NO ERA UN ERROR?
>>  ESO CREO ENTENDER.
>> Y DEBÍA ESTAR AHÍ ESO DIJERON
LOS ABOGADOS O FUE UN ERROR?
>> CREO QUE QUERÍAN HACERLO PERO
ERA PARA PREVENIR FILTRACIONES.
>> USTED TESTIFICÓ USTEDES DOS, 
HHABLARON SOBRE LA LLAMADA, 
CORONEL VINDMAN USTED INCLUYÓ  
EN SUS PUNTOS DE CONVERSACIÓN LA
IDEA DE UCRANIA SACANDO LA C

English: 
MY -- AFTER THE FACT -- AFTER I 
CONVEYED MY CONCERNS TO MR. 
EISENBERG, MR. ELLIS CAME IN, HE
HADN'T HEARD THE ENTIRE 
CONVERSATION.
WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IT 
WAS SENSITIVE, IT WAS ON THE FLY
DECISION TO -- 
>> MR. EISENBERG AND MR. ELLIS 
ARE THE NSC LAWYERS?
>> CORRECT. 
>> IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IT 
WAS NOT I MISTAKE TO PUT IT ON 
THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
>> WAS IT INTENDED TO BE PUT ON 
THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM BY 
THE LAWYERS?
OR WAS IT A MISTAKE THAT IT WAS 
PUT THERE?
>> I THINK IT WAS INTENDED BUT, 
AGAIN, IT WAS INTENDED TO 
PREVENT LEAKS AND TO LIMIT 
ACCESS.
>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED AT BOTH OF
YOU ABOUT THE APRIL 21st CALL A 
LITTLE EARLIER.
AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
INDICATED THAT YOU DID INCLUDE 
IN YOUR TALKING POINTS THE IDEA 
OF UKRAINE ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION BUT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DID NOT MENTION 

English: 
CORRUPTION.
I WANT TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
READOUT FROM THE APRIL 21st 
CALL.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE 
WHOLE THING.
YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION 
WHERE IT SAYS ROOT OUT 
CORRUPTION?
>> YES. 
>> SO IN THE END THIS READOUT 
WAS FALSE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S -- THAT'S -- MAYBE 
THAT'S A BIT OF A -- IT'S NOT 
ENTIRELY ACCURATE.
BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I WOULD 
DESCRIBE IT AS FALSE.
IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. 
POLICY AND THESE ITEMS ARE USED 
AS MESSAGING TOOLS ALSO.
SO A STATEMENT THAT GOES OUT, IN
ADDITION TO CATO -- READING OUT 
THE MESSAGE IS A MESSAGING 
PLATFORM TO SAY WHAT IS 
IMPORTANT -- 
>> IT IS A PART OF U.S. OFFICIAL
POLICY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD ROOT 
OUT CORRUPTION EVEN IF PRESIDENT
TRUMP DID NOT MENTION IT IN THAT
APRIL 21st PHONE CALL, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
CERTAINLY. 
>> HE DID NOT MENTION IT IN THE 
JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IS THAT 
RIGHT?

Spanish: 
CORRUPCIÓN. PERO EL PRESIDENTE 
TRAPA NO LO MENCIONÓ. QUIERO IR 
A LA LECTURA DE LA LLAMADA DE LA
CASA BLANCA, NO VOY A LEERLO 
TODO PERO SI VEMOS LA PORCIÓN 
DESTACADA, PUEDE VER CORRUPCIÓN?
>> SÍ
>> DÍGAME CESTO FALSO ENTONCES 
ERA PREGUNTA
>> TAL VEZ ES UN POCO DE... TAL 
VEZ NO ES COMPLETAMENTE 
APROPIADO A LO QUE SE DIJO. 
ADEMÁS DE QUE LEER EN LA REUNIÓN
TAMBIÉN ES UNA PLATAFORMA M
MENSAJE E IMPLICA QUÉ FUE LO 
IMPORTANTE PARA LA POLÍTICA 
ESTADOUNIDENSE.
>> ENTONCES NO ERA IMPORTANTE Y 
SALAS DE CORRUPCIÓN A PESAR DE 
QUE EL PRESIDENTE NO LO MENCIOÓO
LA LLAMADA?
>> OFFICIAL IMPORTANTE
>> ENTONCES NO APARECIÓ LA 

Spanish: 
LLAMADA?
>> CORRECTOS
>> ENTONCES A PESAR DE QUE ESTÁN
SUS PUNTOS DE CONVERSACIÓN PARA 
LA LLAMADA DEL 21 DE MJULIO, NO 
FUE INCLUIDO EN LA CONVERSACIÓN.
EES ESO ASÍ?
>> PARA LA LLAMADA DE ABRIL A ES
CORRECTO.
Y ENTONCES AL PRESIDENTE DICE 
QUE RETUVO LA AYUDA PORQUE ÉL LE
TEMÍA A LA CORRUPCIÓN EN U
UCRANIA. ÉSA PREOCUPACIÓN NOS 
EXPRESÓ EN ESTAS DOS 
CONVERSACIONES TELEFÓNICAS CON 
EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI ESTE AÑO.
ES CORRECTO ?? COR
 CORRECTO
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS, USTED NOS 
DICE QUE DESPUÉS DE PRESIDENTE 
DE LA LLAMÓ CONVERSAR CON ESA 
PRESIENTE CORRECTO?

English: 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS 
INCLUDED IN HIS TALKING POINTS 
FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL AND 
PRESUMABLY, EVEN THOUGH YOU 
CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE JULY
21st CALL, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED 
IN EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL -- 
>> DID NOT MENTION IT IN EITHER,
RATHER?
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS 
NOW THAT HE HELD UP SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE BECAUSE HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THAT 
CONCERN WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN THE
TWO PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE 
HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
EARLIER THIS YEAR, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'VE 
TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT AFTER 
THIS APRIL 21st CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE
TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT ON MAY 13th, YOU 

Spanish: 
>> CORRECTO
>> LUEGO LE INFORMARON DE LA 
OFICINA QUE EL VICEPRESIDENTE NO
IBA A IR DESPUÉS DE QUÉ PRE
PRESIDENTE LO PIDIESE?
>> ESO ME INFORMARON
>> USTED NO SABÍA LO QUE HABÍA 
CAMBIADO DESDE EL 21 DE ABRIL AL
13 DE MAYO ES CORRECTO?
>> NO, NO EN TÉRMINOS DE LA 
DECISIÓN.
>>  CORONEL VINDMAN YA QUE 
USTEDES QUIZÁS QUIÉN SABE UN 
POCO MÁS QUE LA SEÑORA WILLIAM 
EN CUANTO UCRANIA, QUIERO SABER 
SI USTED SABÍA LO SIGUIENTE QUE 
PASÓ DESDE EL 21 DE ABRIL HASTA 
EL 13 DE JUNIO? SABÍA QUE LA E
B
EMBAJADORA YOVANOVITCH FUE 
SACADA DE LA EMBAJADA DE MANERA 

English: 
WERE INFORMED BY THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF'S OFFICE THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE SHOULD NOT -- 
WILL NOT BE GOING AS PER REQUEST
OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS INFORMED, 
YES. 
>> AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAD 
CHANGED FROM APRIL 21st TO MAY 
13th, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO, NOT IN TERMS OF THAT 
DECISION.
>> WELL, COLONEL VINDMAN, SINCE 
YOU IN PARTICULAR A LITTLE BIT 
MORE PERHAPS THAN MS. WILLIAMS 
WHO HAS A BROAD R PORTFOLIO 
FOCUSES ON UKRAINE, I WANT TO 
ASK YOU ABOUT BETWEEN APRIL 21st
TO MAY 13th.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH WAS ABRUPTLY 
RECALLED. 
>> YES. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE -- 
>> TO CORRECT IT, SHE WAS 
RECALLED PRIOR -- LET'S SEE.
SO THE NOTIFICATION OCCURRED 
TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL AND SHE
WAS FINALLY RECALLED IN MAY TIME
FRAME, I THINK MAY 20th IF I 

Spanish: 
ABRUPTA? 
SI, EE FINALMENTE LE PIDIERON Q 
ES FUESE.
ENTONCES ELLA SUPO DESPUÉS DE 
FEBRERO PREGÚNTALE SI
 Y CUANDO TUVO LA LLAMADA CON EL
PRESIDENTE PUTINFUE TAMBIÉN A 
PRINCIPIOS DE MAYO?
>> SI YO ESTABA PRESENTE
>> SABÍA QUE RUDY GIULIANI HABÍA
PLANEADO UN VIAJE UCRANIA PARA 
PRESIONAR A LOS UCRANIANOS A 
INICIAR ESTAS DOS 
INVESTIGACIONES QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE TRAVÉS MENCIONÓ?
>> SABÍA QUE ESTÁ VIAJANDO HACIA
YA Y QUE HABÍA PROMOVIDO ESA 
IDEA DE CONVERSACIÓN.
>> QUIERO AHORA PASAR  AL LA 
REUNIÓN DEL 10 DE JULIO. QUE 
DIJO EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND  
CUANDO EL OFICIAL UCRANIANO 
HABLÓ DE LA IDEA DE UNA REUNIÓN 
EN LA CASA BLANCA?

English: 
RECALL CORRECTLY. 
>> SHE LEARNED ABOUT IT AFTER 
APRIL 21st, ON THE 24th, IS THAT
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A TELEPHONE 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN DURING
THIS TIME PERIOD IN EARLY MAY?
>> I WAS. 
>> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI HAD PLANNED A TRIP TO 
GO TO UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE 
UKRAINIANS TO INITIATE THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25th
CALL IN THIS TIME PERIOD?
>> I WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS 
TRAVELING THERE AND THAT HE HAD 
BEEN PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> I WANT TO MOVE NOW TO THAT 
JULY 10th MEETING THAT YOU 
REFERENCE, COLONEL VINDMAN.
WHAT EXACTLY DID AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAY WHEN THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS RAISED THE IDEA OF A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING?
>> AS I RECALL, HE REFERRED TO 

Spanish: 
>>  HASTA DONDE RECUERDO 
HHABLABAN DE DOS INVESTIGACIONES
ESPECÍFICAS QUE LOS UCRANIANOS 
TENDRÍAN QUE LLEVAR A CABO PARA 
OBTENER UNA REUNIÓN.
>> QUÉ PASÓ CON LA REUNIÓN MÁS 
GRANDE LUEGO DE SER REFERENCIAS 
DE LA PREGUNTA
>> BOLTON DE MANERA ABRUPTA 
TERMINÓ LA REUNIÓN.
>> TUVO ALGUNA CONVERSACIÓN CON 
EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON?
>> NONO SOBRE LA REUNIÓN.
>> SIGUIÓ EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND 
HACIA LA SALA DE LA GUERRA PARA 
UNA SEGUNDA REUNIÓN.
>>  HUBO UNA OPORTUNIDAD UNA 
FOTOGRAFÍA PARA DEMOSTRAR EL 
APOYO ESTADOUNIDENSE Y DEMOSTRAR
QUE HABÍA UN APOYO A UCRANIA Y A
LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL. DESPUÉS 

English: 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER
IN ORDER TO GET THESE MEETINGS.
>> AND WHAT HAPPENED TO -- 
>> WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BROADER 
MEETING AFTER HE MADE THAT 
REFERENCE?
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE MEETING. 
>> HOW -- DID YOU HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON ABOUT THIS MEETING?
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU FOLLOW AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND THE OTHERS TO THE 
WARD ROOM FOR A MEETING 
FOLLOW-UP?
>> IT WAS A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY 
THAT WE LEVERAGED IN ORDER TO 
DEMONSTRATE U.S. SUPPORT.
SO THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
DEMONSTRATING USE FOR SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE AND TECHNOCRAT AND 
AFTER THAT, WE WENT DOWN TO A 
SHORT POST MEETING DEBRIEF. 
>> WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION THAT IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERENCED 
IN THE LARGER MEETING ALSO 
DISCUSSED IN THE WARD ROOM 

Spanish: 
DE ESO BAJAMOS A UNA POS REUNIÓN
LA INVESTIGACIÓN ESPECÍFICA CON 
EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAN ATAMBIÉN 
PUEDES DISCUTIR EN ESA HA
HABITACIÓN?
>> EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND SE 
REFIRIÓ A LA INVESTIGACIÓN HACIA
LOS BIDEN  EN 2016 YBURSIMA
CÓMO RESPONDIÓ USTED?
>> PEDÍ QUE LLEVÁSEMOS SACADO 
ESTA MANERA APROPIADA, QUE ESTA 
INVESTIGACIÓN ERA INAPROPIADA Y 
QUE NO TENÍA NADA QUE VER CON 
NUESTRA POLÍTICA EXTERIOR.
>> VOLKER ESTABAN ESTA REUNIÓN?
>> NO LO RECUERDO DE MANERA 
ESPECÍFICA. 
>> SE HIZO ESTO FRENTE A LOS 
OFICIALES UCRANIANOS SE 
REPRODUCE
>> CREO QUE HUBO ALGUNA 

English: 
MEETING?
>> THEY WERE. 
>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAY?
>> HE REFERRED TO INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE BIDENS, BURISMA 2016. 
>> HOW DID YOU RESPOND, IF AT 
ALL?
>> I SAID THAT THE REQUESTS TO 
CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY.
>> WAS AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN THIS
MEETING AS WELL?
>> I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.
I BELIEVE HE WAS THERE FOR AT 
LEAST A PORTION OF THE TIME.
I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS THERE 
FOR THAT -- THE WHOLE MEETING.
>> WAS -- WAS THIS STATEMENT 
MADE IN FRONT OF THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS?
>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME 
DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE -- TO 
THE UKRAINIANS LEAVING WHEN IT 
WAS APPARENT THERE WAS DISCORD 
BETWEEN THE SENIOR FOLKS, 

Spanish: 
DISCUSIÓN ANTERIOR A QUE LOS 
UCRANIANOS SE FUERAN, HUBO ALGO 
DE CONVERSACIÓN SOBRE DISTINTOS 
EMPLEADOS Y FUNCIONARIOS CON 
SONDLAND YO MISMO. LA VERDAD QUE
NO RECUERDO SI ESTUVIERON ALLÍ 
TODA LA SESIÓN
>> A QUIÉN SE REFIERE INCLUYE A 
FIONA? 
>> CORRECTO
>> TAMBIÉN OS DE REPORTÓ ESTE 
INCIDENTE A LOS ABOGADOS DE LA 
CASA BLANCA?
>> CUERPO SU RESPUESTA?
>>  ME DIJERON QUE TOMARON NOTAS
MIENTRAS HABLABA Y QUE LO IBA A 
AVERIGUAR.
>> PORQUE HABLÓ DE ESTA REUNIÓN 
A LOS ABOGADOS DE LA CASA BLANCA
SE REHÚSA
>> PORQUE INAPROPIADO LUEGO DE 
LA CONVERSACIÓN Y LA REUNIÓN 
TUVO UNA CONVERSACIÓN CORTA CON 
EL EMBAJADOR GHILL Y HABLAMOS D 

English: 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHER 
WHITE HOUSE STAFF, MYSELF, THEY 
WERE ASKED TO STEP OUT.
SO I DON'T RECALL IF THEY WERE 
THERE FOR THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION.
>> THE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF 
YOU'RE REFERRING TO, DID THAT 
INCLUDE FIONA HILL, YOUR 
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR AT THE 
TIME?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU SAID YOU REPORTED THIS 
INCIDENT TO THE NSC LAWYERS, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?
>> JOHN EISENBERG SAID THAT HE 
 
TOOK NOTES AND WOULD LOOK INTO 
IT. 
>> WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS 
MEETING AND THIS TO THE NSC 
LAWYERS?
>> BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE 
AND FOLLOWING THE MEETING I HAD 
A SHORT CONVERSATION ON THE POST
MEETING MEETING IN THE WARD 
ROOM, HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION 
WITH AMBASSADOR -- CORRECTION --
DR. HILL AND WE DISCUSSED THE 
IDEA OF NEEDING TO REPORT THIS.

Spanish: 
LA IDEA DE REPORTAR ESTO.
>> ENTONCES RECORDÉ LO CORRECTO 
AL ASUMIR QUIENES SE REÚNAN DEL 
10 DE JULIO LOS UCRANIANOS 
ENTENDIERON O POR LO MENOS 
ESCUCHARON QUE LA OFICINA OVAL Y
LA REUNIÓN QUE QUERÍAN ESTABA 
CONDICIONADA EN ESTA INV
INVESTIGACIÓN ESPECÍFICA SOBRE 
LA EMPRESA UCRANIANA Y LA 
ELECCIÓN DE 2016?
>> ESTA FUE LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE 
SUBE DE QUE SE LES HABLÓ DE 
MANERA DIRECTA A LOS UCRANIANOS 
DE ESA FORMA.
>>  Y ESO VINCULA DIRECTAMENTE 
EN LA REUNIÓN EN LA CASA BLANCA 
CON LA INVESTIGACIÓN?
>> CORRECTO
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS, USTEDES 
TESTIFICÓ QUE FUE A LA REUNIÓN 
DE EL 10 DE SEPTIEMBRE ENTRE EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP Y 
ZELENSKI
CORRECTO
QUÉ FUE LO PRIMERO QUE PRESIENTE

English: 
>> SO AM I CORRECT COLONEL 
VINDMAN THAT AT LEAST NO LATER 
THAN THAT JULY 10th MEETING, THE
UKRAINIANS HAD UNDERSTOOD OR AT 
LEAST HEARD THAT THE OVAL OFFICE
MEETING THAT THEY SO DESPERATELY
WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS
AWARE OF THE UKRAINIANS BEING 
APPROACHED DIRECTLY BY A 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.
>> AND DIRECTLY LINKING THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> CORRECT.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT 
THAT YOU ATTENDED THE SEPTEMBER 
1st MEETING BETWEEN VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE ABOUT AT THAT 
MEETING?

English: 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE STATUS 
OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR 
UKRAINE BECAUSE HE HAD SEEN THE 
POLITICO ARTICLE AND OTHER NEWS 
REPORTING THAT THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD.
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT IN THAT 
CONVERSATION PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
EMPHASIZED THAT THE MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS NOT JUST 
IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE IN 
FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, 
BUT THAT IT WAS ALSO SYMBOLIC IN
NATURE.
WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO 
MEAN BY THAT?
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED 
THAT MORE THAN -- EQUALLY WITH 
THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL VALUE
OF THE ASSISTANCE THAT IT WAS 
THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THAT 
ASSISTANCE THAT REALLY WAS THE 
SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE
AND FOR UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY 
AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.
HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TO REALLY 
UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR THE 

Spanish: 
ZELENSKI LE PREGUNTÓ A PENS EN 
ESA REUNIÓN?
>> LE PREGUNTÓ AL VICEPRESIDENTE
SOBRE EN LA AYUDA MILITAR AL 
PAÍS PORQUE LOS INFORMES DECÍAN 
QUE ESTABA HACIENDO RETENÍA 
CIERTO.
>> Y USTEDES TESTIFICÓ QUE EN 
ESA CONVERSACIÓN EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI ENFATIZÓ QUE EL SISTEMA
DE SEGURIDAD MILITAR NO ES UN 
IMPORTANTE  PARA AYUDAR A 
UCRANIA EN LUCHAR ESTA GUERRA 
O
CONTRA RUSIA SINO QUE TAMBIÉN 
ERA SIMBÓLICA EN SU NATURALEZA. 
QUÉ ENTIENDE USTED CON ESO?
>> EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI 
EXPRESÓ QUE ES IGUAL DE 
IMPORTANTE CON EL VALOR 
ECONÓMICO Y EL VALOR MILITAR 
ESTÁ LA ASISTENCIA SIMBÓLICA  
QUE MUESTRA EL APOYO ESTADOS 

English: 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE 
RELEASED.
>> AND THAT IF THE UNITED STATES
WAS HOLDING THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, IS IT ALSO TRUE THEN
THAT RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT AS A 
SIGN OF WEAKENING U.S. SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE 
OF THAT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
INDICATING, THAT ANY SIGNAL OR 
SIGN THAT U.S. SUPPORT WAS 
WAVERING WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY 
RUSSIA AS POTENTIALLY AN 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO 
STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN HAND IN 
UKRAINE. 
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT 
MEETING?
>> VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON 
BEHIND THE HOLD BUT HE DID 
REASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
THE STRONGEST U.S. UNWAVERING 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THEY 
TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR 
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO STEP UP 
AND PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE TO 

Spanish: 
UNIDOS POR UCRANIA  Y EN SU 
SOBERANÍA E INTEGRIDAD 
TERRITORIAL. Y LO ESTRESÓ AL 
VICEPRESIDENTE PARA QUE DE 
VERDAD QUEDASE CLARA LA 
NECESIDAD DE QUE SE LES 
ENTREGASE ESTA AYUDA.
>> Y ESTADOS UNIDOS RETENÍA LAS 
LICENCIAS DE SEGURIDAD, ES 
TAMBIÉN CIERTO QUE RUSIA LO VE 
COMO UNA DEBILIDAD ESTA UNIÓN 
PUEDE TOMARLE VENTAJA ELLOS?
>> CUALQUIER SEÑAL DE QUE EL 
APOYO ESTADOUNIDENSE ESTABA 
CAYENDO SERÍA USADO POR RUSIA 
COMO UNA OPORTUNIDAD  PARA PONER
SU MANO EN UCRANIA
>> EL VICEPRESIDENTE DIO ALGUNA 
RAZÓN PARA LA RETENCIÓN DE LOS 
FONDOS EN ESA REUNIÓN
>> NO SE DISCUTIÓ DE MANERA 
ESPECÍFICA LA RAZÓN. PERO SIN 
ASEGURÓ EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI 
EL APOYO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS A 
UCRANIA Y LA NECESIDAD DE QUE 

Spanish: 
LOS PAÍSES EUROPEOS TAMBIÉN 
AYUDASEN.
>> EL VICEPRESIDENTE SE REPORTÓ 
DESPUÉS CON EL PRESIDENTE DONALD
TRUMP?
>>  DE HECHO LE DIJO AL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI QUE HABLARÍA
CON EL DENTRO DE ESA TARDE Y LE 
DIRÍA LO QUE ESCUCHO DE ZELENSKI
EN CUANTO A SUS ESFUERZOS PARA 
IMPLEMENTAR LA REFORMA EN 
UCRANIA SÉ QUE EL VICEPRESIDENTE
HABLÓ DE LA CONVERSACIÓN
>>> SABE TAMBIÉN QUE LA 
SEGURIDAD NO FUE LEVANTADA HASTA
DESPUÉS DE 10 DÍAS DE ESA 
REUNIÓN.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> TAMPOCO SABE POR QUÉ SE L
A
LEVANTÓ LA AYUDA .
>>> NO NO LO SÉ.
>>> CORONEL, USTED TAMPOCO SABE 

English: 
UKRAINE AS WELL.
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
REPORT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ON THAT MEETING TO YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE?
>> VICE PRESIDENT CONVEYED TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD
FOLLOW-UP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THAT EVENING AND CONVEY TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT HE HAD 
HEARD FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WITH REGARD TO HIS EFFORTS TO 
IMPLEMENT REFORMS IN UKRAINE.
I AM AWARE THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT SPOKE TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT EVENING, BUT I WAS 
NOT PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION. 
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE, HOWEVER, 
THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HOLD WAS NOT LIFTED FOR ANOTHER 
TEN DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND AM I CORRECT THAT YOU 
DIDN'T LEARN THE REASON WHY THE 
HOLD WAS LIFTED?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU DIDN'T 
LEARN A REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU 
AWARE THAT THE COMMITTEES 
LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE UKRAINE MATTERS SEPTEMBER 
9th, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HOLD 

English: 
WAS LIFTED?
>> I AM AWARE AND I WAS AWARE. 
>> ON SEPTEMBER 10th, THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REQUESTED
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS AWARE 
OF THAT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THIS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT PRIOR 
TO THAT DATE?
>> THE FIRST I HEARD OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS I 
BELIEVE WHEN THE NEWS BROKE.
I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE 
COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
>> SO IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY, 
COLONEL VINDMAN THAT WHATEVER 
REASON THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE
HOLD, INCLUDING THE 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, WHICH 
WOULD -- WELL, WHICH WOULD 
SUPPORT THE HOLD, WOULD SUPPORT 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT
RIGHT, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND. 
>> I WAS ASKING THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES OF 

Spanish: 
.
>>> NO TAMPOCO SÉ.
>>> EL 10 DE SEPTIEMBRE EL 
COMITÉ DE SEGURIDAD PIDIÓ AL 
DENUNCIANTE QUE DIJERA LO QUE 
SABÍA.
>>> NO SABÍA ESO .
>>> LA CASA BLANCA SABÍA ESO 
ANTES DE ESTE DÍA.
>>>  YO SÓLO SUPE DE ESE 
DENUNCIANTE CUANDO APARECIÓ EN 
LAS NOTICIAS..
>>> ENTONCES ESSE PUEDE DECIR Q 
LA RAZÓN QUE SE DIO PARA 
CONGELAR, QQUE APOYARÍA LA CITA 

Spanish: 
ENCÍA, ÉL ES LO QUE USTED DICE?
>>>  NO ENTIENDO LO QUE ME ESTÁ 
PREGUNTANDO.
>>> ME ESTÁ DICIENDO QUE QUERÍAN
CONGELAR LA AYUDA PARA UCRANIA.
>>> AHORA EL SEÑOR NÚÑEZ PUEDE 
HABLAR DURANTE 25 MINU5 45 MIN
>>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS, USTED HA 
PASADO MUCHO TIEMPO EN EL CASO 
DE UCRANIA?. CORRECTO
>>> UCRANIA ES PARTE DE NUESTRO 

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTED THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT 
YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> SO THE INTERAGENCY POLICY WAS
TO SUPPORT ASSISTANCE FOR 
UKRAINE. 
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> NOW, RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER
NUNES. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, WELCOME.
I WANT TO ESTABLISH A FEW BASIC 
FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
UKRAINE, BURISMA AND THE ROLE OF
THE BIDENS.
YOU SPEND A EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT
OF YOUR TIME ON UKRAINE, 
CORRECT?
>> UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE 
COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO.
I WOULD NOT SAY AN EXTRAORDINARY
AMOUNT OF TIME.
BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS 
ENGAGED ON THIS IN MY EIGHT 
MONTHS. 
>> IT'S IN YOUR PORTFOLIO?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> FIRST OFF, WERE YOU AWARE IN 

Spanish: 
PORTAFOLIO.
>>> USTED SABÍA EL SEPTIEMBRE DE
2015 QUE EL EMBAJADOR DE ESA 
ÉPOCA FUE LLAMADO A UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN, EL PRESIDENTE  DE
BURISMA.
>>>  AHORA LO SÉ..
>>> USTÉ CONOCE A UN CONSULTOR 
QUE APARECE EN LOS ARCHIVOS?
>>> NO NO LO CONOZCO .
>>> USTÉ SABÍA QUE ALGUNAS 
PREGUNTAS RESPECTÓ LA EMPRESA 
U
BURIS,MA?
>>>  NO LO SABÍA, ME ENTERÉ 

English: 
SEPTEMBER OF 2015 THEN U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, PUBLICLY 
CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO
THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA, WERE 
YOU AWARE OF THE PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS?
>> NO, NOT AT THE TIME. 
>> YOU ARE TODAY, THOUGH?
>> I HAVE SINCE HEARD THEM, YES.
>> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP 
EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS AS WELL AS ALEXANDER 
CHALUPA, DNC CONSULTANT?
>> NO I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT SECRETARY 
OF STATE KENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
INTO HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE
BOARD OF BURISMA?
>> I DID NOT WORK ON UKRAINE 
POLICY DURING THAT TIME FRAME.
I'VE BECOME AWARE OF IT 
THROUGH -- 
>> IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO?
>> I'VE BECOME AWARE OF IT 
THROUGH MR. KENT'S TESTIMONY, 
THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL 
RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL
GAS COMPANY ROUTED $3 MILLION 
THROUGH AMERICAN ACCOUNTS TIED 

English: 
TO HUNTER BIDEN?
>> I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> UNTIL -- 
>> UNTIL -- 
>> YOU PREPARED FOR THIS 
HEARING?
>> UNTIL OTHERS HAVE BEEN 
TESTIFYING IN MORE DETAIL ON THE
ISSUES. 
>> YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT MORE
CLOSELY?
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S 
AMERICAN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 
MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF 
PROSECUTOR?
>> AGAIN, SIR, I WAS NOT WORKING
ON THAT POLICY DURING THAT TIME.
>> THESE ARE NOT TRICK 
QUESTIONS.
I'M. 
>> I UNDERSTAND. 
>> THEY PRESSURED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 
AFTER THE RAID AND MONTH BEFORE 
THE FIRING OF SHOW CAN AND THAT 
THEY INVOEBLGD HUNTER BIDEN'S 
NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE?
>> I WAS NOT AWARE. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN 
CALLED YU YAN CRAN PRESIDENT 
THREE TIMES IN FEBRUARY 2016 
AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S HOME WAS 
RAIDED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR'S

Spanish: 
DURANTE LAS AUDIENCIAS .
>>> SABÍA QUE Y DINEROS 
ASOCIADOS A HUNTER BIDEN?
>>> NO NO LO SABÍA, HASTA QUE 
OTROS EMPEZARON A TESTIFICAR EN 
LAS AUDIENCIAS .
>>> SABÍA QUE LOS OFICIALES DE 
ESA EMPRESA SE REUNIERON ANTES 
DE QUE DESPIDIERAN A UN MIEMBRO 
DEL EQUIPO.
>>> DISCULPE PERO YO NO ESTABA 
DURANTE ESA ÉPOCA .
>>> SABÍA QUE HUBO PRESIÓN LUEGO
DE LA REDADA Y QUE INVOCARON EL 
NOMBRE DE HUNTER BIDEN PARA 

Spanish: 
INTERVENIR?
>>> NO LO SABÍA.
>>> SABÍA QUE NOMBRARON VARIAS 
PERSONAS DURANTE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN?
>>> NO, LE DIJE  ME ENTERÉ A 
TRAVÉS DE LAS AUDIENCIAS .
>>> SÓLO QUERÍA ESTABLECER 
ALGUNOS HECHOS ACERCAR DE LO QUE
SABE DE UCRANIA,BURISMA, Y EL 
ROL DE LOS BIDEN.
CORONEL, USTED SABÍA DE ESTOS 
HECHOS?
>>> NO LO SABÍA, ME HE ENTERADO 
LUEGO DE QUE ESTA AUDIENCIA 
COMENZÓ  .
>>> USTED SABE DE QUE HAYA 
ALGUNOS ESFUERZOS EN CONTRA DEL 
SEÑOR TRUMP?

English: 
OFFICE THERE?
>> I'VE BECOME AWARE OF THAT 
THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING.
>> THANK YOU.
MS. WILLIAMS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I'LL
ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS TO 
ESTABLISH BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE, BURISMA
AND THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS.
IN SEPTEMBER 2015, U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, JEFFREY 
PYATT CALLED FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT
OF BURISMA.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THE PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS?
>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THEM AT THE
TIME. 
>> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF 
THEM?
>> DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
TESTIMONY AND THE DEPOSITIONS 
AFTER THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
BEGAN. 
>> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP 
EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS WELL AS 
ALEXANDER CHALUPA, A D AND C 
CONSULTANT. 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE
INTERFERENCE EFFORTS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 

English: 
KENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HUNTER
BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA?
>> ONLY THING I'M AWARE OF IS 
PERTAINS TO HIS DEPOSITION. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL 
RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL
GOES COMPANY ROUTED MORE THAN $3
MILLION TO THE AMERICAN ACCOUNTS
TIED TO HUNTER BIDEN?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS FACT. 
>> UNTIL RECENTLY?
>> I GUESS I DIDN'T 
INDEPENDENTLY LOOK INTO IT.
I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF WHAT KIND 
OF PAYMENTS MR. BIDEN MAY 
HAVE -- THIS IS NOT SOMETHING 
I'M AWARE OF. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S 
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DAYS AFTER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE 
FIRING OF THE COUNTRY'S CHIEF 
PROSECUTOR?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THESE 
MEETINGS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA 
LAWYERS PRESSURED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 
AFTER THE RAID AND A MONTH 
BEFORE THE FIRING OF SHOEK AN 

Spanish: 
>>> NO CONOZCO O NINGUNO DE 
ESTOS ESFUERZOS.
>>>  USTEDES SABÍA QUE EL SEÑOR 
QU
KENT ESTABA PREOCUPADO DE 
ALGUNOS CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES 
RELACIONADOS CON LOS BIDEN.
>>>  NO NO LO SABÍAS.
>>> NO SE HABÍA LOS DINEROS QUE 
LOS BIDEN PODRÍAN HABER RECIBIDO
.
>>> SABÍA USTED DE ALGUNAS 

Spanish: 
REUNIONES LLEVARON AL DESPIDO 
DEL FISCAL GENERAL?
>>> NO SÉ NADA DE ESOS HECHOS .
>>> USTÉ SABÍA QUE LOS BIDEN 
LLAMARON A AL PRESIDENTE DE  
UCRANIA VEZ ENTONCES?
>>> YO SABÍA QUE EL 
VICEPREVICEPRXVICEPRESIDENTE BI 
INVOLUCRADO CON EL ENTONCES 
PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA.
>>> SE HAN REALIZADO VARIAS 
INVESTIGACIONES RELACIONADAS CON

English: 
THAT THEY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN'S
NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE?
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OF 
THESE FACTS. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN 
CALLED YU YAN CRAN PRESIDENT 
POUR CHENG OWE THREE TEAMS IN 
FEBRUARY OF 2016 AFTERBURISMA'S
HOME WAS RAIDED BY THE STATE 
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE?
>> I'M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT 
PRESIDENT -- VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN WAS VERY ENGAGED ON 
UKRAINE AND HAD NUMEROUS 
ENGAGEMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M AWARE OF.
>> MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, AS YOU MAY OR 
MAY NOT KNOW, THIS COMMITTEE 
SPENT NEARLY THREE YEARS 
CONDUCTING VARIOUS 
INVESTIGATIONS STARTING WITH THE
RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX, ABUSE, 
DEMOCRATIC HYSTERIA OVER THE 
LACK OF COLLUSION IN THE MUELLER
REPORT AND NOW THIS IMPEACHMENT 
CHARADE.
ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING 
THINGS REGARDING ALL OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS IS THE AMOUNT OF 
CLASSIFIED OR OTHERWISE 
SENSITIVE INFORMATION I READ IN 

Spanish: 
LA FARSA DE LOS BIDEN, EL IN
M
INFORME DE MÜLLER Y AHORA CON 
ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN.. AHÍ MUCHA
I
INFORMACIÓN CLASIFICADA EN LA 
PRENSA QUE HA SIDO ENTREGADA POR
ESTE COMITÉ O PARTE DE LA 
ADMINISTRACIÓN. NO ESTOY 
ACUSÁNDOLOS DE FILTRAR 
INFORMACIÓN, USTEDES SABEN DE 
PRIMERA MANO LO QUE OCURRIÓ EL 
25 DE JULIO. ES IMPORTANTE QUE 
EL PÚBLICO SEPA LO QUE OCURRIÓ 
CON SEAN SEÑORA WILLIAMS DÉJEME 
HABLAR CON USTED PRIMERO.
PARA EL PROPÓSITO DE LAS 
PREGUNTAS SÓLO PREGUNTARÉ POR UN
PERÍODO QUE OCURRIÓ ENTRE EL 25 
DE JULIO HASTA EL 25 DE 
SEPTIEMBRE.
DISCUTIÓ LA CONVERSACIÓN DEL 25 
DE JULIO CON MIEMBROS DE LA 

English: 
THE PRESS THAT DERIVE EITHER 
FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR SOURCES 
IN THE ADMINISTRATION.
TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT ACCUSING 
EITHER ONE OF YOU OF LEAKING 
INFORMATION.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT YOU ARE THE 
FIRST WITNESSES WHO ACTUALLY 
HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL BY LISTENING IN
ON JULY 25th, IT'S IMPERATIVE TO
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT
WE GET A QUICK MATTERS OUT OF 
THE WAY FIRST.
MS. WILLIAMS, LET ME GO TO YOU 
FIRST.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, I'M ONLY 
ASKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD 
BETWEEN JULY 25th TO SEPTEMBER 
25th.
>> OKAY. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR 
ANY MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBERS OF 
THE PRESS?
>> NO.
>> TO BE CLEAR, YOU NEVER 
DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS WITH 
"THE NEW YORK TIMES," THE 

Spanish: 
PRENSA?
>>> NO.
>>> NO COMEN TODO ESTO CON 
NINGÚN PERIÓDICO O CANAL DE 
TELEVISIÓN?
>>> NO.
>>> NO COMENTÓ ESTO CON NINGÚN 
MIEMBRO DE LA PRENSA?
>>> NO LO HICE .
>>> HABLÓ CON MIEMBROS DE LA 
PRENSA RESPECTO LA CONVERSACIÓN 
DEL 25 DE JULIO?
>>> NO NO LO HICE .
>>> USTED CORONEL, DISCUTIÓ LA 
CONVERSACIÓN DEL 25 DE JULIO CON
MIEMBROS DE LA PRENSA?
>>> NO LO HICE.
>>> PARA SER CLAROS USTED NO 

English: 
"WASHINGTON POST," POLITICO, CNN
OR ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET?
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY 
INDIVIDUAL TO SHARE THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF
THE PRESS?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL OR 
MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL 
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?
>> NO, I DO NOT. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR 
ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF 
THE PRESS?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DID NOT
DISCUSS THIS WITH "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES," THE "WASHINGTON POS," 
POLITICO, CNN OR ANY OTHER MEDIA
OUTLET?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY 
INDIVIDUAL STO SHARE THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE
CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED 

English: 
WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF
THE PRESS?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY 
MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL 
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?
>> WE HAVE AN NIC PRESS SHOP AND
THEY FIELD ANY OF THESE TYPES OF
QUESTIONS.
I DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE PRESS 
AT ALL.
>> LET ME ASK THE QUESTION 
AGAIN.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL 
WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY 
MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL 
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?
>> WE HAVE AN NCS PRESS SHOP 
WHOSE JOB IS TO ENGAGE ON ANY OF
THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.
I AM NOT AWARE OF BUT IT IS 
POSSIBLE AND LIKELY THAT THE 
PRESS SHOP WOULD HAVE HAD -- 
WOULD FIELD THESE TYPES OF 
QUESTIONS. 
>> THE QUESTION -- 
>> THE QUESTION IS DO YOU KNOW 
ANY INDIVIDUAL, DO YOU 
PERSONALLY KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL 
WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF 
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY 
MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL 

Spanish: 
OCURRIÓ ESTO CON UN PERIÓDICO O 
CANAL DE TELEVISIÓN?
>>> SONORNO LO HICE .
>>> SABE A ALGUIEN QUE HAYA 
DISCUTIDO ASUNTOS DEL 25 DE 
SEPTIEMBRE CON LA PRENSA?
>>> ELLOS TIENEN DEPARTAMENTO DE
PRENSA QUE SELLA ESTOS TEMAS .
>>> USTÉ CONOCE ALGUNA PERSONA 
QUE HAYA DISCUTIDO EL LLAMADO 
DEL 25 DE TJULIO?
>>> TENEMOS UNA  DEPARTAMENTO DE
PRENSA QUE QUIZÁS PODRÍA HABER 
MENCIONADO EL TEMA.
>>> LA PREGUNTA ES USTED 
PERSONALMENTE CONOCE ALGÚN 

English: 
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS?
>> THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER FOR
CLARIFYING.
I DO NOT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU DISCUSS
JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE
OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 
25th OR JULY 26th AND IF SO WITH
WHOM?
>> NO, I DID NOT DISCUSS THE 
CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OR 
INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> MS. MILL YAMS, DURING YOUR 
TIME ON THE NSC, HAVE YOU EVER 
ACCESSED A COLLEAGUE'S WORK 
COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR 
AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL?
>> I HAVE NOT.
I'M IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
NOT ON THE NSC. 
>> RIGHT.
BUT REPRESENTING -- 
>> NO, I HAVE NOT. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT 
CLARIFICATION.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, DID 
YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE THE 
WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25th OR THE 
26th AND IF SO, WITH WHOM?
>> YES.
I DID.
MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO 

Spanish: 
INDIVIDUO QUE HAYA DISCUTIDO 
ASUNTOS DE LA LLAMADA DEL 25 DE 
JULIO CON MIEMBROS DE LA PRENSA?
>>> NO.
>>> SEÑORA WILLIAM USTED D
DISCUTIÓ LA LLAMADA DEL 25 DE 
JULIO CON ALGUIEN FUERA DE LA 
CASA BLANCA?
>>> NO NO LO DISCUTIR CON NADIE 
NI DENTRO NI FUERA DE LA CASA 
BLANCA.
>>> USTÉ ACCEDIÓ A COMPUTADOR DE
UN COLEGA SIN SU AUTORIZACIÓN?
>>> NO NO LO HE HECHO.
>>> USTEDES CORONEL, CONVERSÓ DE
LA LLAMADA DEL 25 DE JULIO O 26 

Spanish: 
DE JULIO  CON ALGUNA OTRA 
PERSONA?
>>> SÍ HABLÉ CON DOS INDIVIDUOS 
QUE NO ESTABAN EN LA CASA BLANCA
PERO SON OFICIALES CON 
AUTORIZACIÓN.
>>> QUÉ AGENCIAS?
>>> EL DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTADO, 
GEORGE QKENT, UN INDIVIDUO DE L 
COMUNIDAD DE INTELIGENCIA.
>>> HAY 17 AGENCIAS, DE QUÉ 

English: 
COORDINATE U.S. GOVERNMENT 
POLICY, INTERAGENCY POLICY.
I SPOKE TO TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH 
REGARDS TO PROVIDING SOME SORT 
OF READOUT. 
>> TO INDIVIDUAL THAT WERE NOT 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
CLEARED U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS WITH APPROPRIATE NEED 
TO KNOW. 
>> WHAT AGENCIES WERE THESE 
OFFICIALS WITH?
>> DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPUTY SIS 
STANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT WHO 
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTFOLIO
EASTERN EUROPE, INCLUDING 
UKRAINE AND AN INDIVIDUAL FROM 
THE OFFICE OF INDIVIDUAL 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 
>> AS YOU KNOW, THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY HAS 17 DIFFERENT 
AGENCIES.
WHAT AGENCY WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL 
FROM?
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE.
WE DON'T WANT TO USE THE 
PROCEEDINGS -- 
>> IT'S OUR TIME. 
>> BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER. 

Spanish: 
AGENCIA?
>>> TENEMOS QUE IDENTPROTEGER A 
DENUNCIANTE. TENEMOS QUE 
ASEGURARNOS DE QUE NO SE REVELE 
LA IDENTIDAD DEL DENUNCIANTE, LE
RECOMIENDO AL TESTIGO QUE NO 
RESPONDE LA PREGUNTA.
>>> USTED DIJO QUE NO CONOCÍA AL
DENUNCIANTE. , CORONEL CORONEL, 
ATESTIGUÓ QUE NO CONOCE QUIÉN ES
EL DENUNCIANTE.

English: 
>> PLEASE STOP -- 
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THERE'S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER THROUGH THESE 
PROCEEDINGS.
IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH 
BELIEF THAT THIS MAY REVEAL THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, 
THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT 
WE'RE HERE FOR AND I WANT TO 
ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY. 
>> MR. VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN
YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT
KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
>> RANKING MEMBER, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, PLEASE. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU TESTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION 
THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS.
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS. 
>> HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO
NAME THESE PEOPLE AND THEN OUT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER?
>> PER THE ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL,
I'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO ANSWER 
A SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT 
MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE 

Spanish: 
>>> NO LO CONOZCO .
>>> MI ABOGADO ME DIJO QUE NO 
DEBO RESPONDER RESPUESTAS 
ESPECÍFICAS MAACERCA DE L COMIÉE
INTELIGENCIA .
>>> NO SERÍA CONVENIENTE 
HABLARLO CON ALGUIEN DEL COMITÉ 
DE INTELIGENCIA?
>>>  ME HAN ACONSEJADO NO PRO DE
VER  NADA ESPECÍFICO, LO QUE 
PUEDO DECIR ES QUE ESTOS 
INDIVIDUOS TIENEN LA 
AUTORIZACIÓN NECESARIA PARA S
E
SABER ESTE TIPO DE TEMAS.
>>> USTED PUEDE APELAR A LA 
QUINTA ENMIENDA, PERO ESTÁ AQUÍ 

English: 
COMMUNITY.
>> THIS IS -- ARE YOU AWARE THAT
THIS IS THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE THAT'S CONDUCTING THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARING?
>> OF COURSE I AM. 
>> WOULDN'T THE APPROPRIATE 
PLACE FOR YOU TO COME TO, TO 
TESTIFY WOULD BE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ABOUT 
SOMEONE WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY?
>> RANKING MEMBER, PER THE 
ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL AND THE 
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, 
I'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE
ANY SPECIFICS ON WHO I HAVE 
SPOKEN TO WITH INSIDE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
WHAT I CAN OFFER, THESE WERE 
PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUALS OR 
WAS A PROPERLY CLEARED 
INDIVIDUAL WITH A NEED TO KNOW.
>> WELL, THIS IS -- YOU CAN 
REALLY PLEAD THE FIFTH.
BUT YOU'RE HERE TO ANSWER 
QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE HERE UNDER 
SUBPOENA.
SO YOU CAN EITHER ANSWER THE 
QUESTION OR PLEAD THE FIFTH.
>> EXCUSE ME.
ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, WE'RE 
FOLLOWING THE RULE OF THE 

Spanish: 
PARA RESPONDER PREGUNTAS.
>>> DISCULPE, DE PARTE DE MI 
CLIENTE,  ESTAMOS SIGUIENDO LAS 
LEYES DE ESTE LUGAR, NO 
NECESITAMOS RESPONDER  PREGUNTAS
QUE NECESITEN INVOCAR  A LA 
QUINTA ENMIENDA  .
>>> EL DENUNCIANTE TIENE DERECHO
A SWAN UNIDADU ANONIMATO, NO VA 
RESPONDER PREGUNTAS  QUE REVELEN
SU IDENTIDAD .
>>> NOSOTROS HEMOS QUERIDO SABER
QUIÉN ES EL DENUNCIANTE Y CI

English: 
COMMITTEE.
THE RULE OF THE CHAIR WITH 
REGARD TO THIS ISSUE AND THIS IS
NOT CALL FOR AN ANSWER INVOING 
THE FIFTH OR ANY THEORETICAL 
ISSUE LIKE THAT.
WE'RE FOLLOWING THE RULING OF 
THE CHAIR. 
>> COUNSELOR, WHAT RULING IS 
THAT?
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT, COUNSEL
IS CORRECT.
WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS THE STATUTORY
RIGHT TO ANONYMITY.
THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE 
USED TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
>> I'VE ADVISED MY CLIENT 
ACCORDINGLY.
HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULING 
OF THE CHAIR.
IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE OR YOU
WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH 
THE CHAIR, THAT'S UP TO YOU. 
>> WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SIT FOR A 
DEPOSITION.
THE CHAIR HAS TABLED THAT 
MOTION.
AND HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO 
RECOGNIZE THOSE MOTIONS OVER THE
LAST FEW DAYS OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUISITION PROCESS.
I'LL GO TO MR. CASTER.

Spanish: 
CITARLO, LE DOY LA PALABRA EL 
SEÑOR CASTRO .
>>>  LO QUE SE TRANSFIRIÓ EL 25 
DE SEPTIEMBRE ES PRECISO, O NO 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS?
>>> LO REVISÉ PALABRA POR 
PALABRA PERO PARECE CORRECTO .
>>> SEÑOR CORONEL?
>>>  SÍ YO TAMBIÉN CREO QUE ES 
BASTANTE PRECISO .
>>> CREO QUE BURISMA APARECE EN 
LA PÁGINA CUATRO CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI LO NOMBRA.
>>> PODRÍA REPETIR LA PREGUNTA .

English: 
>> THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES. 
>> THE TRANSCRIPT AS PUBLISHED 
ON SEPTEMBER 25th IS COMPLETE 
AND ACCURATE, WILL YOU BOTH 
ATTEST TO THAT, MS. WILLIAMS?
>> I DIDN'T TAKE A WORD FOR WORD
ACCOUNTING WHEN I FIRST SAW THE 
PUBLICLY RELEASED VERSION, IT 
LOOKED SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT TO 
ME. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN. 
>> I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS 
SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT. 
>> I THINK IN YOUR TESTIMONY, 
YOU SAID VERY ACCURATE. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU FLAGGED A COUPLE EDITS, 
COLONEL VINDMAN.
I THINK YOU HAD BURISMA ON PAGE 
4. 
>> YES. 
>> WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
TALKING ABOUT THE COMPANY 
MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE?
>> I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU SAY THAT QUESTION 
AGAIN?
>> YOU OFFERED AN EDIT THAT ON 
PAGE 4 OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT 
WAS ULTIMATELY PUBLISHED, YOU 
THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
MENTIONED THE WORD BURISMA. 
>> I HAD IT IN MY NOTES.
I KNOW THAT'S WHAT HE SAID, 
YEAH. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS -- THAT WAS ON 

Spanish: 
>>> USTED PENSÓ QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI HABÍA 
MENCIONADO LA PALABRA BURISMA.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> SEÑORA  WILLIAMS, USTEDES 
TAMBIÉN ESCUCHÓ QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI HABÍA 
NOMBRADO ES EMPRESA  .
>>>PERO ESOPER APARECIÓ EN O
A
PÁGINA?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> LA PREGUNTA ERA SI EL SEÑOR 

English: 
PAGE 4?
>> CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER YOUR 
DEPOSITION, YOU CHECKED YOUR 
NOTES AND YOU HAD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY USING THE TERM BURISMA 
AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> BUT THAT CAME UP ON A 
DIFFERENT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT
THAN WHAT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS 
RELATING TO, CORRECT?
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO. 
>> YOURS CAME UP ON PAGE 5 AND 
IT WAS IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE 
WORD CASE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S WHERE I HAVE IT IN MY 
NOTES. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, WE'VE HAD 
SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY 
AND ALSO YOUR DEPP STIGS ABOUT 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD A 
DEMAND FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
YOU KNOW, I SUGGESTED TO YOU IN 
THE DEPOSITION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S WORDS ARE, IN FACT, 
AMBIGUOUS AND HE USES SOME 
PHRASES THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE 
CHARACTERIZED AS HEDGING ON PAGE
3 IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, HE 
TALKS ABOUT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO,

English: 
HE TALKS ABOUT IF THAT'S 
POSSIBLE, ON PAGE 4, HE MENTIONS
IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO HIM, HE 
TALKS ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OR RUDY GIULIANI.
AND THEN AT THE END OF THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 4, HE SAYS 
WHATEVER YOU CAN DO.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO SAYS YOU 
KNOW, IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT 
AND I ASKED YOU DURING YOUR 
DEPOSITION WHETHER YOU SAW OR 
ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT 
CERTAIN PEOPLE COULD READ THAT 
TO BE AMBIGUOUS. 
>> I SAID CORRECT. 
>> PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY
HAVE ALREADY PRECONCEIVED, IS 
THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED?
>> ACTUALLY, IF I COULD ASK FOR 
A PAGE CITE. 
>> 256.
>> 256.
AND A LINE?
JUST A MINUTE.
>> WE GOT THE PAGE. 
>> OKAY.
THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY, YEAH.
YOU AGREED WITH ME.
SAID I GUESS YOU COULD INTERPRET
IT DIFFERENT WAYS.

Spanish: 
TRUMP ESTABA SIENDO AMBIGUO, UÓO
ALGUNAS FRASES QUE SE PODRÍAN 
CARACTERIZAR COMO POCO CLARAS. 
EN LA PÁGINA CUATRO MENCIONAN SI
PODÍA HABLAR CON USTED O RUDY 
GIULIANI. EN OTRA PALABRA DICE 
LO QUE SE PUEDE HACER... LE 
PREGUNTÉ SI USTED VIO QUÉ OTRAS 
PERSONAS PODRÍAN PENSAR QUE ERA 
AMBIGUO?
>>> ASÍ ES..
>>>  QUE LAS PERSONAS PODRÍAN 
PENSAR QUE ERA LO QUE TENÍAN 
PENSADO CON ANTERIORIDAD?
>>> QUÉ PÁGINAS?
>>> 256.

English: 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
TURNING ATTENTION TO THE 
PREPARATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, 
THAT FOLLOWED THE ORDINARY 
PROCESS, CORRECT?
>> SO I THINK IT FOLLOWED THE 
APPROPRIATE PROCESS IN TERMS OF 
MAKING SURE THAT EVENTUALLY IT 
CAME AROUND FOR CLEARANCES FOR 
ACCURACY, BUT IT WAS IN A 
DIFFERENT SYSTEM.
SO -- 
>> I'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND.
THAT RELATES TO THE STORAGE OF 
IT.
YOU HAD CONCERNS, MR. MORRISON 
ARTICULATED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT 
IF THE TRANSCRIPT WAS LEAKED OUT
AND I THINK BOTH YOU AND MR. 
MORRISON AGREED IT NEEDED TO BE 
PROTECTED?
>> IN THE INTEREST OF 
CORRECTION, I DON'T THINK IT WAS
MR. MORRISON.
IT WAS MR. EISENBERG, RIGHT?
>> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED AT HIS
DEPOSITION -- 
>> OKAY.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF 
US.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US THAT, WE'LL 
TAKE A LOOK. 

Spanish: 
>>> Y LUEGO USTED DIJO SÍ QUIZÁS
SE PUEDE INTERPRETAR DE MANERAS 
DIFERENTES?
>>> SÍ .
>>> LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN SIGUE UN 
PROCESO APROPIADOS? CAPILLA
>>> ESTABA EN UN SISTEMA 
DIFERENTE.
>>> VAYA ENTONCES DEPENDE DE 
DONDE ESTÁN SIENDO ALMACENADOS?
>>> ASÍ ES..
>>> CREO QUE USTED PENSÓ QUE 
DEBÍA ESTAR PROTEGIDO?

Spanish: 
>>> NO TENEMOS LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN 
FRENTE A NOSOTROS. PERO PODRÍA 
DECIR QUE ESTÁBAMOS PREOCUPADOS 
DE ALGUNAS FILTRACIONES. PEN
O
PENSAMOS QUE ERA UN TEMA 
CONFIDENCIAL.
>>> USTÉ TENÍA ACCESO AL 
SERVIDOR?
>>>  SÍ.
>>> A USTED NO SE LE NEGÓ EL 
ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN?
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS, GUSTARÍA 
HABLAR CON USTED, USTED Y DIJO 
QUE LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN  ES PRE
A
PRECISA.

English: 
>> I CAN SAY FOR MYSELF, THERE 
WERE -- THE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAKS
SEEMED VALID AND I WASN'T 
PARTICULARLY CRITICAL.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS SENSITIVE AND
I WAS NOT GOING TO QUESTION THE 
ATTORNEY'S JUDGMENT ON THAT. 
>> EVEN THE CODE WORD SERVER, 
YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT?
>> YES. 
>> SO AT NO POINT IN TIME DURING
THE COURSE OF YOUR OFFICIAL 
DUTIES WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS TO
THIS INFORMATION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN TO 
YOU FOR A MOMENT.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVE 
THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE OTHER THAN THE ONE 
ISSUE YOU MENTIONED?
>> SUBSTANTIVELY ACCURATE, YES. 
>> NOW, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY 
CONCERNS TO ANYONE IN YOUR 
OFFICE ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD ON 
THE CALL?
>> MY SUPERVISOR WAS LISTENING 
IN ON THE CALL AS WELL.
BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE SAME 
INFORMATION, I DID NOT FEEL A 
NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT. 

English: 
>> AND YOU NEVER HAD CONCERNS 
WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. 
>> I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CALL 
ANY FURTHER WITH ANYONE IN THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. 
>> YOU DIDN'T FLAG IT FOR THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OR ANYONE OF
THAT SORT?
>> AGAIN, MY IMMEDIATE 
SUPERVISOR, LIEUTENANT GENERAL 
KELLOGG WAS IN THE ROOM WITH ME.
>> DID YOU AND GENERAL KELLOGG 
EVER DISCUSS THE CALL?
>> WE DID NOT. 
>> THE VICE PRESIDENT OF WARSAW 
WAS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN WARSAW.
YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE 
PREPARATION OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S BRIEFING MATERIAL?
>> I WAS. 
>> DID YOU FLAG FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT THIS PARTS OF THE CALL
THAT HAD CONCERNED YOU?
>> NO.
WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT IN THE TRIP BRIEFING 
BOOK.
WE DON'T NORMALLY INCLUDE 
PREVIOUS CALLS IN TRIP BRIEFING 
BOOKS. 
>> IF THE CONCERNS WERE SO 
SIGNIFICANT, HOW COME NOBODY ON 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S STAFF AT 
LEAST ALERTED HIM TO THE ISSUE 

Spanish: 
>>> SÍ BASTANTE. PRE
>>> PRECISA.
>>> NUNCA LE PREOCUPÓ Y NO LO 
COMENTÓ CON OTRAS PERSONAS EN LA
OFICINA DEL VICEPRESIDENTE?
>>> HABLÉ CON MI SUPERVISOR 
DIRECTO, QUE ESTABA EN LA 
HABITACIÓN CONMIGO.
>>> EN LA REUNIÓN AGUAREN UCRANL
1 DE SEPTIEMBRE USTÉ PREPARÓ LOS
DOCUMENTOS?
>>> LO HICE.
>>> HUBO ALGUNOS DOCUMENTOS QUE 
LE PARECIERON PREOCUPANTES?
>>> NO NO PRESENTAMOS LAS 

Spanish: 
EXPEX 
TRANSCRIPCIONES DE LAS LLAMADAS.
>
MI SUPERVISOR ESTABA CONMIGO 
DURANTE LA LLAMADA,, ME ASEGURÉ 
DE QUE EL VICEPRESIDENTE TUVIERA
TRANSCRIPCIÓN LOS DOCUMENTOS ESE
DÍA. MIENTRAS NOS PREPARÁBAMOS 
EL TEMA MÁS IMPORTANTES ERA QUE 
HABÍA UNA FILTRACIÓN EN LA 
SEGULA CONGELACIÓN DE LOS 
FONDOS PARA LA SEGURIDAD.
>>> USTED ATESTIGUÓ  QUE EL 

English: 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MIGHT BE
ON EDGE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAD
BEEN MENTIONED ON THE 7/25 CALL?
>> AGAIN, MY SUPERVISOR HAD BEEN
IN THE CALL WITH ME AND I 
ENSURED THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT 
HAD ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT IN 
THE MOMENT ON THAT DAY.
AS WE WERE PREPARING FOR THE 
SEPTEMBER MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, THE MORE IMMEDIATE 
ISSUE AT HAND WAS TWO DAYS PRIOR
THE NEWS HAD BROKEN ABOUT THE 
HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
SO WE WERE MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON 
DISCUSSION THAT WAS LIKELY TO 
OCCUR ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY
ASSISTANCE FOR THAT MEETING. 
>> TO YOUR RECOLLECTION -- YOU 
WERE IN THE MEETING WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE AND ZELENSKY AND
BURISMA DIDN'T COME UP. 
>> NO, IT DID NOT. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
LONG-STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, CORRECT?
>> I DON'T RECALL.
BUT THERE ARE CONCERNS.
THERE ARE BROAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, YES. 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE TENÍA PREOCUPACIÓN 
POR LA CORRUPCIÓN?
>>> HABÍA MUCHA PREOCUPACIÓN EN 
GENERAL POR EL TEMA DE LA 
CORRUPCIÓN.
>>> ESTE ES UN TEMA QUE  LOS 
OFICIALES TIENEN QUE REVISAR?
>>> SÍ .
>>> EL PRESIDENTE ES DEBE 
PREOCUPARSE POR ESO ANTES DE 
ENTREGAR FONDOS?
>>>  SÍ .
>>> USTED ATESTIGUÓ QUE  LA 
CORRUPCIÓN ES ENDÉMICA EN 
UCRANIA?
>>> SÍ .
>>> EL PRESIDENTE SE HA 

English: 
>> YOU WOULD AGREE IF THE U.S. 
IS GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS TO A FOREIGN NATION 
THAT HAS A CORRUPTION PROBABLE 
PLEM, THAT'S CERTAINLY THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO BE 
CONCERNED ABOUT?
>> YES. 
>> IF A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAS A 
PROBLEM WITH OLIGARCHS TAKING 
MONEY, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, THE 
PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IN ADVANCE OF DISPENSING 
THE AID?
>> YES. 
>> I BELIEVE YOU DID TESTIFY 
THAT CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN 
UKRAINE?
>> CORRECT.
>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM OF 
FOREIGN AID GENERALLY. 
>> >>. 
>> HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE IT'S 
SPENT WISELY. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU'RE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT
HAS CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN 

English: 
SHARING AMONG OUR ALLIES?
>> YES. 
>> AND WITH REPEKT TO UKRAINE, 
HE WAS INTERESTED AND ENGAGE TO 
SEE IF THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY 
FOR THE EUROPEAN ALLIES TO 
CONTRIBUTE MORE?
>> YES, THAT WOULD BE IN THE 
CONTEXT OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
IN TERMS OF BURDEN SHARING, THE 
EUROPEAN UNION PROVIDES OVER $15
BILLION.
>> OKAY.
SINCE 2014. 
>> YOU ARE AWARE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERN OF BURDEN 
SHARING, RIGHT?
>> I AM. 
>> TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE 
COMPANY OF BURISMA, THE 
CO-FOUNDER OF BURISMA, ONE OF 
UKRAINE'S LARGEST NATURAL GAS 
PRODUCERS, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, 
YES. 
>> IT'S BEEN SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS
INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE YEARS. 
>> I'M NOT AWARE -- I GUESS I 
COULDN'T POINT TO SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS BUT THERE IS A 
WHAT I WOULD CALL A PATTERN OF 
QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS AND 

Spanish: 
PREOCUPADO DE QUE LOS FONDOS 
SEAN UTILIZADOS APROPIADAMENTE?
>>> SÍ .
>>> Y QUE SEA DISTRIBUIDO SE 
EQUITATIVAMENTE ENTRE LOS AL
O
ALIADOS.
>>> SÍ .
>
EN TÉRMINOS DE LO QUE SE ENTREGA
A LA UNIÓN EUROPEA  SI .
>>> LE PREOCUPA EL QUE 
PRESIDENTE QUIERA QUE TODOS EN 
LA UNIÓN EUROPEA COOPEREN DE LA 
MISMA MANERA?
>>> SÍ.
>>>  SON PRODUCTORES DE GAS 
NATURAL?
>>> ESO CREO.

Spanish: 
>>> NO PODRÍA CONTAR UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN EN PARTICULAR, 
PERO HAN HABIDO PREOCUPACIONES 
RESPECTO A LA PCORRUPCIÓN.
>>> TE SUPO QUE DURANTE LA 
PRESIDENCIA DE OBAMA,, SE 
INVESTIGÓ ALGUNOS OFICIALES 
UCRANIANOS, DENTRO DE LA EMPRESA
BURISMA.
>>> GEORGE QUIÉNKENT SALE MÁS A 
RESPECTO, CIELO DIJO DEBE SER 
VERDAD.

English: 
QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION.
>> HE HAD SERVED AS THE MINISTER
OF ECOLOGY DURING PRESIDENT 
YANUKOVYCH'S TENURE?
>> I CAME TO KNOW THAT. 
>> GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT 
THIS LAST WEEK.
UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
HE USED HIS GOVERNMENT POSITION 
TO GRANT HIMSELF OR BURISMA 
EXPLORATION LICENSES.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I WOULD DEFER TO GEORGE KENT.
HE'S A FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE, 
DEEPER KNOWLEDGE THAN I HAVE.
IF HE -- IF HE ATTESTED TO THAT,
I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT. 
>> HE TESTIFIED THAT THE U.S. 
ALONG WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM 
WAS EN CAGED IN TRYING TO ROW 
COUPE $23 MILLION FROM THEM?
>> I UNDERSTAND HE TESTIFIED TO 
THAT, YES. 
>> MR. KENT ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 
THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOVING 

English: 
ALONG AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN 
THERE WAS A -- AND THE 
INVESTIGATION WENT AWAY.
DID YOU HEAR HIM MENTION THAT?
>> I HEARD HIM MENTION THAT.
THESE ARE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED 
BEFORE MY TIME.
BEYOND WHAT HE SAID, I DON'T 
KNOW MUCH MORE.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE BRIBE 
WAS PAID, THE COMPANY SOUGHT TO 
BOLSTER THEIR BOARD.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY TAPPED 
LUMINARIES FOR THEIR CORPORATE 
BOARD?
>> CERTAINLY, I LEARNED THAT AT 
SOME POINT, YES. 
>> INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF 
POLAND, I BELIEVE?
>> YES. 
>> AND HUNTER BIDEN?
>> I CAME TO LEARN THAT AS WELL.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC
EXPERIENCE HUNTER BIDEN HAS IN 
THE UKRAINIAN CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE WORLD?
>> I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MR. 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
>> WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT 
ABOUT -- AT YOUR DEPOSITION 
ABOUT WHETHER MR. BIDEN WAS 
QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD
AND I BELIEVE YOU ACKNOWLEDGED 

Spanish: 
>>> EL SEÑOR QUIEN TAMBIÉN 
ATESTIGUÓ DE QUE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN  IBA A BASTANTE 
BIEN ACEPTAR QUE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN DESAPARECIÓ?
>>>  YO NO SÉ ESTO OCURRIÓ ANTES
DE MI TIEMPO, ÉL SABE MÁS.
>>> USTÉ SALIDA QUE MANTUVIERON 
ALGUNOS ELEMENTOS EN SU JUNTA DE
DIRECTORES, COMO SANTOS BIDEN 
PUNTOS
>>> ESO PARECE.
>
NO SÉ MUCHO ACERCA DE HUNT JOE 
BIDEN.
>>>  HABLAMOS EN SU TESTIMONIÓ 
DE SI HUNT JOE BIDEN TENÍA LAS 

English: 
THAT APPARENTLY HE WAS NOT, IN 
FACT, QUALIFIED?
>> AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HE 
DIDN'T SEEM TO BE.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW 
HIS QUALIFICATIONS. 
>> OKAY.
MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN OUR
ATTENTION TO THE INAUGURAL TRIP.
>> OKAY. 
>> AT ONE POINT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS FOCUSING 
ON ATTENDING THAT, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED 
BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T 
WANT THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT 
THE SAME TIME?
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DURING THAT TIME, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS IN JAPAN, I 
BELIEVE HE WAS IN JAPAN MAY 24th
TO THE 28th.
AND THEN HE RETURNED TO EUROPE 
FOR THE D-DAY CEREMONIES.
JUNE 2nd TO 7th.
I THINK YOU TOLD US THERE WAS A 
WINDOW, YOU PROVIDED OF FOUR 
DAYS AT THE END OF MAY THAT IF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO 
ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, IT HAD 

Spanish: 
CALIFICACIONES PARA SE SER PARTE
DE LA JUNTA?
>>> DENTRO O DE LO QUE YO SE, 
PERO YO NO SE SI ÉL ESTÁ 
CALIFICADO NO.
>>> ME GUSTARÍA HABLAR DEL VIAJE
INAUGURAL. EN ALGÚN MOMENTO LA 
OFICINA DEL VICEPRESIDENTE 
PARECÍA ASISTIR.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> PERO NO QUIEREN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE Y EL VICEPRESIDENTE 
SALGAN DEL PAÍS AL MISMO TIEMPO.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>>  UNO DE ELLOS ESTABA JAPÓN, 
Y OTRO ESTABA EN EUROPA. USTED 
NOS DIJO QUE HABÍA UNA VENTANA 

Spanish: 
DE CUATRO DÍAS A FINALES DE M
O
MAYO. TENDRÍA QUE HABER SIDO EL 
29 30 O 31.
>>> LA EMBAJADA ESTABA HABLANDO 
CON EL EQUIPO EN UCRANIA, EL 
PARLAMENTO NO IBA A PODER 
TRABAJAR A PRINCIPIO DE MAYO, 
POR LO TANTO PENSARON HACERLO A 
FINALES DE MAYO, POR LO TANTO LE
DIJIMOS A LOS UCRANIANOS QUE LOS
ÚNICOS DÍAS EN LOS QUE PODRÍAN 
SER 30 O 31 DE MAYO O EL 1 DE 
JUNIO.
>>> ES MUCHO LO QUE ESTÁ 
INVOLUCRADO EN TÉRMINOS DE 

English: 
TO BE 29th, 30th, 31st OR 1st?
>> OUR EMBASSY HAD BEEN IN 
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS,
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TEAM 
AND AS WE LEARNED, OBVIOUSLY THE
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WAS NOT 
GOING TO COME BACK INTO SESSION 
UNTIL MID-MAY.
WE WOULDN'T KNOW FORMALLY WHAT 
THE DATE WOULD BE.
BUT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 
INITIAL THINKING WAS THAT THE --
THEY WERE LOOKING AT DATES AT 
THE END OF MAY.
HONING IN ON THAT TIME FRAME, WE
WERE AWARE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PLAN TO TRAVEL ON EITHER END.
THAT'S WHY WE ADVISED THE 
UKRAINIANS IF VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE WERE TO ABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE, THE ONLY AVAILABLE 
DAYS WERE MAY 30th, 31st OR JUNE
1st.
>> BEFORE THE VICE PRESIDENT 
TRAVELS TO A FOREIGN NATION, YOU
HAVE TO SEND THE SECRET SERVICE,
DO ADVANCE WORK, BOOK HOTELS.
IT'S A RELATIVELY INVOLVED 
PREPARATION EXPERIENCE, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE SECRET
SERVICE EVER DEPLOYED, BOOKED 
HOTELS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT?

Spanish: 
PREPARACIÓN.
>>> CORRECTO .
>
MI EQUIPO ESTABA AVANZANDO LAS 
PREPARACIONES,  ESTÁBAMOS VIENDO
CUANDO SE ENVIARÍA  EMPLEADOS 
DEL SERVICIO SECRETO, PERO COMO 
NO SABÍAMOS CUÁL ERA LA FECHA NO
QUERÍAMOS ENVIAR OFICIALES .
>>> LO QUE SABEMOS ES QUE NO 
FUERON ENVIADOS?
>>> CREO QUE NO.
>>>  TUVIERON CUATRO DÍAS PARA 
PREPARAR? PARA MAYO 29?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> YA HABÍAMOS DETENIDO EL 

English: 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OUR 
ADVANCE TEAM WAS LOOKING INTO 
THOSE PREPARATIONS, INCLUDING 
HOTEL AVAILABILITY.
WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHEN
IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEND 
OUT SECRET SERVICE AND OTHER 
ADVANCE PERSONNEL IN ORDER TO 
LAY GROUNDWORK FOR A TRIP.
BUT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SURE YET 
WHEN THE DATE WOULD BE, WE 
HESITATED TO SEND THOSE 
OFFICIALS OUT. 
>> ULTIMATELY, THE SECRET 
SERVICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DID
NOT DEPLOY?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DID, NO.
>> OKAY.
THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION WAS MAY 20th, IF 
I'M NOT MISTAKEN?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YOU HAD ABOUT FOUR DAYS' 
NOTICE. 
>> IN THE END THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT DECIDED MAY 16th TO 
SET THE DATE FOR MAY 20th. 
>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MADE IT 
DIFFICULT FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
AND THE WHOLE OPERATION TO 
MOBILIZE AND GET OVER TO 
UKRAINE, CORRECT?
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WE 
HAD STOPPED THE TRIP PLANNING BY
THAT POINT. 
>> AND WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
>> STOPPING THE TRIP PLANNING?
>> YEAH. 
>> MAY 13th. 
>> >> HO YOU DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 
THAT. 

English: 
>> I WAS TOLD BY A COLLEAGUE AND
VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF 
STAFF'S OFFICE TO STOP THE TRIP 
PLANNING. 
>> CHIEF OF 
STAFF?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND SO YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT 
IT FROM GENERAL KELLOGG OR THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM MR. 
SCHWARTZ ASSISTANT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE REASONING FOR 
STOPPING THE TRIP?
>> I ASKED MY COLLEAGUE WHY WE 
SHOULD STOP TRIP PLANNING.
WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT
BE ATTENDING.
AND I WAS INFORMED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD DECIDED THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND THE 
INAUGURATION. 
>> BUT DO YOU KNOW CONTRACT 
PRESIDENT DECIDED?
>> NO, SHE DID NOT HAVE THAT 
INFORMATION. 
>> OKAY.
AND ULTIMATELY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WENT TO CANADA FOR A 
USMCA EVENT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> DURING THIS WINDOW OF TIME, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO ENTIRELY CONCEIVABLE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DECIDED VICE 
PRESIDENT WANTED TO GO TO CANADA

Spanish: 
VIAJE EN ESA ÉPOCA.
>>> CÓMO SUPO DE ESO?
>>> LOS LLAMARON ES NOS DIJERON 
QUE TUVIÉRAMOS LOS PLANES PARA 
EL VIAJE.
>>> POR LO TANTO NO SUPIERON DE 
ESO  POR EL PRESIDENTE O EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE LO SUPIERON DE UN
ASISTENTE.
 CORRECTO.
>>> HAY UNA RAZÓN PARA 
DETENERLO?
>>> LE PREGUNTÉ A MI COLEGA 
PORQUEY ME INFORMÓ QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DECIDIÓ QUE EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE NO IRÍA .
>> SABE POR QUÉ PRESIDENTE 
DECIDIÓ ESO ? UNA
>>  NO TENÍA LA INFORMACIÓN
>> FINALMENTE EL VICEPRESIDENTE 
FUE A CANADÁ A UN EVENTO DURANTE
ESTE PERIODO DE TIEMPO. ASÍ QUE 
ES CONCEBIBLE QUE EL PRESIDENTE 

English: 
INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING ELSE, 
CORRECT?
>> I'M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION 
TO SPECULATE HYPED THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION. 
>> YOU KNOW THE VICE PRESIDENT 
DOES A LOT OF THESE EVENTS, 
RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER 
ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
INQUIRED WITH YOUR OFFICE ABOUT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
AVAILABILITY FOR THE TRIP TO 
CANADA?
>> AT WHAT POINT?
>> EARLY MAY.
MAYBE MAY 8th. 
>> I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
TRIP PLANNING FOR CANADA.
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO COVERS 
WESTERN HEMISPHERE WAS IN CHARGE
OF THAT.
SO I'M NOT AWARE OF SPECIFIC 
REQUESTS ABOUT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S AVAILABILITY.
I WAS AWARE FROM MY COLLEAGUE 
WHO WAS PLANNING THAT TRIP THAT 
WE HAD COMPETING TRIPS 
POTENTIALLY FOR THE SAME WINDOW.
BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE UKRAINE 
TRIP WOULD TAKE PRIORITY. 
>> BUT ULTIMATELY YOU DON'T 
KNOW?
>> ABOUT THE CANADA TRIP?
>> YOU DON'T KNOW THE REASON WHY
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS SENT TO 
CANADA INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE 
UKRAINE?
>> I WOULD SAY I DON'T KNOW THE 

Spanish: 
HAYA DECIDIDO QUE QUERÍA QUE EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE FUESE GANADA EN 
VEZ DE HACER OTRAS COSAS. 
CORRECTO?
>> NO ESTOY EN POSICIÓN DE 
ESPECULAR QUE EL PRESIDENTE.
>> ESTÁ CONSCIENTE DE QUE 
ALGUIEN EL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
ESTADO HAYA HABLADO CON SU 
OFICINA SOBRE LA POSIBILIDAD DE 
QUE EL PRESBICIA PRESIENTE FUESE
GANADA?
>> EN QUÉ. SE LE PREGUNTÓ
>> RECIBIÓ DE MAYO.
>> MIS COLEGAS ESTÁN A CARGO DE 
ESO SÍ QUE NO ESTOY CONSCIENTE 
AL RESPECTO. SI SABRÍA SEGÚN MIS
COLEGAS QUE PLANEABAN EL VIAJE 
QUE VAMOS A TENER UNA VENTANA 
ABIERTA EN EL VIAJE. PERO DIJE 
QUE UCRANIA ERA LA PRIORIDAD .
>> PERO TODOS HABÍA PREGUNTA
>> NO .
>> NO SABE LA RAZÓN DE POR QUÉ 

English: 
REASON BEHIND WHY THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT 
TO GO TO UKRAINE.
I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THE CANADA 
TRIP MOTIVATIONS. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, I'D LIKE TO 
TURN A LITTLE BIT TO THE JULY 
10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON OFFICE.
AND THE SUBSEQUENT POST MEETING 
IN THE WAR ROOM.
WHO ALL WAS IN THE MEETING TO 
THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?
>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE WARD
ROPE OR THE MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON?
>> WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST 
MEETING IN AMBASSADOR OFFICE. 
>> SO FROM U.S. SIDE WE HAD 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DR. HILL, I 
BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER 
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT, WELLS GRIFFITH WAS IN
THERE, AND MYSELF FROM THE 
UKRAINE. 

Spanish: 
EL VICEPRESIDENTE FUE ENVIADO A 
TAN
CANADÁ?
>> NO SÉ POR QUÉ EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE FUE ENVIADO A 
CANADÁ Y NO UCRANIA. NO SE LAS 
MOTIVACIONES DE DONALD TRUMP. 
CORONEL VINDMAN QUIERO QUE 
HABLEMOS UN POCO DE LA REUNIÓN 
DEL 10 DE JULIO LA OFICINA DE 
BOLTON Y Y LA SUBSECUENTE POS 
REUNIÓN EN LA SALA DE GUERRA. 
SEGÚN LO QUE USTED RECUERDA 
QUIÉNES ESTABAN AHÍ?
>> HABLAMOS DE LA SALA DE 
GUERRA?
>>  COMENZAMOS CON LA PRIMERA 
OF
RREUNIÓN .
>>  BOLTON, LLA DOCTORA HILL, 
CREO QUE HABÍA OTRO ASISTENTE 
ESPECIAL DE DONALD TRUMP, YO.

Spanish: 
>> Y DE LOS UCRANIANOS EN LA 
PREGUNTA
>> TENDREMOS A ANDRÉ, AAL 
CONSEJERO DE ZELENSKI.N
 TESTIFICÓ QUE USTED NO 
RECORDABA EXACTAMENTE POR QUÉEEL
EMBAJADOR BOLTON DETUVO ESTA 
REUNIÓN. Y LUEGO SE HABLÓ CON LA
DOCTORADO FIONA HILL.
>> FRANCAMENTE, NO SABÍA SACANDO
POR QUÉ .
>> Y LA REUNIÓN CON BOLTON USTED
NO RECUERDA EL EMBAJADOR 
SONDLAND USANDO LA PALABRA 
BIDEN?
>> NO
>> Y SE SACARON UNA FOTO, CO
C
CORRECTO SER PRONTA

English: 
>> FOR THE UKRAINIANS SORRY. 
>> FOR THE UKRAINIAN SIDE, WE 
HAD ALEXANDER DULAYC, AND YERMAK
AND THE ADVISER ALEXIS. 
>> OKAY.
AND YOU TESTIFIED YOU COULDN'T 
RECALL EXACTLY WHY AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON STOPPED THE MEETING 
SHORT.
AND YOU ONLY LEARNED IT 
SUBSEQUENTLY TALKING TO DR. 
FIONA HILL?
>> I DIDN'T, FRANKLY, EXACTLY 
KNOW WHY. 
>> AND IN THE BOLTON MEETING, 
YOU DON'T REMEMBER AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND USING THE WORD BIDEN?
>> HE DID NOT, TO THE BEST OF MY
RECOLLECTION I DON'T THINK HE 
DID. 
>> AND THE GROUP DECAMED TO TAKE
A PHOTO, CORRECT?
>>> CORRECT. 
>> OKAY.
SO THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE 
GROUP WAS A POSITIVE ONE AT THAT
TIME EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE 
ENDED ABRUPTLY?

English: 
>> I THINK AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS
EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED.
HE UNDERSTOOD THE STRATEGIC 
OPPORTUNITY F HAVING A PHOTO AND
WE PROMPTED HIM BEFORE WE 
COMPLETELY ADJOURNED TO SEE IF 
HE WAS WILLING TO DO A PHOTO, 
AND HE DID. 
>> SO YOU WENT OUT TO WESSEX 
TIVE OR WHEREVER IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND I THINK YOU SAID YOU 
TOOK IT. 
>> I CERTAINLY TOOK A COUPLE OF 
THEM, YES. 
>> AND IN THE PHOTO IS SECRETARY
PERRY, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES. 
>> MR. LUKE AND MR. YERMAK. 
>> AND I APOLOGIZE WHEN I WAS 
RUNNING THROUGH THE U.S. SIDE, 
OF COURSE BOZ BOLTON, SONDLAND 
AND SECRETARY PERRY WAS THERE. 
>> OKAY.
NOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT BEFORE 
THE JULY 10th MEETING YOU HAD 
DEVELOPED CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
NARRATIVE INVOLVING RUDY 
GIULIANI.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND HAD YOU HEARD FIRSTHAND 
ACCOUNT FROM ANYONE ON THE 
INSIDE?
OR HAD YOU JUST BEEN FOLLOWING 
NEWS ACCOUNTS?

Spanish: 
>> CORRECTO
>>  CREO QUE EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON
ESTABA CALIFICADO PARA SER UNA 
COMUNICACIÓN ESTRATÉGICA SACARSE
UNA FOTO Y ESO FUE ANTES DE 
COMENZAR LA SEGUNDA REUNIÓN SE 
SACAR UNA FOTOGRAFÍA .
>> CREO QUE USTED TOMÓ LA F
FOTOGRAFÍA SER PRONTA
>> TOMÉ UN PAR
>> Y EL SECRETARIO PARA RY, BOLN
QUIÉN MÁS ESTABA Y RUTA
>> EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON POR 
SUPUESTO, VOLKER Y SONDLAND UNTO
>> USTED TESTIFICÓ QUE ANTES DE 
LA REUNIÓN DEL 10 DE JULIO  
ESTABA PREOCUPADO SOBRE LA 
NARRATIVA DE GIULIANI, ES ESO 
CORRECTO SER PRONTA

Spanish: 
>> Y USTED ESCUCHÓ A ALGUIEN DE 
ADENTRO QUE LES DIJESE ESO
>> YO ESTABA SIGUIENDO LO QUE 
DECÍA LADO UCRANIANO LA PRENSA 
UCRANIANA  Y LA PRENSA ES
ESTADOUNIDENSE .
>> Y MIS COLEGAS EN LA AGENCIA 
TAMBIÉN ESTABA PREOCUPADOS. ESTA
HISTORIA SE ESCUCHABAN TODAS 
PARTES ERA UNA CONVERSACIÓN 
CONTINUA .
>> EMBAJADOR SONDLAND MENCIONÓ 
LA INVESTIGACIÓN Y ODIÓ USTÉ 
TENÍA UNA CLAVE QUE ERA LO QUE 
PASABA?
>> DECIDIDAMENTE
>>  Y USTED SACÓ LA FOTOGRAFÍA Y
LUEGO ENTRÓ A LA SALA DE 
REUNIONES CERO PREGUNTA
>> CORRECTO
>> ENTONCES NO TIENE PROBLEMAS A
LA RECORDANDO EXACTAMENTE QUÉ SE
DIJO YA DENTRO. ESTO HACE CUATRO
MESES ES DIFÍCIL SER PRECISO EN 

English: 
>> SO I CERTAINLY WAS FOLLOWING 
NEWS ACCOUNTS.
AND THAT'S FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
SIDE, UKRAINIAN PRESS AND U.S. 
PRESS. 
>> OKAY.
AND THEN -- 
>> AND MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 
INTERAGENCY ALSO WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT THIS AS THIS HAD STARTED 
IN THE MARITIME FRAME KIND OF 
EMANATING FROM THE JOHN SOL MAN 
STORY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
SO THERE HAD BEEN ONGOING 
CONVERSATIONS SO SEVERAL 
DIFFERENT SOURCE, COUNSEL. 
>> OKAY.
AND SO WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATIONS, 
YOU SORT OF HAD A LITTLE BIT OF 
A CLUE WHAT THE ISSUE WAS?
>> OH, DEFINITELY. 
>> OKAY.
THEN YOU TOOK THE PHOTO, VERY 
NICE PHOTO, THEN YOU WENT TO THE
WARD ROOM?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND DO YOU REMEMBER, I THINK 
YOU CAN CONCEDED TO US YOU HAD A
HARD TIME REMEMBERING EXACTLY 
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE WARD ROOM.
AGAIN, IT'S FOUR MONTHS AGO.
IT'S HARD TO BE PRECISE WHETHER 
SONDLAND, WHAT SPECIFIC WORDS HE
USED, WHETHER HE USED BURISMA 
2016 INVESTIGATIONS. 

English: 
>> YEAH.
SO I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE 
DEPOSITION, THE THREE ELEMENTS, 
BURISMA, BIDENS AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS WERE ALL MENTIONED. 
>> IN THE WARD ROOM?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I 
THINK WE CAN MAYBE GO BACK TO 
THIS, BUT I THINK ON PAGE 64 OF 
YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU TOLD US THAT
YOU DON'T REMEMBER THEM USING 
2016 IN THE WARD ROOM?
>> I BELIEVE THAT I ACTUALLY 
FOLLOWED UP AND, BECAUSE THIS 
QUESTION WAS ASKED MULTIPLE 
TIMES, I SAID ALL THREE ELEMENTS
WERE IN THERE. 
>> OKAY. 
>> SO WHEN WE ASKED THE QUESTION
IT SORT OF REFRESHED YOUR 
RECOLLECTION?
>> YES, I GUESS THAT'S THE TERM 
NOW. 
>> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF 
WHETHER WHEN MR. MORRIS SON TOOK
OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL,
WHETHER YOU WERE SIDELINES AT 

Spanish: 
CUANTO A LAS PALABRAS 
ESPECÍFICAS DE SONDLAND.
>> SÍ CREO QUE EN LA DECLARACIÓN
HABLA DE LOS TRES ELEMENTOS, QUE
ERA LA ELECCIÓN DE 2016 BIDEN Y 
LA EMPRESA UCRANIANA
>> ESO SE MENCIONÓ EN LA SALA
>> SÍ
>> ESTOY EN LA PÁGINA 64 SU 
TESTIMONIO, NOS DIJO QUE NO 
RECORDABA LA CONVERSACIÓN DE 
2016 EN LA HABITACIÓN .
>> CREO QUE LUEGO REITERE PORQUE
ME PREGUNTARON VARIAS VECES ESO,
QUE LOS TRES ELEMENTOS ESTABAN 
ALLÍ PRESENTES .
>> HUBO ALGUNAS DISCUSIONES 

English: 
ALL.
DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE?
>> SO I CERTAINLY WAS EXCLUDED 
OR DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE 
TRIP TO UKRAINE, BELARUS AT THE 
END OF AUGUST.
AND I WASN'T INITIALLY, BEFORE 
IT CHANGED FROM A POT US TRIP TO
VICE PRESIDENT TRIP TO WARSAW, I
WASN'T PARTICIPATING IN THAT 
ONE.
SO I DIDN'T MISS THAT, NO. 
>> DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS 
TO MR. MORRIS SON ABOUT WHY YOU 
WEREN'T INCLUDED ON THOSE TRIPS?
>> I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON LEAVE
FROM THE 3 OF AUGUST UNTIL ABOUT
THE 16th OF AUGUST.
AND HE CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO
RETURN.
THERE WAS, OBVIOUSLY, HIGH 
PRIORITY TRAVEL TO THE REGION, 
HE NEEDED MY ASSISTANCE TO HELP 
PLAN FOR IT.
AND IN ASKING ME TO RETURN EARLY
FROM LEAVE, WHICH I HAD TAKEN 
FREQUENTLY, I ASSUMED THAT I'D 

Spanish: 
SOBRE EL PORTAFOLIO DE LA 
DOCTORA HILL, SI USTEDES IBA POR
EL LADO DE MANERA PARALELA. 
SIENTE QUE LO ESTABA HACIENDO 
ASÍ?
>> FUI EXCLUIDO O NO PARTICIPE 
EN EL VIAJE A UCRANIA AL FINAL 
DE AGOSTO E INICIALMENTE TAMPOCO
DERIVA EL VIAJE DEL 
VICEPRESIDENTE.
>>  TENÍA ALGUNA PREOCUPACIÓN 
SOBRE POR QUÉ NO FUE INCLUIDO 
LOS VIAJES  PREGUNTA
>> SE SUPONE QUE YO ESTABA  DE 
VACACIONES DESDE AGOSTO HASTA EL
16 DE AGOSTO Y ME LLAMÓ EL SEÑOR
MORRISON PARA QUE VOLVIERA. 
OBVIAMENTE ERA UN VIAJE DE ALTA 
PRIORIDAD A LA REGIÓN Y ME PIDÓO

Spanish: 
QUE VOLVIESE ANTES DE MIS 
VACACIONES. ES ALGO QUE TOMO F
E
FRECUENTEMENTE ASÍ QUE LUEGO DE 
VOLVER CUANDO ME DIJERON QUE NO 
IBA A IR PREGUNTÉ POR QUÉ .
>> INICIALMENTE ME DIJO QUE LA 
NAVE EL 
AVIÓN QUE SEA USAR NO TENÍA 
ESPACIO
>> Y QUÉ PIENSA USTED DE LO QUE 
DIJO LA AUTORA HILL?
>> SÍ TUVE CONVERSACIONES CON 
SEÑOR MORRISON RESPECTO A ELLAS?
NO
>> Y EL SEÑOR MORRISON TARDÉ LA 
BRO DE EN LA CADENA DE COMANDO?
>> NO
>> LA DOCTORA GHILL LLE PREGUNÓ 
TAL VEZ USTED TRATABA DE ENTRAR 
INFORMACIÓN QUE ESTABA FUERA DE 
SU LÍNEA?

English: 
BE GOING ON THE TRIP.
SO WHEN I WAS, AFTER RETURNING 
FROM LEAVE EARLY, WHEN I WAS 
TOLD I WASN'T GOING, I INQUIRED 
ABOUT IT, CORRECT. 
>> OKAY.
AND WHAT FEEDBACK DID HE GIVE 
YOU?
>> HE INITIALLY TOLD ME THAT THE
AIRCRAFT THAT WAS ACQUIRED, THE 
MILL AIR, WAS TOO SMALL, AND 
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH ROOM. 
>> OKAY.
HAD YOU EVER HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS
WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT CONCERNS
THAT HE OR DR. HILL HAD WITH 
YOUR JUDGMENT?
>> DID I EVER HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. MORRISON 
ABOUT IT?
>> YES. 
>> NO. 
>> DID MR. MORRISON EXPRESS 
CONCERNS TO YOU THAT HE THOUGHT 
YOU WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE CHAIN 
OF COMMAND?
>> HE DID NOT. 
>> AND DID DR. HILL OR MR. 
MORRISON EVER ASK YOU QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHETHER YOU WERE TRYING TO
ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF 
YOUR LANE?
>> THEY DID NOT. 

Spanish: 
>> NO
>> OTRO ASPECTO DEL PORTAFOLIO 
UCRANIANO ES QUE USTED NO ERA 
PARTE DE ALGUNAS DE LAS 
COMUNICACIONES QUE SE ESTABAN 
LLEVANDO CREADO CON EL EMBAJADOR
TAYLOR?
>> CORRECTO
>> ESTABA LA PREOCUPACIÓN DE LA 
OFICINA TAMBIÉN NO?
>> PREOCUPADA QUE ÉL ACABA DE 
ENTRAR Y QUE NO CONOCÍA TODOS 
LOS ÍTEM ESE LOS QUE 
TRABAJÁBAMOS AÚN, DURANTE LOS 
MESES PRECEDENTES. CCREE QUE 
PODRÍA CONTRIBUIR CON ESO, ERA 
PARTE DE MI HABER
>> CUANDO SE FUE A UCRANIA PARA 
LA INAUGURACIÓN, EN ALGÚN. EN 
ESE VIAJE VIO ALGO DE EXTRAÑO 
CON EL LA POSICIÓN DE DEFENSA 
DEL PAÍS?
>> SÍ UNAS TRES VECES,

English: 
>> AND ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE 
UKRAINE PORTFOLIO THAT YOU WERE 
NOT A PART OF WERE SOME OF THE 
COMMUNICATIONS MR. MORRISON WAS 
HAVING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND DID YOU EVER EXPRESS 
CONCERN THAT HE WAS LEAVING YOU 
OFF THOSE CALLS?
>> WELL, CERTAINLY IT WAS 
CONCERNING HE HAD JUST COME ON 
BOARD.
HE DIDN'T HAVE THE -- HE WASN'T 
STEEPED IN ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE
WERE WORKING ON, INCLUDING THE 
POLICY THAT WE DEVELOPED OVER 
THE PRECEDING MONTHS.
AND I THOUGHT I COULD CONTRIBUTE
TO THAT, TO THE PERFORMANCE OF 
HIS DUTIES. 
>> OKAY.
WHEN YOU WERE -- YOU WENT TO 
UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> MAY 20th.
AT ANY POINT DURING THAT TRIP 
DID HE OFFER YOU?
>> HE DID. 
>> AND HOW MANY TIMES DID HE DO 
THAT?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE TIMES.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON 
WHY HE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW.

English: 
BUT EVERY SINGLE TIME I 
DISMISSED IT.
UPON RETURNING, I NOTIFIED MY 
CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE 
APPROPRIATE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE
FOLKS ABOUT THIS, THE OFFER. 
>> UKRAINE IS IT A COUNTRY 
THAT'S EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH 
RUSSIA, CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTER
OF DEFENSE IS A PRETTY KEY 
POSITION FOR THE UKRAINIANS, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO BEST SO 
THAT HONOR ON YOU. 
>> I'M CERTAINLY AWARE OF THAT 
HONOR.
AND I'VE KNOWN LEFT SERVICE TO 
NURTURE THE DEMOCRACIES IN THAT 
PART OF THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY 
BALTICS.
TWS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER THAT 
BECAME MINISTER OF DEFENSE, IF I
RECALL CORRECTLY.
BUT I'M AN AMERICAN.
I CAME HERE WHEN I WAS A TODDLER
AND IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED THESE 
OFFERS.
DID NOT ENTERTAIN THEM. 
>> WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO 
YOU INITIALLY, DID YOU LEAVE THE
DOOR OPEN?
WAS THERE A REASON THAT HE HAD 

Spanish: 
>> SABE QUE LE DIERON QUISIERA 
ESO?
>> NO PERO CAE QUE LO HICIERON 
NO LE DI IMPORTANCIA. AL VOLVER 
NOTIFIQUE A MI CADENA DE COMANDO
SOBRE ESTA OFERTA .
>>  UCRANIA ESTÁ EXPERIMENTANDO 
LA GUERRA CON RUSIA EL MINISTRO 
DE DEFENSA ES UNA POSICIÓN 
BASTANTE CLAVE PARA EL P
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI  Y ESTA 
PREGUNTA ENTIENDO USTED QUE SEA 
ESE MINISTRO ES UN GRAN O NO NO 
ES ASÍ?
>> SÍ ES UN GRAN HONOR Y ESTOY 
CONSCIENTE DE ELLO Y EN AYUDAR A
MEJORAR LA DEMOCRACIA DE EN ESTE
PARTE DEL MUNDO LA BPOR ESO 
IMPORTANTE VOLVERSE MINISTRO 
DEFENSA PERO YO SOY 
ESTADOUNIDENSE LLEGUE AQUÍ 
CUANDO ERA UN PEQUEÑO BEBÉ ES 
POR ESO QUE LA OFERTA NO ME 
PARECIÓ REAL.

English: 
TO COME BACK AND ASK A SECOND 
AND THIRD TIME?
OR WAS HE JUST TRYING TO 
CONVINCE YOU?
>> COUNSEL, YOU KNOW WHAT, THE 
WHOLE NOTION IS RATHER COMICAL 
THAT I WAS BEING ASKED TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER I WOULD WANT TO
BE THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE.
I DID NOT LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN AT
ALL. 
>> OKAY. 
>> BUT IT IS PRETTY FUNNY FOR 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO BE OFFERED THAT 
POSITION. 
>> WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO 
YOU WAS HE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH 
OR UKRAINIAN. 
>>> HE IS ABSOLUTELY FLAW LESS 
SPEAKER SPEAKING IN ENGLISH.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE WERE
TWO OTHER STAFF OFFICERS, 
EMBASSY KIEV STAFF OFFICERS 
SITTING NEXT TO ME WHEN THIS 
OFFER WAS MADE. 
>> AND WHO WERE THEY?
>> SO ONE OF THEM YOU MAY HAVE 
MET S IT WAS MR. DAVID HOLMES.
AND THE OTHER ONE WAS, I GUESS, 

Spanish: 
>> CUANDO LES ESTA OFERTA USTED 
DE PRIMER MOMENTO SE DEJÓ LA 
PUERTA ABIERTA COMO PARA 
CONVERSAR LO NUEVO O EL S
SIMPLEMENTE TRATÓ DE LOGRAR 
CONVENCER LOS CEREBROS DE
>> BASTANTE CÓMICO QUE ME HAYA 
DESPEDIDO CONSIDERAR SI QUERÍA 
SER EL MINISTRO DE DEFENSA. NO 
DEJE LA PUERTA ABIERTA PARA N
A
NADA, PERO ES MUY DIVERTIDO PARA
UN TENIENTE CORONEL DEL EJÉRCITO
DE ESTADOS UNIDOS QUE NO ES DE 
UN PUESTO TAN ALTO QUE LE 
OFREZCAN UNA POSICIÓN TAN ALT
HABLABAN EN UCRANIANO O INGLÉS 
SE LE PREGUNTA
>> EL AVE ERA INGLÉS PERFECTO 
ASÍ QUE FUE TODO EN INGLÉS. Y 
PARA CLARIFICAR HABÍAN OTROS DOS
OFICIALES SENTADOS JUSTO AL LADO
MÍO CUANDO SE HIZO ESTA OFERTA .
>> PUEDA SUS NOMBRES?

English: 
IT'S ANOTHER FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER, KEITH BEAN. 
>> OKAY.
WE MET MR. HOLMES LAST FRIDAY 
EVENING?
>> I UNDERSTAND.
DELIGHTFUL FELLOW. 
>> AND YOU SAID WHEN YOU 
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, 
YOU HAD GIVEN WITH CLEARANCE, 
WHENEVER A FOREIGN GOCHT MAKES 
AN OVERTURE LIKE THAT YOU PAPER 
IT UP AND TELL YOUR CHAIN OF 
COMMAND?
>> I DID, BUT I ALSO DON'T KNOW 
IF I FULLY ENTERTAINED IT AS A 
LEGITIMATE OFFER.
I WAS JUST MAKING SURE I DID THE
RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF 
REPORTING THIS. 
>> OKAY.
AND DID ANY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS,
DR. HILL AT THE TIME, OR DR. 
KUPPERMAN OR BOLTON FOLLOW UP 
WITH THAT?
IT'S RATHER SIGNIFICANT THEY 
OFFER YOU A DEFENSE OF MINISTER 
JOB.
DID YOU TELL ANYONE IN COMMAND 
ABOUT IT?

Spanish: 
>> AÚN AYUDA LO CONOCE TAL VEZ 
EL SEÑOR DAILY  HVID HOMES, Y E 
ES DEEN.
SI NOS ENCONTRAMOS CON EL SEÑOR 
HOLMES EL VIERNES EN LA TARDE.
>> NOS DIJO QUE CUANDO VOLVIÓ 
ESTADOS UNIDOS HABLÓ DE ESTO CON
SU CADENA DE COMANDO..
>> SÍ LO HICE PERO TAMPOCO SÉ SI
ENTRETENÍA ESTO COMO UNA OFERTA 
LEGÍTIMA SIMPLEMENTE ME 
ASEGURABA DE QUE TENÍA QUE R
REPORTARLO.
>> LLAGUNO SUPERVISORES, LA 
DOCTORA GIL EN ESE MOMENTO O EL 
EMBAJADOR BOLTON TAL VEZ S
SIGUIERON DESPUÉS HABLANDO 
CONSTA DE RESPECTO A ESTO? 
PORQUE ES BASTANTE SIGNIFICATIVO
QUE LE OFREZCAN ESTE PUESTO A UN
ESTADOUNIDENSE. LE DIJO ALGUNOS 
DE SU CADENA DE COMANDO SOBRE 

Spanish: 
ELLOS SER BRUTA
>> NUESTRO DIRECTOR ES SABÍA DE 
ESTO, UUNA VEZ QUE SE LO 
MENCIONÉ AMBOS CREO QUE NO SE 
DISCUTIÓ NUNCA MÁS DE ELLO.
>> ASÍ QUE NUNCA MÁS HABLO DE 
ESTO?
>>  LUEGO ESA CONVERSACIÓN QUE 
TUVE CON LA DOCTORA HIL NO HUBO 
OTRA CONVERSACIÓN. IR
>> Y LE AGRADEZCO TAMBIÉN AL 
DIRECTOR CUANDO ENTRÓ EL 
TRABAJO?
>> NO LO OLVIDE POR COMPLETO.
>>  LE PIDIERON QUE RECONDUCIRSE
DE RECONSIDERARA?
>> NO
>> CUANDO VINO AL ENCUENTRO DEL 
10 DE JULIO CON EL EMBAJADOR 
BOLTON SE HABLÓ NO ESTO?
>> NO NUNCA MÁS.
>> TAMBIÉN INFORMACIÓN ES 
IMPORTANTE HABLAR  DE QUE SE 
CREA POR LO MENOS LA PERCEPCIÓN 
DE QUE LOS UCRANIANOS PENSABAN 

English: 
>> I BELIEVE I TOLD THE SENIOR 
DEPUTY.
ONCE I MENTIONED IT TO ONE OF 
THEM I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS 
EVER A FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION. 
>> SO IT NEVER CAME UP WITH DR. 
KUPPERMAN OR HILL. 
>> FOLLOWING THAT I DON'T 
REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION 
ABOUT IT. 
>> DID YOU BRIEF DIRECTOR MORSE 
SON WHEN HE CAME ON BOARD?
>> NO, I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT
IT. 
>> OKAY.
AND SUBSEQUENT THAT, DID LUKE 
EVER ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER?
WERE THERE ANY OTHER OFFERS?
>> NO. 
>> WHEN YOU VISITED FOR THE JULY
10th MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON, DID IT COME UP AGAIN?
>> IT NEVER CAME UP AGAIN. 
>> OKAY.
AND DID YOU EVER THINK POSSIBLY 
IF THIS INFORMATION GOT OUT, 
THIS IT MIGHT CREATE AT LEAST 
THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT SO 
HIGHLY OF YOU TO OFFER YOU THE 
DEFENSE MINISTRY POST?

English: 
ONE HAND.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND YOU ARE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINIAN POLICY
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNSEL?
>> FRANKLY, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT 
ABOUT WHAT MY AMERICAN 
LEADERSHIP, AMERICAN CHAIN OF 
COMMAND THINKS THAN ANY OF 
THE -- AND THIS IS -- THESE ARE 
HONORABLE PEOPLE.
I'M NOT SURE IF HE MEANT THIS AS
A JOKE OR NOT.
BUT IT'S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT 
WHAT MY CIVILIAN THINKS MORE SO 
THAN ANYONE ELSE.
FRANKLY IF THEY WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT ME BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE 
MY DUTIES. 
>> OF COURSE. 
>> THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT 
TO MY ATTENTION.
DR. HILL STAYED ON FOR SEVERAL 
MORE MONTHS.
AND WE CONTINUED TO WORK TO 
ADVANCE U.S. POLICY. 
>> OKAY.
AND DURING THE TIMES RELEVANT OF
THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION, 
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS 
WITH MR. YERMAK OR LUKE OUTSIDE 

Spanish: 
MUY ALTO DE USTED PARA OFRECERLE
ESTA POSICIÓN . POR UN LADO Y 
POR EL OTRO USTED RESPONSABLE DE
LA POLÍTICA UCRANIANA CON 
ESTADOS UNIDOS.
>> CREO QUE ES MÁS IMPORTANTE 
SOBRE MI LIDERAZGO E
ESTADOUNIDENSE Y MI ES LUGAR EN 
LA CADENA DE COMANDOS. ESTAS 
GENTE HONORABLE NO SÉ SI ERA 
SÓLO UNA BROMA PERO ES MÁS 
IMPORTANTES  MI PUES TODO DE 
CIVIL MUCHO MÁS QUE PARA 
CUALQUIERA Y LA VERDAD ES QUE SI
ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS DE QUE YO 
PUDIESE CONTINUAR CON MIS 
DEBERES ME LO HUBIESEN DICHO LA 
DOCTORA HILL SE QUEBRÓ VARIOS 
MESES Y CONTINUÓ TRABAJANDO.
>> OK
>> DURANTE LOS ÉPOCA SER 
RELEVANTE PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN,

Spanish: 
HUBO COMUNICACIONES FUERA DE 
ESTA REUNIÓN DEL 10 DE JULIO?
>> RECUERDO UNA NOTA DE CORTESÍA
A UNOS POCOS DÍAS DE SU VUELTA Y
QUERÍA PRESERVAR UN CANAL 
ABIERTO DE COMUNICACIÓN Y LE 
DIJE  QUE ME PUEDEN CONTACTAR EN
CUALQUIER MOMENTO.
>> PUNTOS EN EL EMBAJADOR TAYLOR
TAMBIÉN PASÓ POR AHÍ NOS DIJO 
BUENO SU TESTIMONIO QUE ERA UN 
CANAL REGULAR Y TAMBIÉN HABLÓ DE
UNO IRREGULAR PERO QUE NO ERA 
ALGO TAN LOCO DE VER CON EL 
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND DE VOLKER 
ESTADOS DE SIGUIENDO ESTE CANAL 
DE VOLKER Y BOLTON PERDÓN 
SONDLAND?

English: 
OF THE JULY 10th MEETING?
>> I RECALL A COURTESY NOTE FROM
MR. YERMAK WITHIN DAYS OF HIS 
RETURN TO JULY IN WHICH HE 
WANTED TO PRESERVE AN OPEN 
CHANNEL COMMUNICATION.
AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, PLEASE 
FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY
CONCERNS. 
>> AND WERE YOU FOLLOWING THIS, 
YOU NO HE, SORT OF TWO TRACKS, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US 
THROUGH IT DURING HIS TESTIMONY 
LAST WEDNESDAY.
HE CALLED IT A REGULAR CHANNEL 
THEN HE CALLED IT IRREGULAR BUT 
NOT OUTLANDISH CHANNEL WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND VUL KERR.
WERE YOU TRACKING THE SONDLAND 
AND VOLKER DURING THIS CHANNEL?
>> CERTAINLY I WAS AWARE OF THE 
FACT THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER,
SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND 
SECRETARY PERRY WERE WORKING 
TOGETHER TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY 
INTERESTS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT 

Spanish: 
>> SABÍA QUE TRABAJABAN JUNTOS 
EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND Y BOLTON 
IN
EN CUANTO A LAS POLÍTICAS DE 
TONY DANCES, PERO NO SUPE HASTA 
COMO DIJE EL 10 DE JULIO, 
INCLUSO PUEDE DARSE UN POQUITO 
ANTES EN UNA REUNIÓN EN LA QUE 
EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON FACILITO UNA
REUNIÓN ENTRE EL EMBAJADOR 
VOLKER Y BOLTON EN ESE PERIODO. 
Y ALLÍ CREO QUE SE DISCUTIÓ ESTE
CANAL EXTERNO PERO NO SABÍA DE 
ESTA DOS OFICIALES PARTICULARES 
Y  SIENDO PARTE DE ESTACANAL 
PARALELO
>> PROMETE UNA DISCUSIÓN DE QUE 
SEÑOR GIULIANI ESTÁ PROMOVIENDO 
LA NARRATIVA NEGATIVA SOBRE 
UCRANIA  Y ENTENDEMOS QUÉ TAN 
TRATANDO YO ERA PRESIDENTE Y QUE
UCRANIA HACER DISTINTO.
>> YO LO ENTIENDO ASÍ Y ESO ES 
LO QUE SE HA REPORTADO POR LA 

English: 
OF WHAT HAD BEEN AGREED TO.
BUT I DIDN'T REALLY LEARN, LIKE 
I SAID, UNTIL THE JULY 10th, 
ACTUALLY THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A 
SLITLY EARLIER POINT.
I RECALL A MEETING IN WHICH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON FACILITATED A 
MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AND BOLTON IN THE JUNE 
TIME FRAME.
AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS EXTERNAL 
CHANNEL. 
>> OKAY. 
>> BUT I FRANKLY DIDN'T BECOME 
AWARE OF THESE PARTICULAR U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING 
INVOLVED IN THIS ALTERNATE TRACK
UNTIL JULY SOth. 
>> JULY 10th. 
>> AND I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSION
ABOUT GIULIANI WAS NEGATIVE.
AND CERTAINLY WITH ZELENSKY IT 
WAS A NEW DAY AND UKRAINE IS 
GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING 
REPORTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, BY THE POLICY 
CHANNELS WITHIN THE NSC, AND THE
VOICES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE 
THAT HAVE ACTUALLY MET WITH HIM,

Spanish: 
COMUNIDAD DE INTELIGENCIA Y LAS 
VOCES PREOCUPADAS DE LAS VARIAS 
PERSONAS QUE SE HAN ENCONTRADO 
CON EL INCLUYENDO OFICIALES 
EXTRANJEROS.
>>  CREE QUE LAS METAS DE 
SONDLAND Y VOLKER ESTABAN AQUÍ O
CREE QUE ESTABAN SIMPLEMENTE 
TRATANDO HACER LO MEJOR QUE 
PODÍAN PARA EDUCAR EN EL INTERÉS
ESTADOS UNIDOS REPREGUNTAR
>> ESO LO QUE CREÍAN ESE MOMENTO
Y LO SIGO CREYENDO.
>>  CREE QUE GIULIANI TENÍA UNA 
VISTA DIFERENTE?  CREO QUE 
ESTABAN TRATANDO DE HACERLO E
R
ENTRAR APOYAR LA DIRECCIÓN.
>> Y USTED NUNCA CONFIRMÓ ESTO 
CON EL SEÑOR GIULIANI SE REÚNA
>> NO
>> TUVO ALGÚN TIPO DE ENTREVISTA
TELEFÓNICA O EN UNA REUNIÓN?
>> NO.
>> TUVO ALGUNA DISCUSIÓN O 

English: 
INCLUDING FOREIGN OFFICIALS. 
>> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU 
ARE AWARE OF WHAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S GOALS WERE HERE AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S GOALS WERE 
HERE, YOU THINK THEY WERE TRYING
TO ADMINISTER TO THE BEST OF THE
UNITED STATES?
>> THAT IS IT WHAT I BELIEVE. 
>> AND TO THE EXTENT RUDY 
GIULIANI MAY HAVE HAD DIFFERENT 
VIEWS, THEY WERE HELPING HIM 
UNDERSTAND IT WAS TIME TO CHANGE
THOSE VIEWS?
>> I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO 
BRING HIM INTO THE TENT AND HAVE
HIM KIND OF SUPPORT THE 
DIRECTION THAT WE HAD SETTLED 
ON. 
>> AND YOU NEVER CONFERRED WITH 
MR. GIULIANI?
>> NO. 
>> YOU NEVER HAD ANY MEETINGS, 
PHONE CALLS, ANY OF THIS SORT?
>> I DID NOT.
I ONLY KNOW HIM AS NEW YORK'S 
FINEST MAYOR. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY 
COMMUNICATIONS DURING THIS 
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD WITH THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> I'VE NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT 

English: 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 
>> MY TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK THE GENTLEMEN.
WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO THE 
FIVE MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS.
ARE YOU GOOD TO GO FORWARD OR DO
YOU NEED A BREAK?
>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK?
>> SURE. 
>> I THINK WE'LL ELECT TO TAKE A
SHORT BREAK. 
>> OKAY.
LET'S TRY TO TAKE A FIVE OR TEN 
MINUTE BREAK AND RESUME WITH THE
FIVE MINUTE ROUNDS.
IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE AND 
MEMBERS TO PLEASE ALLOW THE 
WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM 
FIRST.
>> AND WE'LL TAKE THAT AS OUR 
CUE TO ANALYZE WHAT WE'VE 
WATCHED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF 
HOURS.
TWO FOLKS ON THAT CALL WHO HAVE 
FAMILIAR WHAT WAS LEFT OUT OF 
ALEXANDER, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN AND ALONG WITH MS. 
WILLIAMS BOTH TESTIFYING.
AND I THINK WHAT WE SAW, 
SAVANNAH, WITH COLONEL VINDMAN 
WAS AN ATTEMPT TO USE HIM AS A 

Spanish: 
COMUNICACIÓN DURANTE ESTA ÉPOCA 
CON EL PRESIDENTE SE REÚNA
>> NUNCA TENIDO O NINGÚN 
CONTACTO CON EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS.
>> GRACIAS. AHORA VAMOS A TENER 
LA RONDA DE CINCO MINUTOS DE LOS
MIEMBROS. ESTÁ LISTO PARA CO
N
CONTINUAR NECESITAN UNA PAUSA SE
REPREGUNTAR
>> BUENO VAMOS A TOMAR UNA PAUSA
PEQUEÑA DE CINCO MINUTOS VO
VOLVEREMOS LUEGO DE CINCO 
MINUTOS.
>> PREGUNTARLE A LA AUDIENCIA Y 
A LOS MIEMBROS QUE DEJEN QUE LOS
TESTIGOS ALAN PRIMERO POR FAVOR.
>>
>> VAMOS ANALIZAR LO QUE MOVISTE
LAS ÚLTIMAS HORAS. ELLOS DOS 
ESTUVIERON EN ESA LLAMADA DE 
JULIO. VAMOS HABLAR DE LO QUE SE
DIJO LO QUE SE DEJÓ DE LADO 
SOBRE EL TENIENTE CORONEL 

English: 
CONDUIT TO GET TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> YEAH, THERE WAS AN EXTRA 
ORDINARY MOMENT WHERE HE WAS 
ASKED IF HE HAD LEAKED ANY OF 
THIS INFORMATION.
HIS READOUT OF THE CALL TO ANY 
MEMBER OF THE PRESS.
HE SAID HE HAD NOT.
THEN HE WAS ASKED DID YOU TELL 
ANYONE ELSE WITHIN THE 
ADMINISTRATION.
HE STARTED TO SAY YES.
AND I'M SORRY TO SAY ONE OF 
THOSE PERSONS WAS IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE PART OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.
AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT 
ADAM SCHIFF, THE CHAIRMAN 
REACHED OUT TO SAY, WOW, WOW, 
WOW, WE MIGHT BE GETTING INTO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
SO I THINK THE PRESUMPTION AS WE
BRING OUR ANALYSTS INTO THIS, 
THAT HE COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY 
SAID I TOLD THIS PERSON AND THAT
PERSON MAY WELL BE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
THEY SAME TIME IT'S A LITTLE 
CONFUSING BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED 
DO YOU KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
AND VINDMAN SAYS I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE 
TECHNICAL, ANDREW, HE MAY NOT 
KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS.
HE KNOWS WHO HE TOLD ABOUT THESE
MATTERS.
AND THAT PERSON MAY WELL BE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 

Spanish: 
VINDMAN Y TAMBIÉN LA SEÑORA 
WILLIAMS. VAMOS ALARCÓN SABANA 
SOBRE EL CORONEL VINDMAN, LO VES
COMO UNA FORMA PARA ENTRAR HACIA
EL DELATOR SE REPREGUNTAR
>> SI CREÍAN QUE TAL VEZ HABÍA 
FILTRADO ALGO DE ESTA 
INFORMACIÓN PERO NO ES ASÍ DE
R
DENTRO DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN 
COMENZÓ DECIR SI Y UNA ESAS 
PERSONAS ESTABA EN LA PARTE 
INTELIGENCIA GOBIERNO IPHONE ESE
MOMENTO QUE ADAM SCHIFF, EL 
PRESIDENTE DEL COMITÉ, DIJO 
ESPERE ES PUEDE QUE ESTEMOS 
HABLANDO EL DENUNCIANTE. ASÍ QUE
EL ANÁLISIS DE QUE 
POTENCIALMENTE LE LE HAYA DICHO 
ESTA PERSONA Y QUE ESA PERSONA 
PUEDE HACER EL DENUNCIANTE ALGO 
TIEMPO UN POCO CONFUSO PORQUE 
EXISTA DE LA IDENTIDAD DEL 
DENUNCIANTE  Y LUEGO DICE QUE 
O
NO, PERO PUEDE SER ALGO TÉCNICO 
TAL VEZ NO LO SABE CON EXACTITUD

English: 
>> EXACTLY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS HE COULD GIVE 
THE NAME OF WHO HE TOLD, AND HE 
MADE IT VERY CLEAR BY THE WAY 
THAT THE PERSON HE TOLD HAD 
EVERY RIGHT TO BE TOLD AND WAS 
WITHIN THE PROPER CHAIN AND 
CLASSIFICATION.
AND HE JUST DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER
THAT PERSON IN TURN WAS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
BUT THAT IN EFFECT WOULD OUT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT, IT 
WAS ASSUAGED WHEN CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF INTERVENED SAYING WE ARE 
GETTING INTO THE TERRITORY BR WE
MAY REVEAL THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
SO IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS
THE CHAIRMAN IS CONCERNED, 
VINDMAN TOLD A PERSON WHO TURNS 
OUT TO BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THEY 
SPENT AN AWFUL LONG AMOUNT OF 
TIME ON TRYING TO PROVE 
SOMETHING THAT IS BASICALLY SORT
OF NOT REALLY -- 
>> YOU MEAN THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
THING?
>> NOT JUST THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
BUT TRYING TO DISCREDIT VINDMAN 
BECAUSE, WELL, HIS INFORMATION 
MIGHT BE TABT R TAINTED BECAUSE 

Spanish: 
QUIÉN ES PERO ÉL SABE QUE LE 
DIJO SOBRE ESTOS ASUNTOS Y ESA 
PERSONA PODRÍA SER EL D
DENUNCIANTE.
>> ASÍ ES PODRÍA DAR EL NOMBRE 
DE A QUIEN LE DIJO  Y DEJARLO 
MUY CLARO QUE ESTA PERSONA LA 
QUE LE DIJO TENÍAN DERECHO DE 
SABERLO ESTABA EN LA EL COMANDO 
SE IMPLANTE NO SABE SI ESA 
PERSONA DE VERDAD ES EL 
DENUNCIANTE PERO ESO DE HECHO 
PODRÍA HABER DADO EL NOMBRE DEL 
DENUNCIANTE.
>> Y CE INTERVINO ASÍ QUE PAREC 
SER CLARO QUE EN CUANTO AL 
PRESIDENTE DEL COMITÉ, VINDMAN 
HABLÓ DE UNA PERSONA QUE PODRÍA 
SI EL DENUNCIANTE.
>> DE TRATANDO DE PROBAR ALGO 
QUE... NO SOLAMENTE SE TRABAN 

English: 
HE MAY HAVE PERSONAL VIEWS THAT 
ARE IFRN DID.
FELT LIKE THEY SPENT AN AWFUL 
LOT OF TIME.
THEY DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE.
ALL THEY ENDED UP WAS SPENDING 
AN HOUR RE-AFFIRMING HIS 
CREDENTIALS. 
>> QUESTIONS WHETHER HE USED 
RIGHT CHANNELS?
>> RIGHT.
YOU WERE OFFERED THIS JOB WITH 
THE UKRAINE CRAN GOVERNMENT.
THE EFFORTS THEY MADE TO 
DISCREDIT HIM ONLY REINFORCED 
HIS CREDIBILITY PERHAPS.
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET ANY 
WHERE WITH IT.
EVEN WHEN THEY ALMOST HAD AN 
A-HA MOMENT, OH, YOU WERE 
OFFERED A JOB, AND THEN THE MORE
THAT THEY GOT HIM TO EXPLAIN IT,
THE MORE IT WAS OBVIOUS THE 
WHOLE REASON THEY KNEW ABOUT 
THIS IS BECAUSE HE REPORTED IT 
THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS AND 
DID EVERYTHING HE WAS SUPPOSED 
TO DO.
SO TO ME THEY ONLY REINFORCED 
HIS CREDIBILITY AS HONEST GREW. 
>> SO HERE'S THE PROBLEM, THEY 
COULD ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY, 
LET'S SAY THEY SUCCESSFULLY 
ATTACKED THE TWO WITNESSES PRIVY
TO THE CALL.
THEY STILL HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE CALL WITH ALL OF THE 
RELEVANT FACTS ADMITTED TO AND 

Spanish: 
DENUNCIANTE SINO QUE ES DIFÍCIL 
DE DESACREDITAR A VINDMAN. 
PORQUE ESTA INFORMACIÓN ESTÁ 
AQUÍ PORQUE PUEDE TENER ALGUNA 
VISIÓN PERSONAL QUE SEA 
DIFERENTE. NO LLEGARON A NINGUNA
PARTE LO ÚNICO QUE HICIERON FUE 
PASAR UNA HORA REAFIRMANDO SUS 
PUNTOS. SIGUIERON TRATANDO DE 
DECIR BUENO EL GOOGLE UCRANIANO 
LOS PRECIOS DE TRABAJO, LOS 
ESFUERZOS QUE HACE PARA 
DESACREDITARLO CREO QUE SÓLO R
REFUERZAN SU CREDIBILIDAD. 
INCLUSO CUANDO CLASE TUVIERON SU
MOMENTO DE AHA! LE DIERON UN 
TRABAJO, QUEDO ATRAÍDO POR QUÉ 
DEL SIMPLEMENTE DE LOD CONFIRMÓ 
TODO Y ADEMÁS SE LO DIJO A SU 
CADENA COMANDO.
>> SÍ TRATARON DE ATACAR DE 
MANERA EFICIENTE LA CREDIBILIDAD
ELLOS PERO AÚN ASÍ ESTÁN LOS 

Spanish: 
TRANSCRIPCIONES DE LA LLAMADA 
CON TODOS LOS HECHOS QUE ÉL 
MIENADMITE 
EN EL HABER HECHO ESTA 
TRANSGRESIÓN. ESTO DOS TESTIGOS 
DICEN SI ESO ES BÁSICAMENTE LO 
QUE SUCEDIÓ Y ASÍ LO RECORDAMOS,
Y TAMBIÉN RECORDAMOS LA PALABRA 
BURISMA.
>> Y ADEMÁS LA IDEA DECIR QUIÉN 
ES EL DENUNCIANTE. A QUIEN LE 
M
IMPORTA? TENEMOS LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN Y TENEMOS A 
VINDMAN, NO IMPORTA QUÉ ES LO 
QUE HAYA DICHO EL DENUNCIANTE.
>> ESTA SON LAS DOS REALIDADES 
ALTERNATIVAS QUE VEN ESTE PAÍS. 
SI USTED SIGUE PRESIENTE SI 
ESTAS PREGUNTAS MUY DE CERCA. EL
CENTRO DE LAS PREGUNTAS SOBRE 
ESTAS ASUNTOS ES LA LLAMADA, SI 

English: 
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
SO THESE WITNESSES ONLY GET THE 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SO 
FAR.
THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT, NEAR 
VERBATIM OF THIS CALL, AND THESE
TWO WITNESSES ARE SAYING YES 
THAT'S BASICALLY HOW IT HAPPENED
THOUGH THEY REMEMBER THEY 
ACTUALLY USED THE WORD BURISMA. 
>> RIGHT.
AND IF YOU ARE TRYING TO 
DISTRACT, LET'S LOOK AT WHO 
POTENTIALLY IS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO CARES.
IN OTHER WORDS WHO CARES WHETHER
VINDMAN TOLD THIS INFORMATION TO
SOMEONE WHO IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER
YOU HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AND 
VINDMAN.
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE TOLD THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> THIS IS REMINDER OF THE TWO 
ALTERNATIVE REALITIES THAT THE 
COUNTRY HAS.
IF YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S CHANNEL YOU 
FOLLOW THAT QUESTION REALLY 
CLOSELY.
THIS IS THE CENTER OF THE 
ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE DEEP STATE
ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ABOUT 
THESE THINGS.
IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THAT, YOU 
ARE PROBABLY REALLY CONFUSED 
ABOUT THE LINE OF QUESTIONING.
BECAUSE IT IS JUST BIZARRE AT 
SOME POINT SOME OF THE PLACES 
THAT THEY WENT WITH IT.

Spanish: 
NO SIEGUE ESO ENTONCES NO SABE O
QUE ESTÁ PASANDO PORQUE LA 
VERDAD NO TIENE NINGÚN SENTIDO  
HICE HACIA OTRO LADO. SI USTED 
NO PASA MUCHO TIEMPO A FAVOR DEL
PRESIDENTE NO HA TENER IDEA DE 
ESTA NARRATIVA ESTÁN TRATANDO DE
TEJER Y HASTA LOS DE TIRO QUE 
HAN CONFUNDIDO POR ELLA.
>> HABLEMOS DE LA EXPERIENCIA 
TENEMOS A UN ANALISTA ESP
ESPECIALIZADO PARA NOSOTROS EL 
DESDE LONDRES
>>ESTÁN TRATANDO DE CAMINAR UNA 
LÍNEA MUY FINATTRATANDO DE 
PRESENTAR HECHOS Y SU. DE VISTA,
PERO ES CLARO PARA ALGUNO DE LOS
MIEMBROS QUE ESTÁN TRATANDO DE 
DETERMINAR QUE ESTÁ FUERA DE LA 
NORMA QUE DIFERENTE A ESTAS 

English: 
SO IT IS A REMINDER, SOME OF 
THIS QUESTIONING THAT YOU ARE 
HEARING, IF YOU DON'T SPEND A 
LOT OF TIME ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
FAVOR, YOU ALMOST HAVE NO IDEA 
OF THIS NARRATIVE THAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO WEAVE WHICH MAKES 
IT -- AND THERE WERE TIMES THAT 
THE WITNESSES WERE EVEN 
CONFUSED. 
>> LET ME BRING IN SOMEONE WITH 
EXPERIENCE ON THE CALL FROM 
LONDON.
JUAN, WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU WHAT
WE HEARD THIS MORNING?
>> WELL, LESTER, WHAT I VEE ARE 
TWO NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROFESSIONALS, ONE ON THE VICE 
PRESIDENT STAFF, ONE ON THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF, THAT 
ARE TRYING TO WALK A FINE LINE 
BY SIMPLY PRESENTING THEIR FACTS
AND THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT THE VALUE OF
THESE WITNESSES, AT LEAST TO 
SOME OF THE MEMBERS, IS IN 
TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT'S 
OUTSIDE OF THE NORMS.
WHAT FELT DIFFERENT TO THESE 
STAFFERS BOTH IN THE CONTEXT OF 
THE CALL AND IN THE CONTEXT OF 
THIS PARALLEL PROCESS AND 
CHANNEL THAT HAD BEEN 

Spanish: 
OFERTAS TANTO EN EL CONTEXTO DE 
UNA LLAMADA Y DE UN CANAL 
PARALELO QUE SE HA ESTABLECIDO 
EN EL CANAL DE GIULIANI. Y ESTÁN
VIENDO QUE ESTOS OFICIALES 
TRATAN DE EXPLICAR CUÁLES SON 
LAS POLÍTICAS ESTADOUNIDENSE 
PARA UCRANIA Y QUE ESTABAN H
HACIENDO Y POR ESO LAS CADENAS 
DE COMANDO, DESEA EL VIC
VICEPRESIDENTE O EL PRESIDENTE. 
VER QUE LO QUE TARDAN HACER CON 
LA ESTRATEGIA Y CUÁLES SON LOS  
DESAFÍOS, Y QUE ES LO QUE 
PRESENTA HECHO FORMA MUY 
PERSONALIZADA . CREO QUE EL 
HECHO AQUÍ ES QUE TENEMOS A F
FUNCIONARIOS  QUE TRATAN DE 
IMPLEMENTAR POLÍTICAS Y EST
ESTRATEGIAS  CON UN PROCESO MUY 
CRU
INUSUAL Y SE PUEDE ATENCIÓN EN 
CÓMO RESPONDER LAS PREGUNTAS Y 
CON LO CUIDADOSOS QUE SON AL SER

English: 
ESTABLISHED AND THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS LEADING.
AND YOU SEE TWO STAFFERS THAT 
ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS 
U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE.
WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY 
WERE DOING AND THAT THEIR CHAINS
OF COMMAND, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
TEAM, WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO 
DO TO EXECUTE THAT STRATEGY.
AEN WHAT WERE THE TENSIONS AND 
CHALLENGES, AND FRANKLY THE 
BIZARRE NATURE OF THE PARALLEL 
PROCESSES AND WHAT IS IT REALLY 
A HIGH PERSONALIZED DIPLOMACY 
LED BY THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT I'M KEEN ON POLICY FACED 
WITH VERY UNUSUAL PARALLEL 
PROCESS AND EVEN PARALLEL 
INTENTIONS PERHAPS FROM THE 
PRESIDENT.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT TENSION IN 
HOW THEY ARE ANSWERING THE 
QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN SEE HOW CAREFUL THEY ARE
TRYING TO BE IN BEING PRECISE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY 
WERE STAFFERS TRYING TO EXECUTE 
WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THE BEST, 

English: 
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT AND WHAT OUR 
POLICY WAS AND THEY ARE FACED 
WITH THESE REAL CHALLENGES OF A 
PARALLEL PROCESS. 
>> CAN I JUST JUMP IN THOUGH, 
JUAN, BECAUSE PEOPLE WATCHING 
HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONING COMING FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN SIDE WHO SAY, AND 
VINDMAN AGREE WITH THIS, THERE 
IS A LONG STANDING CORRUPTION 
PROBLEM IN UKRAINE.
AND THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
FIT WITHIN THAT RUBRIC.
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS 
EXTRAORDINARY WHY THIS IS 
REMARKABLE AND NOT JUST THE 
'YOUR SUIT OF ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORTS IN UKRAINE WHICH WOULD 
BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF U.S. 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES?
>> YEAH, WHAT MAKES THIS 
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, 
ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF SOME OF 
THE QUESTIONS BEING POSED, IS 
THAT YOU HAVE TWO CORE ELEMENTS 
OF OUR UKRAINE POLICY THAT ARE 
AT PLAY.
BOTH IN THE CALL AS WELL AS IN 
THE PRESIDENT'S PARALLEL 
PROCESS.
AND SO, YES, THE QUESTION OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE 

Spanish: 
PRECISOS. PERO AL FINAL DEL DÍA 
SON FUNCIONARIOS QUE TRATAN DE 
HACER LO QUE CREÍAN ERA LO MEJOR
SIGUIENDO LOS INTERESES DEL 
GOBIERNO TAMBIÉN SE NUESTRAS 
POLÍTICAS. Y CREO QUE ESTOS SON 
REALES DESAFÍOS EN EL PROCESO.
>> DE HENRY ESTABA MIRANDO Y TAL
VEZ  ESCUCHÓ PARTE DEL 
TESTIMONIO Y DE LO QUE DICEN Y 
QUE BIEN ESTABA ACUERDO  QUE ES 
UN PROBLEMA DE CORRUPCIÓN EN 
UCRANIA, QUE ESTAS 
INVESTIGACIONES SON EN TALES 
EXTRAÑAS ENTONCES, NO PUEDO 
EXPLICAR PORQUE ESTO ES FUERA DE
LO COMÚN?
>> LO QUE HACE QUE SEA DIFÍCIL 
ENTENDER EN TÉRMINO DE ALGUNAS 
DE LAS PREGUNTAS ES QUE TENEMOS 
DOS ELEMENTOS CLAVES DE LA 
POLÍTICA QUE ESTÁN EN JUEGO  UNO

English: 
UKRAINE AND HOW WE HELP THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WITH ITS 
LEGITIMACY AND CONFRONT RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION IS IT A CENTRAL PART 
OF OUR POLICY.
AND YES OF COURSE HAS TO BE PART
OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT FOCUSES 
ON, WHAT THE FOREIGN POLICY 
COMMUNITY FOCUSES ON.
AND, YES, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
CONCERNS ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN THE 
CONTEXT OF THE UKRAINE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS, IN 
THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARALLEL 
PROCESS, A BIT OF A USE OF THOSE
VERY IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES AS 
PART OF THE PARALLEL DIPLOMACY 
AND PROCESS.
AND WHAT GETS CONFUSING FOR 
VIEWERS IS THE FACT THAT YOU 
HAVE TWO VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
CONVEYANCE OF NEARLY $400 
MILLION IN AID.
THE SENDING OF JAVELIN 
ANTI-DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEMS TO 
THE UKRAINIANS.
ALONG WITH A CONCERN AROUND 
CORRUPTION.
ALL OF WHICH ARE LEGITIMATE.
BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF A REQUEST 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT 

Spanish: 
LA LLAMADA COMO TAMBIÉN EN EL 
PROCESO. SI LA PREGUNTA DE 
SEGURIDAD Y UCRANIA EN CUANTO 
COMO AYUDAMOS AL GOBIERNO GRAN 
AY
CONTRA LA AGRESIÓN RUSA, CLARO 
TIENE QUE SER PARTE DE LO QUE EL
PRESIDENTE SE ENFOQUE EN LA 
POLÍTICA EXTERIOR. Y SI ELLA 
PREOCUPACIÓN ANTICORRUPCIÓN ES 
VITAL EN UCRANIA, NO HAY DUDA AL
RESPECTO. PERO QUE TENEMOS EN EL
PROCESO ES EL USO DE SÁBADOS 
PUNTOS DE POLÍTICA MUY IMPO
T
IMPORTANTES FRENTE A UN PAR
O
PARALELO, Y LO QUE VEMOS ES QUE 
DE HECHO HAY DOS TEMAS 
IMPORTANTES DEL SISTEMA DE 
SEGURIDAD QUE SON MÁS DE 400,000
DÓLARES PARA ELLOS NO ESTAMOS 
ENVIANDO JABALINAS SISTEMAS DE 
SEGURIDAD LOSA CRANEANOS, Y 
ADEMÁS LAS PREOCUPACIONES CONTRA
LA CORRUPCIÓN. EN EL CONTEXTO DE

Spanish: 
LO QUE SE PIENSA INVESTIGACIÓN 
QUE PARECE SER PERSONAL Y 
POLÍTICA Y LLEVADA POR EL 
PRESIDENTE DE MANERA PERSONAL, 
CREO QUE ESO ES REALMENTE EL 
PROBLEMA AQUÍ SE ENTIENDE ESTOS 
SON PROBLEMAS QUE IMPORTAN AL Y 
LE IMPORTAN UCRANIA, PERO ESTA 
PETICIÓN PERSONAL Y POLÍTICAS 
PROBLEMÁTICA.
>>  MIKE LA MEDIDA QUE VEÍAS 
ESTO PARECÍA QUE DE DE VERDAD 
ERA UN RIESGO DE SEGURIDAD 
NACIONAL. NO PARA UCRANIA. SI 
ALGO DE LO QUE HEMOS ESCUCHADO 
ESTA MAÑANA ESTABLECE LAS PIEZAS
QUE PARA EL ROMPECABEZAS EN UNA
>>  CREO QUE LA ESCUCHAMOS HOY 
ES QUE EL PRESIDENTE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS UTILIZÓ SU PODER PARA UNA
GANANCIA PERSONAL. ESTADOS 

English: 
APPEARS TO BE PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL AND DRIVEN BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL MOTIVES AS 
OPPOSED TO FOREIGN POLICY 
MOTIVES.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE 
TROUBLE HERE IN UNDERSTANDING 
THIS.
THESE ARE YOU WILL A THE ISSUES 
THAT MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF 
UKRAINE BUT DISTORTED THROUGH 
THE LENS OF THIS PERSONAL 
REQUEST THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
MAKE ZBLG JUAN, WILL ET ME TURN 
TO NBC ANALYST FORMER AMBASSADOR
TO RUSSIA.
MICHAEL, AS YOU WATCH THIS, IT 
SEEMS IT WILL RISE AND FALL 
WHETHER THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
BELIEVES THERE WAS A REAL 
NATIONAL SECURITY RISK, NOT JUST
MISS DEEDS BUT NATIONAL SECURITY
RISK.
DID ANYTHING WE HEARD THIS 
MORNING ESTABLISH THAT IN BITE 
SIZE PIECES?
>> I THINK WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY 
IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES USED HIS PUBLIC 
OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN.
AND WHETHER THAT RISES TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AND 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THAT'S FOR 
THE U.S. CONGRESS TO DECIDE.
BUT NOTHING IN THE GENERAL 
NARRATIVE WE'VE KNOWN NOW FOR A 

Spanish: 
UNIDOS DEBE DECIDIR CÓMO 
CASTIGARLO PERO NADA DE ESTA 
NARRATIVA  HA SIDO CUESTIONADO. 
DE HECHO LO QUE ME IMPACTÓ  ERAN
LOS LAS RAMAS POR LAS QUE SE 
IBAN. ALGUIEN QUE SIRVIÓ EN 
MOSCÚ NO HIZO ALGO MALO POR 
HACER UNA ENTREVISTA CON ELLEN 
DE LA GENTE Y SEGUNDO ESTÁN 
CUESTIONANDO SU LEALTAD A 
ESTADOS UNIDOS PORQUE RESULTA 
QUE SIMPLEMENTE NACIÓ LA UNIÓN 
SOVIÉTICA . PERO NADA DE ESO ES 
SUSTANCIOSO A LA HISTORIA 
GENERAL. LOS REPUBLICANOS NO 
HICIERON NADA O Y.
>> Y HAY UN MOMENTO INTERESANTE 
CUANDO EL CORONEL VINDMAN DICE 
QUE DE HECHO FUE ÉL QUIEN 
PREPARÓ LOS PUNTOS DE 
CONVERSACIÓN DE ESA LLAMADA QUE 
SON LOS PUNTOS QUE SE SIGUEN 

English: 
LONG, LONG TIME WAS QUESTION AT 
ALL.
IN FACT, WHAT WAYS STRUCK BY WAS
THE RABBIT HOLES THEY WERE GOING
DOWN.
FIRST, THE IDEA THAT LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, BY THE WAY 
SOMEONE I SERVED IN MOSCOW, 
SOMEHOW DID SOMETHING WRONG BY 
BRIEFING THE INTERAGENCY.
THAT WAS ONE LINE OF ATTACK.
THEN SECOND THEY WERE 
QUESTIONING HIS LOYALTY TO THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BECAUSE
HE HAPPENED TO BE BORN IN THE 
SOVIET UNION.
BUT NEITHER OF THOSE WERE 
SUBSTANTIVE ATTACKS ON THE 
GENERAL STORY.
THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO 
ANYTHING TO DAMAGE THAT GENERAL 
STORY WHICH WE KNOW WELL NOW. 
>> AMBASSADOR, I THOUGHT THERE 
WAS AN INTERESTING MOMENT WHERE 
COLONEL VINDMAN WHO TESTIFIED 
HE'S THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY 
PREPARED THE TALKING POINTS, THE
NOTES THAT YOU GIVE TO THE 
LEADER THAT YOU ARE STAFFING TO 
SAY THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE
WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT.
THEY CAN USE THEM OR NOT USE 
THEM.
BUT HE PREPARED THE TALKING 
POINTS.
HE WAS ASKED BY THE DEMOCRATIC 
COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT THIS IDEA
OF THE UKRAINE INTERFERING IN 
THE ELECTION.

Spanish: 
DURANTE LA LLAMADA CON LÍDERES 
EXTRANJEROS. LE PREGUNTARON LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS Y ESTA IDEA DE QUE 
UCRANIA INTERFERÍA LA ELECCIÓN 
DE 2016 ESTABA EN LOS PUNTOS 
PREPARADOS PARA CONVERSACIÓN Y 
ÉL DIJO QUE NO. FUE TAMBIÉN 
EMBAJADOR DE RUSIA DIJO QUE 
PREGUNTARON SI SABÍA SI PUTIN 
HABÍA DICHO QUE HABÍA SIDO 
UCRANIANO RUSIA QUE HAN 
INTERFERIDO EN 2016 Y ÉL DIJO 
U
QUE LO SABÍA MUY BIEN. PARTE DEL
TESTIMONIO SE VERÁ LOS DEM
A
DEMÓCRATAS TRATAR DE MOSTRAR QUE
TODOS LOS CAMINOS LLEVAN A PUTIN
Y DONALD TRUMP
 SIGUE DE SON VARIAS PREG
PREGUNTASTAMBIÉN ESCRIBÍ PUNTOS 
DE CONVERSACIÓN PARA EL 
PRESIDENTE OBAMA. EL SIEMPRE 
UTILIZO TODOS LOS PUNTOS QUE LE 

English: 
HE SAID WAS THAT IN THE TALKING 
POINTS?
HE SAID NO IT IS NOT.
AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS 
INTERESTING, HE WAS ASKED, ARE 
YOU AWARE THAT PUTIN PROMOTES 
THAT THEORY, THAT IT WAS 
UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA THAT 
INTERFERED IN 2016?
AND VINDMAN SAID I'M WELL AWARE 
OF THAT FACT.
A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER THESE FEW
DAYS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY, YOU'VE
SEEN THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO 
PROVE WHAT HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI LIKES TO SAY, THAT ALL 
ROADS LEAD TO PUTIN WHEN IT 
COMES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> YEAH, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT WAS
A VERY EFFECTIVE LINE OF 
QUESTIONING.
I ALSO WORKED AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND WROTE 
TALKING POINTS FOR PRESIDENT 
OBAMA.
BY THE WAY PRESIDENT OBAMA 
ALWAYS USED EVERY TALKING POINT 
THAT I WROTE.
HE DIDN'T DIVERGE HERE.
AND WHAT YOU SAW IN THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING WAS THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION POLICY TOWARDS 
UKRAINE REPRESENTED IN THE 
TALKING POINTS THAT LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN PRESENTED ON THE
ONE HAND, AND THE PRIVATE 
INTERESTS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Spanish: 
ESCRIBÍ EL NONI VERDI DÍA DE 
ELLOS Y SEGUÍA LAS LÍNEAS DE 
PREGUNTAS. 
VINDMAN NO ESTABA HABLANDO DE LA
POLÍTICA DE UCRANIA, ESTO DA LA 
ADMINISTRACIÓN QUE TIENE UNA 
SOLA POLÍTICA. 
>>> VIMOS AL CORONEL VINDMAN QUE
SE ESTABA PREPARANDO PARA VOLVER
A LA SALA LUEGO DE UN CORTO 
DESCANSO.
PETER, HEMOS HABLA ESCUCHADO DEL
PRESIDENTE DURANTE ESTE TIEMPO?
>>> SI HAY MIEMBROS DE LA PRENSA
EN PREPARACIÓN A LA REUNIÓN DEL 
GABINETE. AHORA ESTARÍA 
COMENZANDO OTRA REUNIÓN DE 

English: 
AND I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSCORE 
THIS FACT.
VINDMAN IS NOT MAKING UP U.S. 
POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE.
IT IS THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION 
THAT HAS ONE POLICY AND IT WAS 
THE PRESIDENT PURSUING THIS 
ALTERNATE SET OF PRESIDENTS TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR HIS 
RE-ELECTION EFFORTS. 
>> JUST GOT A SHOT OF COLONEL 
VINDMAN IN THE HALLWAY AS THEY 
PREPARE TO GO BACK IN THE 
HEARING ROOM AFTER A SHORT 
BREAK.
BUT LET ME GO TO PETER ALEXANDER
AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
PETER, HAVE WE HEARD FROM THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> Reporter: WE HAVEN'T BUT WE 
LIKELY WILL NOW GATHERED IN 
PREPARATION TO HEAD INTO THE 
CABINET ROOM TODAY AT 11:30 A.M.
PERSON TIME EFFECTIVELY RIGHT 
NOW HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE 
BEGINNING ANOTHER CABINET 
MEETING.
THAT'S WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS 
BRIEFED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS 
ADMINISTRATION.
BUT ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT JUST TO SPEAK HIS MIND
ON WHATEVER TOPIC MAY BE THERE 
AT THE MOMENT.
CERTAINLY THIS IS ONE TOPIC THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HEAVILY 

Spanish: 
GABINETE. ES UNA OPORTUNIDAD 
PARA QUE EL PRESIDENTE HABLE DE 
LO QUE TIENEN SU MENTE, ESTAMOS 
HABLANDO CON LOS EXPERTOS DEL 
ASUNTO DEL DENUNCIANTE.
EL PRESIDENTE LO HA AMPLIFICADO 
MUCHO MÁS QUE A NADIE, EL 
PRESIDENTE PREGUNTÓ DÓNDE ESTÁ 
EL FALSO DENUNCIANTE? 
ÉL DICE QUE LA PERSONA QUE HIZO 
LA QUEJA DEBERÍA ESTAR 
ATESTIGUANDO.
VINDMAN Y LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS 
FUERON TESTIGOS DE PRIMERA MANO.
INCLUSO EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI 
DIJO QUE NO HUBO PRESIÓN DE 

English: 
FOCUSED ON.
YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH OUR 
EXPERTS AND TEAMMATES THAT ARE 
AROUND THE TABLE RIGHT NOW ABOUT
THIS ISSUE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
EARLIER.
IT'S REALLY BEEN THE PRESIDENT 
WHO HAS BEEN AMPLIFIED IT MORE 
THAN ANYBODY.
JUST 24 HOURS AGO THE PRESIDENT 
TWEETING, WHERE IS THE FAKE 
WHISTLEBLOWER?
HE HAS BEEN THE ONE REALLY 
PUSHING THIS LINE THAT ALL OF 
THIS SHOULD BE UNDERMINED 
BECAUSE OF THE PERSON WHO CAME 
FORWARD WITH THIS COMPLAINT IN 
THE VERY BEGINNING.
BUT AS EVIDENCED BY JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS TESTIMONY AND THE 
TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER VINDMAN 
AS WELL, THEY WERE PRIMARY 
SOURCES.
THEY WERE FIRSTHAND WITNESSES TO
THAT CALL.
AND WHAT WAS STRIKING IN THE WAY
THAT VINDMAN DESCRIBED THAT 
CALL, THE PRESIDENT AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S ALLIES HAVE SAID 
EVEN UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT SAID 
THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.
THAT THEY NEVER FELT ANY 
PRESSURE AT ANY POINT.
OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD 
SAY WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT 
HIM TO SAY?
VINDMAN SAID THAT THE WAY HE 
VIEWED THAT, WHEN HE SAID I'D 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 

English: 
THOUGH, WAS NOT AS A REQUEST, 
NOT AN ASK, BUT THAT HE VIEWED 
IT AS AN ORDER.
LESTER. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
PETER, THANK YOU. 
>> LET'S GO GO TO JEFF ON 
CAPITOL HILL.
THERE WAS AN INTERESTING MOMENT 
WHEN JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO WAS A
STATE EMPLOYEE TO WORK FOR THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT A 
PHONE CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
SEPTEMBER 18th.
SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.
AND THEN ON THE ADVICE OF 
COUNSEL SAID SHE COULDN'T 
DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THAT 
CALL BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED.
AND THE WHITE HOUSE WAS 
ASSERTING IT WAS CLASSIFIED AND 
NOT PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
AND WHAT MORE DO WE KNOW ABOUT 
THAT CALL, IT WAS SEVEN DAYS 
AFTER THAT AID WAS FINALLY 
RELEASED?
>> THE REASON WHY THE CALL 
MATTERS, IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS MAKE
THE POINT THAT THIS CALL, THE 
JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY 
DID NOT HAPPEN IN ISOLATION.
THAT THE CALL WAS PART OF A 
BROAD COORDINATED MONTHS LONG 
SCHEME.

Spanish: 
NINGÚN TIPO, LOS DEMÓCRATAS 
DICEN QUE ESO ES LO ÚNICO QUE 
PUEDE RESPONDER, BINDIJO QUE LOL
CORONEL VINDMAN DICE QUE EL ODÓO
COMO UNA ORDEN.
>>> HABLARON DE UNA LLAMADA CON 
EL PRESIDENTE VICEPRESIDENTE EL 
18 DE SEPTIEMBRE, PERO ÉLLLA NO 
PODÍA HABLAR DE LA LLAMADA POR 
QUÉ ERA CONFIDENCIAL: QUÉ MÁS 
SABEMOS QUE ESA LLAMADA? SÓLO 
SABEMOS QUE FUE UNOS DÍAS 
DESPUÉS DE QUE SE LIBERARÁ LOS 
FONDOS MILITARES

Spanish: 
>>> LA LLAMADA DEL 25 DE JULIO 
NO OCURRIÓ AISLADAMENTE ERA 
PARTE DE UN ESQUEMA MAYOR, PERO 
LA LLAMADA DEL VICEPRESIDENTE 
CON ZELENSKI FUE MÁS PRIVADA. EL
CONTENIDO DE ESA LLAMADA ES 
CONFIDENCIAL. HACE UNAS SEMANAS 
EL VICEPRESIDENTE DIJO QUE 
PENSABA PUBLICAR EL CONTENIDO 
ESA LLAMADA.
AHORA QUE APARECEN LAS 
AUDIENCIAS NO VISTEN QUE ES 

English: 
AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY 
THEY ARE FOCUSED ON THIS 
SEPTEMBER 18th MEETING BETWEEN 
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND 
ZELENSKY IS TO GET A SENSE OF 
THE FOLLOW UP THAT HAPPENED BY 
THE ADMINISTRATION AFTER THAT 
CALL IN QUESTION.
NOW, WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT 
THIS, IS THAT AS YOU CORRECTLY 
POINTED OUT, THE LAWYER IN 
REALTIME SAID THAT HE HAD 
LEARNED FROM THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE THAT THE 
CONTENTS OF THAT CALL IS NOW 
CLASSIFIED.
BUT UP UNTIL TODAY, YOU HAD THE 
VICE PRESIDENT, A COUPLE OF 
WEEKS AGO IN FACT, SAYING THAT 
HE INTENDED TO MAKE THAT CALL 
PUBLIC.
HE SAID THAT HE WAS WORKING IN 
COORDINATION WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE TO RELEASE THE CONTENTS OF
WHAT WAS SAID.
NOW, THAT IT CAME UP IN A 
HEARING, WE ARE TOLD THAT IT'S 
CLASSIFIED.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, AS WE 
EXPECT THIS HEARING TO COME BACK
INTO SESSION ANY MINUTE NOW, A 
BIG QUESTION HEADING INTO THIS 
WAS HOW WOULD THE REPUBLICANS 
HANDLE THIS TESTIMONY FROM THESE
FIRSTHAND FACT WITNESSES.
AND NOW WE KNOW.
I THINK THEY HAVE SETTLED ON 
WHAT IS REALLY A THREE-PRONG 
STRATEGY BEST TELEGRAPHED BY 
DEVIN NUNES AND STEVE THE 

Spanish: 
CONFIDENCIAL, LA PREGUNTA ES 
CÓMO LOS REPUBLICANOS MANEJARON 
LAS LLAMADAS DE ESTOS TESTIGOS. 
LO QUE VIMOS QUE HIZO DE LYNN 
N
NUNES ES QUE EL INTENTO DE 
HABLAR DE LOS BIDEN Y BURISMA 
PARA PRESENTAR CONFUSIÓN. VA
A
RÁPIDAMENTE, RESPECTO AL 
DENUNCIANTE, ES UNA PERSONA QUE 
LIDIAR CON TEMAS CRIMINALES, NO 
ES UNA LLAMADA DEL NUEVE UNO U
O
UNO, AQUÍ SABEMOS QUE EL 
DENUNCIANTE ÉL NO TENÍA IN

English: 
REPUBLICAN COUNCIL.
WHAT WE SAW DEVIN NUNES TRY TO 
DO IS TAKE THE UKRAINE QUESTION 
DOWN UNRELATED AND SOME CASE 
RABBIT HOLES.
HE ALSO TRIED TO INVOKE THE NAME
OF THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AS 
MANY TIMES AS HE COULD, IN PART,
TO RAISE DOUBTS AND TO RAISE 
SORT OF DAMAGING INFORMATION IN 
THE PUBLIC SPHERE THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HIMSELF SAID HE WANTED 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO DO.
THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
SO WE SEE MS. WILLIAMS AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TAKING THEIR SEATS. 
>> AS WE WAIT FOR THAT.
ANDREW, VERY QUICKLY ON THIS 
ISSUE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THAT
NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE PERSON WHO
CALLS 911, IS SOMEONE IN 
CRIMINAL MATTER YOU WOULD NEED 
TO HEAR?
>> LESS THAN A 911 CALL.
BECAUSE 911 CALL IT MAY HAVE 
FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.
HERE WE KNOW THAT THE PERSON WHO
IS CALLING IN WHO IS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS NO FIRSTHAND 
INFORMATION.
SO EVEN LESS RELEVANT THAN A 911
CALL. 
>> WE WILL RETURN BACK TO THE 

English: 
HEARING NOW. 
>> FIRST, IF I COULD ASK MS. 
WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF 
QUESTIONS BY THE RANKING MEMBER 
AT THE OUTSET.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT,
AND THERE WAS A RECITATION OF 
INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA, THE 
BIDENS.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU HAVE NO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF 
THE MATTERS THAT WERE ASKED IN 
THOSE QUESTIONS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ALSO 
ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS 
ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT'S SKIED 
ACTUAL AND WHETHER HE COULD HAVE
MADE THE INAUGURATION OR WAS THE
PRESIDENT TRAVELING OR THE 
INTEREST IP TO CANADA.
LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.
THE PRESIDENT YOU WERE 
INSTRUCTED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT 
TO GO BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW THE 
DATE OF THE INAUGURATION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> SO AT THE TIME HE WAS TOLD 
NOT TO GO, THERE WAS NO 
CALCULATION ABOUT WHERE HE MIGHT
BE OR WHERE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT 
BE BECAUSE THE DATE HADN'T EVEN 

Spanish: 
INFORMACIÓN DE PRIMERA MANO, 
PERO ESO NO ES RELEVANTE .
>>> SI PUDIERA PEDIRLE AL SEÑOR 
VINDMAN Y A LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS 
INFORMACIÓN ACERCA DE LOS BIDEN 
Y BURISMA, USTEDES TIENEN 
INFORMACIÓN DE SEGUNPRIMERA MAN 
RESPECTO, NO VERDAD?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> DEJEMOS EN CLARO ALGO 
RESPECTO AL VIAJE A CANADÁ, EL 
PRESIDENTE LE DIJO QUE NO FUERA 

English: 
BEEN SET YET.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THE DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET.
SO WE WERE WEIGHING DIFFERENT 
SCENARIOS WHEN THE INAUGURATION 
MIGHT FALL. 
>> NOW, I THINK YOU SAID THAT 
ORIGINALLY THE PRESIDENT HAD 
TOLD HIM TO GO, AND THEN YOU 
RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTION THAT 
THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WANTED 
HIM TO GO.
WERE YOU AWARE IN THE INTERIM 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TELLING 
HIM TO GO OR THE PRESIDENT NOT 
TO GO, THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD TO
ABORT A TRIP THAT HE WAS GOING 
TO MAKE TO UKRAINE?
>> I HAD SEEN THAT IN THE PRESS,
YES. 
>> AND HAD YOU SEEN IN THE PRESS
THAT RUDY GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE
AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO 
CANCEL THE TRIP?
>> FOR HAVING TO CANCEL HIS 
TRIP?
>> YES. 
>> I HAD READ THAT IN THE PRESS 
REPORTING, YES. 
>> AND DID YOU READ IN THE PRESS
REPORTING ALSO THAT GIULIANI 
WANTED TO GO TO THE UKRAINE AS 
HE PUT IT NOT MEDDLE IN AN 

Spanish: 
AL DÉCIMO PRESIDENTE.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> NO HUBO INFORMACIÓN DE 
CUÁNDO SERÍA LA INAUGURACIÓN.
>>> SÍ, LA FECHA AÚN NO HABÍA 
SIDO RECIBIDA O
>>> SABÍA USTED QUE RUDY 
GIULIANI IBA A IR DE VIAJE A 
UCRANIA?
>>> LO SUPE POR LA PRENSA.
>>> USTED SABÍA QUE RUDY GI
GIULIANI QUERÍA ALGUIEN A 
UCRANIA PARA NO INMISCUIRSE EN 

English: 
ELECTION, BULL INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I HAD READ THAT. 
>> AND THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO 
THE PRESIDENT CANCEL SOMETHING 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO THE
INAUGURATION. 
>> IT DID.
I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND JULY 
10th. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE 
ASKED BY THE MINORITY COUNCIL 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS ON 
THE JULY 25th CALL.
AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S 
WORDS WERE AMBIGUOUS.
WAS THERE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF THE WORD 
BIDEN?
>> THERE WAS NOT. 
>> IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED ZELENSKY TO 
COMMIT TO INVESTIGATING THE 
BIDENS, WAS IT NOT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE FAVORS 
THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE 
PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A 
DEMAND?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY 
ABOUT THAT?
>> IN MY MIND, THERE WAS NOT. 
>> IT'S ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT, 
THAT THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS 

Spanish: 
LAS ELECCIONES SINO EN UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN.
>>> LEÍ ALGO AL RESPECTO, SI .
>>> CORONEL VINDMAN, A USTED LE 
PREGUNTARON ACERCA DE LA LLAMADA
DEL 25 DE JULIO, SI LAS PALABRAS
ERAN AMBIGUAS. HUBO ALGUNA 
AMBIGÜEDAD EN EL USO DE LA 
PALABRA BIDEN?
>>> NO.
>>> ERA CLARO QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
QUERÍA QUE INVESTIGARA A LOS 
BIDEN?
>>> ASÍ ES.

Spanish: 
>>> TAMBIÉN ES VERDAD QUE ESTAS 
INVESTIGACIONES QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE LE PIDIÓ A ZELENSKI 
RESPECTO A LAS ELECCIONES DEL 
2016 Y LOS BIDEN, ERA LAS 
INVESTIGACIONES QUE RUDY 
GIULIANI QUERÍA HACER PÚBLICAS?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE SE REFIRIÓ A 
LAS MISMAS INVESTIGACIONES QUE 
J
RUDY GIULIANI ESTABA PROMO
O
PROMOVIENDO?
>>> SÍ .
>>> ACERCA DE LO QUE OCURRIÓ EN 
SEPTIEMBRE DONDE LOS UCRANIANOS 
ESTABAN PREOCUPADOS DE EL CO
CONGELAMIENTO DE LOS FONDOS 
MILITARES .

English: 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED 
ZELENSKY FOR INTO 2016 AND INTO 
THE BIDENS WERE PRECISELY THE 
TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS CALLING FOR 
PUBLICLY, WERE THEY NOT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> SO WHEN PEOPLE SUGGEST, WELL,
MAYBE RUDY GIULIANI WAS ACTING 
ON HIS OWN AND MAYBE HE WAS A 
FREELANCER OR WHATEVER, THE 
PRESIDENT REFERRED TO THE SAME 
TWO INVESTIGATIONS RUDY GIULIANI
WAS PUSHING ON HIS BEHALF.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS YOU WERE 
ASKED ABOUT THE MEETING THE VICE
PRESIDENT HAD WITH ZELENSKY IN 
SEPTEMBER IN WHICH THE 
UKRAINIANS BROUGHT UP THEIR 
CONCERN ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> AND YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT 
WHETHER IN THAT MEETING BETWEEN 
THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
BIDENS OR BURISMA CAME UP.
STHARKS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT THEY DID FLOT 
COME UP. 
>> THAT BILATERAL MEETING WAS A 

English: 
LARGE MEETING THAT INVOLVED TWO 
OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, WASN'T?
>> IT WAS. 
>> SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS 
MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE DOZEN 
PEOPLE THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
BRING UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, 
CORRECT?
>> NO, HE DID NOT BRING UP THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE'S NEVER BROUGHT UP THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT 
IMMEDIATELY, AND I MEAN 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT MEETING 
BROKE UP, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAS SAID THAT HE WENT OVER TO 
MR. YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP 
ADVISERS TO ZELENSKY, AND TOLD 
YERMAK THAT IF THEY WANTED THE 
MILITARY AID, THEY WERE GOING TO
HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?
>> I WAS NOT AWARE AT THE TIME 
OF ANY MEETINGS, VIED MEETINGS 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
FOLLOWING THE VEP'S MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
I'VE ONLY LEARNED THAT THROUGH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.
>> SO AT THE BIG PUBLIC MEETING 
IT DIDN'T COME UP, AND YOU CAN'T
TALK TO THE PRIVATE MEETING THAT
WAS HELD IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER?
>> CORRECT.
THE VICE PRESIDENT MOVED ON WITH
HIS SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY AFTER 
HIS MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT 

Spanish: 
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> NO SE MENCIONÓ BURISMA?
>>> NO.
>>> EL CONTEXTO DE ESTA REUNIÓN 
DE DOS O TRES PERSONAS, EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE NO NOMBRÓ ESTAS 
INVESTIGACIONES?
>>> NO.
>>> LUEGO EL PEL SEÑOR SONDLAND 
LE DIJO AL SEÑORYERMAC, QUE 
TENDRÍAN QUE HACER ES AL 
INVESTIGACIONES.
>>> YO O NO SABÍA ACERCA DE ESO,
SÓLO SUPE DE LO QUE HICE DEL 
SEÑOR SONDLAND RECIENTEMENTE.

English: 
ZELENSKY. 
>> NOW, COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT 
TO GO BACK TO THAT JULY 10th 
MEETING OR MEETINGS, THE ONE 
WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THEN THE
ONE IN THE WARD ROOM THAT 
FOLLOWED QUICKLY ON ITS HEELS.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON INSTRUCTED YOUR SUPERIOR,
DR. HILL, TO GO TALK TO THE 
LAWYERS AFTER THAT MEETING?
>> I LEARNED SHORTLY AFTER SHE 
WAS FINISHED TALKING TO 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND AFTER WE 
WRAPPED UP WITH THE WARD ROOM 
THAT SHE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH
HIM TAN THAT WAS EXPRESSED. 
>> NOW YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD 
TALK TO THE LAWYERS ON YOUR OWN?
>> THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, 
YESLE. 
>> BUT BOLTON ALSO THOUGHT THAT 
DR. HILL SHOULD GO TALK TO THE 
LAWYERS BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERN 
OVER THIS DRUG DEAL THAT 
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE 

Spanish: 
>
EL VICEPRESIDENTE SIGUIÓ CON SU 
AGENDA LUEGO DE LA REUNIÓN.
>>> RESPECTO A LA REUNIÓN DE 10 
DE JULIO, SABÍA USTED QUE EL 
EMBAJADOR BOLTON LE INSTRUYÓ A 
SU SUPERIOR QUE HABLARA CON LOS 
ABOGADOS LUEGO DE LA REUNIÓN?
>>> LO SUPE POCO DESPUÉS DE QUE 
HABLARA CON EL SEÑOR BOLTON QUE 
ELLA TUVO UNA REUNIÓN.
>>> USTED FUE HABLAR CON LOS A
O
ABOGADOS POR SÍ SOLO?
>>> CREO QUE SI .

English: 
TALKING ABOUT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND IN FACT THIS DRUG DEAL AS
BOLTON CALLED IT INVOLVED THIS 
CONDITIONING OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT SONDLAND BROUGHT UP.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
>> AND, IN FACT, THIS SAME 
CONDITIONING OR THIS SAME ISSUE 
OF WANTING THESE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS AND TYING IT TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THIS 
CAME UP IN THE JULY 25th CALL, 
DID IT NOT, WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
ASKED FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> SO THE VERY SAME ISSUE THAT 
BOLTON SAID TO HILL, GO TALK TO 
THE LAWYERS, THE VERY SAME ISSUE
THAT PROMPTED YOU TO TALK TO THE
LAWYERS, ENDS UPCOMING UP IN 
THAT CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND IT WAS THAT CONVERSATION 
THAT, ONCE AGAIN, LED YOU BACK 

Spanish: 
>>> PERO TAMBIÉN LE RECOMENDARON
A LA SEÑORA HILL QUE HABLARA CON
ABOGADOS?
>>> ASÍ PARECE.
>>> EL HECHO DE QUE ESTO 
INVOLUCRE A LAS INVESTIGACIONES 
QUE EL SEÑOR SONDLAND NOMBRÓ?
>>> ESO CREO.
>>> EL MISMO HECHO DE QUERER 
ESTAS INVESTIGACIONES POLÍTICAS 
Y AMARRAR LAS UNA VISITA A LA 
CASA BLANCA, APARECIERON EN LA 
LLAMADA?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> POR LO TANTO LA MISMA RAZÓN 
POR LA QUE USTEDES QUERÍAN 
LLAMAR A LOS ABOGADOS APARECE EN
ESA REUNIÓN?

English: 
TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TOOK SEVEN 
MINUTES SO I ASSUME YOU'LL GIVE 
US EQUAL TIME. 
>> YES, MR. NUNES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
BEFORE I TURN TO MR. JORDAN, I 
ASKED MS. WILLIAMS ABOUT THIS 
ABOUT IF SHE HAD EVER ACCESSED 
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FELLOW 
EMPLOYEES COMPUTER SYSTEM.
SHE ANSWERED NO TO THE QUESTION.
HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED ANYONE'S 
COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE NSC 
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION?
>> WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE, NO. 
>> KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION 
YOU NEVER ACCESSED SOMEONE'S 
COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE
OR AUTHORIZATION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER.
COLONEL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR

Spanish: 
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> Y FUE ESA CONVERSACIÓN QUE 
LO LLEVÓ A HABLAR CON LOS 
ABOGADOS.
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> TENIENTE CORONEL, ANTES DE 
HABLAR CON SEÑOR QUEKENYT LE 
PREGUNTÉ A LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS 
DECIDÍ HABÍA IZADO EL COMPOSITOR
DE OTRA PERSONA AUTORIZACIÓN?
>>> SIN SU AUTORIZACIÓN, NO.
>>> SIN SU AUTORIZACIÓN O SU 

English: 
YOUR SERVICE AND SACRIFICE TO 
OUR GREAT COUNTRY.
THIS AFTERNOON YOUR FORMER BOSS,
MR. MORRISON IS GOING TO BE 
STITING WHERE YOU ARE SITTING.
AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE 
TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS
MR. MORRISON SAID IN HIS 
DEPOSITION.
PAGE 82 OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM 
MR. MORRISON.
MR. MORRISON SAID THIS, I HAD 
CONCERNS ABOUT LUTE COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT AMONG THE 
DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL 
AND THE TRANSITION WITH OUR 
TEAM, IT'S STRENGTH, ITS 
WEAKNESSES AND FIONA AND OTHERS 
HAD RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ALEX 
JUDGMENT.
WHEN MR. MORRISON WAS ASKED BY 
MR. KASTER, DID ANYONE BRING 
CONCERNS TO YOU THAT COLONEL 
VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED 
SOMETHING.
MR. MORRISON REPLIED YES.
SO YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
YOUR JUDGMENT.
YOUR FORMER BOSS DR. HILL HAD 
CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT.
YOUR COLLEAGUES HAD CONCERNS 
ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT.
AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FELT THERE 
WERE TIMES WHEN YOU LEAKED 
INFORMATION.
ANY IDEA WHY THEY HAVE THOSE 

Spanish: 
CONOCIMIENTO.
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> LE QUIERO AGRADECER SU 
SERVICIO Y SACRIFICIO NUESTRO 
PAÍS, LE QUIERO DAR LA 
OPORTUNIDAD DE RESPONDER LAS T
A
TRANSCRIPCIONES QUE DIJO EL S
SEÑOR MORRISON.
ESTABA PREOCUPADO POR LO QUE 
DIJO EL SEÑOR VINDMAN, DEBIDO A 
LOS TESTIGOS,FIONA FIONA ESTABA 
PREOCUPADAS TAMBIÉN.?
>>> ENTONCES SU JEFE TENÍA 
PREOCUPACIÓN ACERCA DE SUS 

English: 
IMPRESSIONS, COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> YES, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, I
GUESS I'LL START BY READING DR. 
HILL'S OWN WORDS AS TESTED TO IN
MY LAST EVALUATION DATED 
MID-JULY BEFORE HE LEFT.
ALEX IS TOP 1% BEST ARMY OFFICER
I'VE WORKED WITH IN 15 YEARS OF 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
HE'S BRILL ANTIBIOTIC.
AND EXERCISES -- HE'S BRILLIANT.
AND EXERCISES EXCELLENT 
JUDGMENT.
I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA. 
>> THE DATE OF THAT WAS?
>> YEAH, LET'S SEE, I'M SORRY, 
JULY 13th. 
>> SO MR. JORDAN, I WOULD SAY I 
CAN'T SAY WHAT MR. MORRISON, WHY
MR. MORRISON QUESTIONED MY 
JUDGMENT.
WE HAD ONLY RECENTLY STARTED 
WORKING TOGETHER.
HE WASN'T THERE VERY LONG.

Spanish: 
DECISIONES, COMO TAMBIÉN OTROS. 
ALGUNAS PERSONAS PENSABAN QUE 
USTED AL FILTRABA INFORMACIÓN. 
POR QUÉ CREE QUE LAS PERSONAS 
PENSABAN ASÍ?
>>> SI PODÍA CESAR LEYENDO LO 
QUE DIJO LA SEÑORA HILL, ALEX ES
EL MEJOR OFICIAL CON QUIEN HE 
TRABAJADO,, ES EXCELENTE, SI 
TIENE UN JUICIO EXCELENTE. HA 
SIDO EJEMPLAR, ,, Y ASÍ SIGUE.
EL SEÑOR MORRISON, DIJO ESO EL 
13 DE JULIO, NNO SE POR QUÉ ÉL 

Spanish: 
CUESTIONABA MI JUICIO, SI APENAS
ACABAMOS DE  EMPEZAR A TRABAJAR 
JUNTOS. VENÍA DE OTRA CULTURA.
>>> NUNCA FILTRÓ INFORMACIÓN?
>>> POR SUPUESTO QUE NO.
>>> EN TODAS LAS DE TESTIMONIOS 
VOLVEMOS EN LA CONVERSACIÓN DEL 
25 DE JULIO, ESTABAN USTED, LA 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS Y EL SEÑOR M
MORRISON. ÉL HABLÓ DE LA LLA
A

English: 
AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO 
FIGURE OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP.
MAYBE IT WAS A DIFFERENT 
CULTURE.
MILITARY CULTURE VERSUS. 
>> AND COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED
INFORMATION?
>> I NEVER DID.
I NEVER WOULD.
THAT I WOULD NEVER DO. 
>> THE PEOPLE WE DEPOSED WERE 
NOW ON THE SOMEWHAT FAMOUS JULY 
25th PHONE CALL.
THERE WAS YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL 
SITTING BESIDE YOU MS. WILLIAMS 
AND YOUR BOSS MR. MORRISON THAT 
I READ FROM HIS DEPOSITION.
WHEN WE ASKED MS. WILLIAMS WHO 
SHE SPOKE TO ABOUT THE CALL SHE 
WAS WILLING TO ASK OUR QUESTIONS
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HER.
WHEN WE SPOKE MR. MORRISON WHO 
HE SPOKE TO ABOUT THE CALL.
HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER OUR 
QUESTION AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
ALLOWED HIM TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
WHEN WE FIRST ASKED YOU YOU 

English: 
FIRST TOLD US THREE INDIVIDUALS,
YOUR BROTHER AND TWO LAWYERS.
THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS A GROUP 
OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED
WITH BUT WOULD ONLY GIVE US ONE 
GENTLEMEN SECRETARY KENT.
AND ONLY ALLOW TO GIVE US THE 
NAME.
WHEN WE ASKED YOU WHO ELSE YOU 
WOULD NOT TELL US.
SO I WANT TO ASK FIRST HOW MANY 
OTHER PEOPLE WERE IN THAT GROUP 
OUTSIDE OF THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS 
I JUST NAMED?
>> MR. JORDAN, ON CALL READ OUT 
CERTAINLY OF A THE FIRST CALL, 
THERE WERE PROBABLY HALF A DOZEN
PEOPLE OR MORE THAT I READ OUT.
THOSE ARE PEOPLE WITH THE PROPER
CLEARANCE AND THE NEED TO KNOW.
IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE 
SENSITIVITY OF THE CALL, AND MR.
EISENBERG TOLD KNEE NOT TO SPEAK
TO ANYBODY ELSE, I ONLY READ OUT
TO SIDE OF THE NSC TWO 
INDIVIDUALS. 
>> TWO INDIVIDUALS. 
>> KENT AND ONE OTHER 
INDIVIDUAL. 
>> AND YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO 
TELL US WHO THAT PERSON HAVE?
>> POINT OF ORDER. 
>> SUSPEND.
COUNCIL. 

Spanish: 
LLAMADA, ÉL ESTABA DISPUESTO A 
RESPONDER ACERCA DE LAS 
PREGUNTAS DE LA LLAMADA. USTED 
DIJO QUE HABÍA UN GRUPO DE 
PERSONAS CON LAS QUE SE 
COMUNICABA, PERO SÓLO NOMBRÓ A 
UNA PERSONA DEL GRUPO EL 
SECRETARIO QUE KENT. CUÁNTAS 
PERSONAS HABÍAN EN ESE GRUPO?
>>> HABÍAN UNA SEIS PERSONAS CON
LA AUTORIZACIÓN NECESARIA, ME 
DIJERON NO HABLAR CON NADIE 
MÁS,, POR LO TANTO SÓLO PUEDO 
NOMBRAR A DOS PERSONASS, A AL 

English: 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK YOU
TO ENFORCE THE RULE WITH REGARD 
TO DISCLOSURE WITH REGARD TO THE
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THIS 
COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE USED TO 
OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
THAT SAMENESSTY. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU NOTE 
THE TIME. 
>> YOU ARE RECONSTRUCTION NICED 
MR. JORDAN. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE HOW
THIS IS OUTING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED HE 
DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS.
YOU HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH NO 
ONE BELIEVES YOU, YOU HAVE SAID 
YOU DON'T KNOW HOT WHISTLEBLOWER
IS.
SO HOW IS THIS OUTING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO FIND OUT WHO 
THIS INDIVIDUAL IS?
>> MR. JORDAN, THIS IS IT YOUR 
TIME FOR QUESTIONING.
YOU CAN USE IT ANYWAY YOU LIKE.
BUT YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE 
ADDRESSED TO THE WITNESS.
AND YOUR QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE 
ADDRESSED TRAG TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, THERE IS 
ANOTHER THING THAT HE SAID IN 
HIS DEPOSITION.
HE SAID HE WAS NOT CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE CALL ITSELF, HE SAID 
THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL OR 
IMPROPER ON THE CALL, BUT HE WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL 

Spanish: 
SEÑOR KENT Y A OTRO INDIVIDUO.
>>> NO NOS PUEDE DECIR QUIÉN ES 
ESA OTRA PERSONA.
>>>  SEÑOR RECUERDE QUE HAY 
REGLAS RESPECTO A LA 
INTELIGENCIA.
>>> NO VAMOS A NOMBRAR AL 
DENUNCIANTE. NO PIERDA SU TI
O
TIEMPO.
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE NO ME 
IMPORTA SI ESA PERSONA ES UN 
DENUNCIANTE, EL TESTIGO DICE QUE
NO SABE DE QUIÉN ES EL 
DENUNCIANTE,, USTED DICE QUE NO 
SE QUIEN ES EL DENUNCIANTE.
>>> ESTE ES SU TIEMPO PARA HACER
PREGUNTAS, Y LO PUEDE USAR COMO 
SE QUEDE, PERO NO PUEDE HACER 

Spanish: 
PREGUNTAS RESPECTO AL 
DENUNCIANTE.
>>> HAY UNA PERSONA QUE DIJO QUE
NO ESTABA PREOCUPADO ACERCA DE 
LA LLAMADA SI NO  A LA 
FILTRACIÓN DE ESA LLAMADA. NO SE
UTILIZARÍA  ESA CONTENIDO EN EL 
PROCESO DE WASHINGTON. MORRISON 
TENÍA RAZÓN. PÁGINA 44.
EL ABOGADO DIJO QUE HABÍA UNA 
COSA  QUE NO ESTABAN CONTANDO,  
QUE EL PRESIDENTE IBA A FILTRAR 
LA CONVERSACIÓN,  NO ESTABAN 
CONTANDO CON ESO,  LA TRAN
C

English: 
LEAKING, THE CONTENTS OF THE 
CALL LEAKING.
HE SAID THIS, HE WAS CONCERNED 
HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN 
WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED 
ENVIRONMENT, HOW THE CONTENTS 
WOULD BE USED IN WASHINGTON'S 
POLITICAL PROCESS.
MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT. 
>> EXCUSE ME, MR. JORDAN, COULD 
I GET A PAGE?
>> PAGE 44. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT, THE 
CALL LEAKS, WHISTLEBLOWER GOES 
TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF STAFF, THEN 
RUNS OFF TO THE LAWYER, SAME 
LAWYER WHO SAID IN JANUARY 17, 
THE COW HAS STARTED AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T 
COUNT ON, ONE THING THEY DIDN'T 
COUNT ON WAS THE PRESIDENT 
RELEASING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT 
AND LETTING US ALL SEE WHAT HE 
SAID.
THEY DIDN'T COUNT ON THAT.
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO LINKAGE.
THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL 
HAVE BOTH SAID NO PRESSURE, NO 
PUSHING, NO LINEAGE, FOR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS, TO 

Spanish: 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN NO MUESTRA PRESIÓN
O LAZO ENTRE LA INVESTIGACIÓN Y 
EL CONGÉNITO DE LOS FONDOS.
SEÑORA WILLIAMS, LUEGO DE LA 
LLAMADA DEL 25, CON CUANTAS 
PERSONAS HABLÓ DE LA LLAMADA?
>>>  NO LNO HABLÉ CON NADIE DE A
LLAMADA.
>>>  ME GUSTARÍA PREGUNTARLE AL 
SEÑOR PITMANQUÉ ES LO QUE LE GÍ 
QUISIÉRAMOS BI. 

English: 
AN INVESTIGATION.
MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE CALL ON 
THE 25th, YOU KNOW THAT COLONEL 
VINDMAN TALKED TO SEVERAL 
PEOPLE.
AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, HOW 
MANY PEOPLE DID YOU TALK TO 
ABOUT THE CALL?
>> I DID FLOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY 
ABOUT THE CALL. 
>> YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY?
>> NO. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. HIMES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER
COLONEL VINDMAN PERFORMANCE 
REVIEW IN THE RECORD. 
>> CAN I INQUIRE COLONEL VINDMAN
IF HE WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT.
IF YOU WOULD, OR IF YOU PREFER 
NOT TO BE PART OF THE RECORD, 
I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU. 
>> I GUESS WERE REDACTIONS IT 
HAS PII IN IT THAT SHOULD BE 
PROTECTED.
AND MAYBE THE ONLY EL M ENTS 
THAT ARE RELEVANT ARE THE 
NATIONAL NARRATIVE. 
>> CHAIRMAN. 
>> DID YOU READ THE RELEVANT 
PORTIONS?
>> I MEAN, THAT WAS THE SHORT 
VERSION.
THERE WERE SOME OTHER PARAGRAPHS
IN THERE. 
>> I'LL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
MS. WILLIAMS YOU JOINED THE 
FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2006, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 

Spanish: 
LEYÓ PORCIONES DE EL DOCUMENTO?
>>> SÍ LEÍ PARTE DEL PONTO
>>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS USTED ENTRÓ 
AL SERVICIO EL 2005.
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> USTÉ TRABAJO EN DIFERENTES 
OFICINAS Y BAJO DIFERENTES 
PERSONAS.
>>> SÍ.
>>> EN SU ACTUAL POSICIÓN USTÉ 
ES ASISTENTE PARA EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE, CORRECTO?

English: 
>> PRIOR TO BECOMING A FLON 
PARTISAN CAREER OFFICIAL YOU 
WORKED AS AFIELD REPRESENTATIVE 
FOR THE BUSH CHENEY AND 
DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY UNDER 
SECRETARY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW AS A FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER SERVED TWO PRESIDENTS IN
A VARIETY OF ROLLS?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU ARE TO ADVISE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ON DETAILS OF RUSSIA. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> ON SUNDAY THE PRESIDENT 
PERSONALLY TARGETED YOU IN A 
TWEET.
THIS IS AFTER HE TARGETED 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DURING 
HER HEARING TESTIMONY.
I'D LIKE TO SHOW AND READ YOU 
THE TWEET.
IT READS, TELL JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS, WHOEVER THAT IS, TO 
READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS AND SEE THE 
JUST RELEASED STATEMENT FROM 
UKRAINE.
THEN SHE SHOULD MEET WITH THE 
OTHER NEVER TRUMPERS WHO I DON'T
KNOW AND MOSTLY NEVER EVEN HEARD
OF AND WORK OUT A BETTER 
PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK.
MISS WILLIAMS, ARE YOU ENGAGED 

Spanish: 
>>> SÍ. EL PRESIDENTE SHACER 
L
PÚBLICO UN MENSAJE PARA USTED 
DIJO QUE TENÍA QUE PUBLICAR 
LATRANSCRIPCIÓN. USTED ESTÁ 
TRATANDO DE ATACAR AL PRES
E
PRESIDENTE?
>>>.
>>>MNO.
>>> LE SORPRENDIÓ APARECER EN UN
TWEET DEL PRESIDENTE?
>>>  ME SORPRENDIÓ SI.
>>> CORONEL, USTED ATESTIGUÓ QUE
DEDICÓ TODA SU CARRERA 
PROFESIONAL A LOS ESTADOS UN
S

English: 
IN A PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK?
>> NO, SIR. 
>> MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU A NEVER
TRUMPER?
>> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW AN 
OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF A NEVER 
TRUMPER. 
>> WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR SELF 
THAT WAY?
>> I WOULD NOT, NO. 
>> DID THAT MAKE -- DID THAT 
TWEET MAKE AN IMPRESSION ON YOU 
WHEN YOU READ IT?
>> IT CERTAINLY SURPRISED ME.
I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO BE CALLED
OUT BY NAME. 
>> IT SURPRISED ME TOO AND 
LOOKED A AWFUL LOOK LIKE WITNESS
INTIMIDATION AND TAMPERING AND 
IN EFFORT TO PERHAPS SHAPE YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL H YOU 
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU'VE
DEDICATED YOUR ENTIRE 
PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
COLONEL, ABOVE YOUR LEFT BREAST 
YOU ARE WEARING A DEVICE WHICH 
IS SPRINGFIELD MUSKET ON A 
BLUEFIELD.
WHAT IS THAT DEVICE?
>> IT'S COMBAT BADGE. 
>> HOW DO YOU GET THAT BADGE?

Spanish: 
UNIDOS.  USTED DICE UN APARATOS,
QUÉ ES ESO?
>>> SE GANA LUEGO DE SERVIR EN 
UNA UNIDAD TÁCTICA EN COMBATE  
BAJO FUEGO.
>>> TAMBIÉN LLEVA UN CORAZÓN 
MORADO, PUEDE EXPLICARLO?
>>> EL 2015 EN UNA DE LAS 
OPERACIONES MÁS GRANDES EN LA 
DÉCADA  ESTÁBAMOS PATRULLANDO 
JUNTO CON LOSMARINES Y Y EL R
S
RIESGO DE EXPLOSIVOS.

English: 
>> YOU HAVE TO BE SERVING IN A 
BRIGADE OR BELOW TACTICAL UNIT, 
THAT MEANS FIGHTING UNIT, IN 
COMBAT. 
>> UNDER FIRE?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU ARE ALSO WEARING A PURPLE
HEART.
CAN YOU TELL US IN 20 OR 30 
SECONDS WHY YOU ARE WEARING A 
PURPLE HEART?
>> IN 2014, IN THE PROBABLY THE 
LARGEST OPERATIONS IN DECADES, 
OUT WE WERE CONDUCTING A PATROL 
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARINES 
AND MY VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY AN 
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE THAT
PENETRATED ARMOR. 
>> WERE YOU INJURED?
>> I WAS. 
>> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED 
FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED 
YOU A NEVER TRUMPER.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WOULD YOU CALL 
YOURSELF A NEVER TRUMPER IS 
THIS. 
>> I WOULD CALL MYSELF NEVER 
PARTISAN. 

English: 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. YOUR MILITARY CAREER YOU 
SERVED UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS.
HAVE YOU EVER WAIVE ERRED FROM 
WAIVERED FROM THE OATH YOU TOOK?
>> IN EVERY. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY POLITICAL 
MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE 
HERE TODAY?
>> NONE. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, MULTIPLE 
RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
 
INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI.
WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THIS ROOM 
THIS MORNING, THE THREE MINUTES 
THAT WERE SPENT ASKING YOU ABOUT
THE OFFER MADE TO MAKE YOU THE 
MINISTER OF DEFENSE, THAT MAY 
HAVE COME CLOAKED IN BROOKS 
BROTHER SUIT, BUT THAT WAS 
DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE THE
RIGHT WING MEDIA AN OPENING TO 
QUESTION YOUR LOYALTIES.
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT.

Spanish: 
>>> SALIÓ HERIDO?
>>> SÍ.
>>> SE LLAMARÍA USTED UN NEVER
T
TRUMPER?
>>> ME LLAMARÍA UNO NO PART
O
PARTISANO.
>>> HAY MUCHAS CONSPIRACIONES 
QUE LO ACUSAN DE APOYAR A LOS 
UCRANIANOS, LO HAN EXCACUSADO D 
ESPIONAJE. USTED ESTUVO APUNTO 

Spanish: 
DE CEDER EL MINISTERIO DE 
DEFENSA? ESO SIGNIFICA 
CUESTIONAR SU LEALTAD. LLO QUE 
USTED DICE NO ES SUFICIENTE PARA
ATACAR A LOS MEDIOS. CUANDO 
USTED TIENE QUE ATACAR UN RIFLE 
.
>
LE AGRADEZCO POR SU SERVICIO.
>>>  EN UNA CONFERENCIA DE 
PRENSA EL JUEVES NAN SI PELOSI 
DIJO QUE EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP 

English: 
IT'S THE KIND OF ATTACK, KIND OF
THING YOU SAY WHEN YOU ARE 
DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE.
IT'S THE KIND OF THING WHEN YOU 
SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ATTACK 
THE MEDIA, OR TO ATTACK THE 
DEMOCRATS, BUT IT'S WHAT YOU 
STOOP TO WHEN THE INDEFENSE 
ABILITY OF YOUR CASE REQUIRES 
THAT YOU ATTACK A MAN WHO IS 
WEARING A SPRINGFIELD RIFLE ON 
AFIELD OF BLUE ABOVE A PURPLE 
HEART.
I, SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE AND YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> MR. CONWAY. 
>> YIELD TO RADCLIFF. 
>> THANK YOU THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
IN A PRESS CONFERENCE LAST YEERD
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY 
PELOSI SAID PRUMTD DID THE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF BRIBERY 
EVIDENCED IN HIS JULY 25th CALL 
TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
IN CONCERT WITH THAT, MULTIPLE 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS 
COMMITTEE GAVE TV AND RADIO 
INTERVIEWS OVER THE PAST WEEK 
DISCUSSING HOW THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT SUPPORTED HIS 
IMPEACHMENT FOR COMMITTING 

Spanish: 
COMETIÓ SOBORNO. MUCHOS MIEMBROS
DE ESTE COMITÉ  DISCUTIERON CÓMO
LA CONDUCTA DEL PRESIDENTE APOÓO
EL JUICIO POLÍTICO AL COMETER 
SOBORNO. EESO ME PARECIÓ RARO 
PORQUE DURANTE MUCHO TIEMPO ESTO
FUE ACERCA DE INTERCAMBIO DE 
FAVORES, PERO LUEGO DE QUE V
VARIOS TESTIGOS DIJERON QUE NO 
HABÍA INTERCAMBIO DE FAVORES O 
QUE NO ERA POSIBLE, VIMOS UN 
CAMBIO LOS DEMÓCRATAS. AHORA 
LLAMAN AL LLAMADO DEL 25 DE 
JULIO EXTORSIÓN, Y AHORA SOB
O
SOBORNO. SEÑORA WILLIAMS USTED  
UTILIZÓ LA PALABRA INUSUAL. EL 
TENIENTE CORONEL UTILIZÓ 

English: 
BRIBERY.
ALL OF WHICH STRUCK ME AS VERY 
ODD BECAUSE FOR THE LONGEST TIME
THIS WAS ALL ABOUT QUID PRO QUO 
ACCORDING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT.
BUT AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS 
BEGAN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID 
PRO QUO OR EVEN THAT QUID PRO 
QUO WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, WE 
SAW A SHIFT FROM THE DEMOCRATS.
BRIEFLY STARTED TO REFER TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ON THE JULY 
25th CALL AS EXTORTION.
AND NOW IT'S SHIFTED AGAIN, LAST
WEEK, TO BRIBERY.
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU USED THE WORD 
UNUSUAL TO DESCRIBE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL ON JULY 25th.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU 
USED THE WORD INAPPROPRIATE AND 
PROPER.
I'VE WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR 
TRANSCRIPTS.
AND THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE 
DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT.
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'VE NEVER USED 

Spanish: 
INAPROPIADO. HE REVISADO AMBOS 
TESTIMONIOS Y LA PALABRA SOBORNO
NO APARECE. 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS SEÑOR VINDMAN 
USTEDES NO HAN UTILIZADO LA 
PALABRA SOBORNO, VERDAD?
>>> CORRECTO. COR
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> NINGÚN TESTIGO HA OCUPADO LA
PALABRA SOBORNO, AQUÍ ESTÁN LAS 
TRANSCRIPCIONES, QUE ACABAN DE 
SER PUBLICADAS, SEIS SEMANAS DE 
TESTIMONIOS, SIENDO DOS HORAS, 

English: 
THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO 
EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT, CORRECT?
>> NO, SIR. 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN'T 
EITHER?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IS ALL
ABOUT BRIBERY, WHERE BRIBERY IS 
THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, NO 
WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD 
BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT.
NONE OF THEM.
THESE AREN'T ALL OF THE 
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS.
THESE ARE JUST THE TEN THAT HAVE
BEEN RELEASED.
SIX WEEKS OF WITNESS INTERVIEWS 
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY.
THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED.
THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS GIVEN.
THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT 
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ASKED ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT 
CONSTITUTED BRIBERY BEFORE 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS ASKED

English: 
BY MY COLLEGE CONGRESSMAN 
STEWART LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO.
THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES 
HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR 
BRIBE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCTED IN THE LAST 
SIS SIX WEEKS IS ZERO.
IN FACT IN THESE PAGES OF SWORN 
TESTIMONY, AND JUST THESE TEN 
TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED THUS FAR, 
THE WORD BRIBERY APPEARS IN 
THESE 3500 PAGES EXACTLY ONE 
TIME.
AND IRONICALLY, IT APPEARS NOT 
IN A DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT.
IT APPEARS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF
VICE PRESIDENT'S BIDEN ALLEGED 
CONDUCT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
BECAUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, 
MY DEMOCRAT I GO COLLEAGUES ARE 
GOING TO SAY WE NEED TO VOTE ON 
THIS EVIDENCE FROM THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR
BRIBERY.
AND THEY'LL SEND A REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE AND BECAUSE MORE 

Spanish: 
DILES DE PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS,
LA ÚNICA VEZ QUE SE UTILIZÓ LA
P
PALABRA SOBORNO FUE CERO ANTES 
DEL TESTIMONIO DE LA SEÑORA 
YOVANOVITCH LA SEMANA PASADA.
EN ESTAS 3400 PÁGINAS DE 
TESTIMONIOS LA PALABRA SOBORNO 
APARECE SÓLO UNA VEZ.  
IRÓNICAMENTE NO APARECE EN LA 

Spanish: 
CONDUCTA DEL PRESIDENTE TRUMP SI
NO EN RELACIÓN A BIDEN.
COMO HAY MÁS DEMÓREPUBLICANOS Y 
DEMÓD
EEL PÚBLICO DEBE SABER QUE 
NINGÚN TESTIGO DESCRIBE ESTO 
CÓMO SOBORNO,, EL HECHO DE QUE 
LO QUE DICE EL PRESIDENTE NO SE 
HA DISCUTIDO, SI LOS HECHOS SON 
IGUALES, POR QUÉ EL CRIMEN  DEL 
PRESIDENTE SIGUE CAMBIANDO. EL 
SEÑOR NOUNES LES DIO LA RES
A

English: 
DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS IT'S 
LIKELY GOING TO PASS.
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO 
BE CLEAR WHEN THE DEMOCRATS, 
WHAT THEY ARE DESCRIBING AS 
BRIBERY, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IS
DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY.
WE HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THE 
COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT 
THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE 
NOT IN DISPUTE.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
ASKING IF THE FACTS ARE THE 
SAME, WHY DO THE CRIMES THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS BEING ACCUSED OF 
KEEP CHANGING.
WHY DO WE GO FROM QUID PRO QUO 
TO EXTORTION NOW TO BRIBERY.
CHAIRMAN NUNES TOLD YOU THE 
ANSWER.
THE ANSWER IS POLLING.
WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED 
AMERICANS, WHAT WOULD BE THE 
MOST DAMMING ACCUSATION?
DIDN'T COME BACK QUID PRO QUO OR
COME BACK EXTORTION.
IT CAME BACK BRIBERY.
SO THIS CASE IS ALL ABOUT 
BRIBERY.
LOOK, IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE FORBIDDEN WHITE 
HOUSE LAWYERS FROM PARTICIPATING
IN THIS PROCEEDING.
IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO DEFEND 
YOURSELF WITHOUT YOUR LAWYERS 
PRESENT.
LE BUT WHAT'S EVEN WORSE IS 

English: 
TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF 
AGAINST AN ACCUSATION THAT KEEPS
CHANGING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 
PROCEEDING.
IF DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIME OR 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HE OUGHT TO
KNOW WHAT IT IS.
AND WHEN SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI 
SAYS IT'S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, 
SHE'S PROMISED EVIDENCE OF 
BRIBERY THAT WOULD BE COMPELLING
AND OVERWHELMING AND INSTEAD 
IT'S INVISIBLE.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO 
JOIN EVERYONE IN THANKING BOTH 
OF OUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR 
SERVICE.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AS 
PART OF YOUR POLICY PORTFOLIO IN
THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU MAINTAIN A 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, DO YOU NOT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU EXPLAINED EARLIER IN YOUR
TESTIMONY THAT YOUR JOB WITHIN 
THE WHITE HOUSE WAS TO 
COORDINATE UNITED STATES AND 
UKRAINE POLICY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS TO COORDINATE UNITED 

Spanish: 
RESPUESTA,  LOS DEMÓCRATAS LE 
HAN NEGADO A ALGUNOS A PA
PARTICIPAR DE ESTAS AUDIENCIAS. 
LA ACUSACIÓN SIGUE CAMBIANDO EN 
MEDIÓ DEL PROCEDIMIENTO, SI EL 
PRESIDENTE ES ACUSADO DE UN 
CRIMEN, POR LO MENOS DEBERÍA 
SABER DE QUE GRAVEMENTCRIMEN SE 
>>> ME GUSTARÍA UNIRME AL A
AGRADECIMIENTO  A ESTOS DOS 
TESTIGOS.
SEÑOR VINDMAN, USTED DICE QUE 
MANTUVO UNA RELACIÓN CON LOS 

Spanish: 
OFICIALES UCRANIANOS?
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> USTED ATESTIGUÓ EN PRIMAVERA
DE ESTE AÑO QUE ESTOS OFICIALES,
UCRANIANOS, QUERÍA CONSEJOS DE 
CÓMO RESPONDER LOS COMENTARIOS 
DEL SEÑOR RUDY GIULIANI.
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> MANERA PÚBLICA PEDÍAN UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LAS 
ELECCIONES DE 2016 Y SOBRE PARÍS
MA Y HUNTER BIDEN. DE FORMA 
DIRECTA ESO FUE LO QUE ENTENDÍ
>> Y SEGÚN LO ENTIENDO BAJO QUÉ 
AUTORIDAD CREE USTED QUE EL 
SEÑOR GIULIANI VOLVIÓ?
>> NO LO SÉ
>> LOS OFICIALES UCRANIANOS CON 
LOS QUE HABLÓ ENTENDÍAN QUE 

English: 
STATES YOU TESTIFIED IN THE SPR 
OF THIS YEAR THAT THESE 
OFFICIALS, THESE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS BEGAN ASKING YOU, 
QUOTE, ADVICE ON HOW TO RESPOND 
TO MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES, END 
QUOTE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY 
MEANT BY MR. GIULIANI'S 
ADVANCES?
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN 
BOTH HIS PUBLIC COMMENTARY, SO 
PUBLICLY CALLING FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016, 
BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN, AS 
WELL AS HIS DIRECT OVERTURES TO 
THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE 
DIRECTLY AND THROUGH PROXIES.
THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.
>> AND AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, 
UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU 
THINK MR. GIULIANI WAS ACTING 
UNDER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON'T KNOW.
>> DID THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
YOU SPOKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MR.
GIULIANI WAS TELLING THEM TO 
INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S SON AND DEBUNK THE 2016 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

Spanish: 
GIULIANI LES DECÍA QUE INVESTIGA
HACEN AL VICEPRESIDENTE DE BIDEN
A SU HIJO Y LA HIZO CONSPIRACIÓN
DE 2016 LA PREGUNTA
>> PUEDES LO NUEVO POR FAVOR
>> CREE QUE LOS UCRANIANOS POR 
LOS QUE HABLÓ ENTENDÍAN LOS 
AVANCES DE GIULIANI PARA SER TAN
TOCO UN Y INVESTIGACIÓN DE LOS 
BAILES COMO LA CTEORÍA DE 
CONSPIRACIÓN DE 2016.
>> SABEMOS QUE LA INTERFERENCIA 
RUSA. EN CUANTO LA INTERVENCIÓN 
CRANEANA NO LO SÉ
>> ERA PARTE DE LA POLTICA 
ESTADOUNIDENSE DE PENSAR EN ESTO
>> NO LO SÉ.
>> ESTAMOS DE ACUERDO QUE PARTE 
DE ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN NO ERA 
CONSISTENTE CON LA POLÍTICA 
ACTUAL ESTADOUNIDENSE

English: 
>> I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, MA'AM?
>> DO YOU THINK THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS YOU SPOKE TO
UNDERSTOOD THE UNDERLINING 
MEANING OF MR. GIULIANI'S 
ADVANCES TO BE BOTH 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS AS WELL
AS DEBUNKING THE 2016 CONSPIRACY
THEORIES?
>> YES.
I THINK TO BE CLEAR I THINK 
YOU'RE REFERRING TO DEBUNKING 
THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE -- 
>> EXACTLY.
>> -- AND HOW IT IMPLICATED IT 
WAS UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE I'M 
NOT SURE.
>> WAS THIS OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY, TO PUSH FOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS?
>> IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY 
PROCESS THAT I PARTICIPATED IN.
>> NOW, MISS WILLIAMS, DO YOU 
AGREE THAT PRESSING THESE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS INCONSISTENT 
WITH OFFICIAL U.S. UKRAINE 
POLICY?
>> OBVIOUSLY, ANTI-CORRUPTION 
REFORMS IS A BIG PART OF OUR 
POLICY.
I UNDERSTAND.
I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER THESE 
PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS WERE 

Spanish: 
>> OBVIAMENTE HABLAMOS DE 
REFORMAS ANTICORRUPCIÓN.
>> ENTIENDO, PERO NO ESTABA EN 
UNA POSICIÓN PARA DETERMINAR SI 
ESA INVESTIGACIÓN EN PARTICULAR 
ERA ADECUADO NO.
>> ES VERDAD QUE DONALD TRUMP LE
PIDIÓ A ZELENSKI EN LA LLAMADA 
DE JULIO PARA QUE TRABAJASE CON 
GIULIANI EN ESTAS 
INVESTIGACIONES?
>> CORRECTOS
>> HECHO GIULIANI NO HIZO NINGÚN
SECRETO EL QUE TRABAJABA A 
NOMBRE DE EL PRESIDENTE DONALD 
TRUMP. Y DIJO " MI ÚNICO 
CLIENTES DEL PRESIDENTE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS Y EL ÚNICO AL QUE LE DEBO
REPORTAR ALGO. DÍGALE A VER LO 
QUE HA PASADO" DIJO QUE LAS 
INVESTIGACIONES SERÍAN" MUY 
ÚTILES PARA MÍ CLIENTE". ESTÁ 
BIEN DECIR QUE ESTOS OFICIALES 
POR QUÉ USÉ TRABAJABA CONS
M
CONSTANTEMENTE TENÍA CONTACTO 
CON ELLOS ESTABAN PREOCUPADOS DE
LOS AVANCES DEL SEÑOR GIULIANI 

English: 
APPROPRIATE.
>> THAT'S FAIR.
COLONEL, IS IT TRUE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON THE CALL 
ON JULY 25th TO WORK WITH MR. 
GIULIANI ON THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI HAS 
MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THAT 
HE IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AS MR. GIULIANI TOLD "THE NEW 
YORK TIMES," AND I'M GOING TO 
PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN, HE TOLD 
THEM, "MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE'S THE ONE I HAVE THE 
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, TO TELL
HIM WHAT HAPPENED."
HE ADDED THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS
WOULD BE "VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO 
MY CLIENT AND MAY TURN OUT TO BE
HELPFUL TO MY GOVERNMENT."
COLONEL, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT YOU ON 
A DAILY BASIS -- WELL, YOU'RE IN
CONTACT WITH GIVEN YOUR 
PORTFOLIO, WERE CONCERNED ABOUT 
MR. GIULIANI'S ADVANCES?
>> YES, THEY WERE.
>> IN YOUR ASSESSMENT, DID THEY 
UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL NATURE 

Spanish: 
SE REÚNA
>> SÍ.
>> ENTENDÍAN LA NATURALEZA 
POLÍTICA DE LO QUE SE LES PEDÍA?
>> CREO QUE SÍ.
>> ENTENDÍA QUE AFECTA LA 
POLÍTICA DOMÉSTICA ES
ESTADOUNIDENSE SE REÚNA
>> NO ESTOY SEGURO QUE ENTENDÍAN
FRANCAMENTE SOBRÉ LA POLÍTICA 
INTERNA PERO SI LAS 
IMPLICACIONES.
>> LEZA MEDIOS GARANTES A LOS 
UCRANIANOS QUE NO ENTRASEN EN LA
POLÍTICA INTERNA DEL PAÍS?
>> LE DEL CONSEJO.
>> Y ADEMÁS LES ACONSEJÓ QUE TAL
VEZ ERA IMPORTANTE Y LE DIJO NOS
GUSTÉ PENSABA SINO LO QUE DICTA 
LA TRADICIÓN EN LA POLÍTICA DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS PARA DECIR ESO?
>> EN LO QUE SABÍA CÓMO UN HECHO
QUE ES NUESTRA POLÍTICA.
>> ESTÁ BIEN QUE LOS GOBIERNOS Y
EXTERIORES NO ENTREN A LAS 

English: 
OF THE REQUEST BEING ASKED OF 
THEM?
>> I BELIEVE THEY DID.
>> DID THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT 
WAS AFFECTING U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLICY?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY 
FRANKLY UNDERSTOOD ABOUT U.S. --
I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE 
IMPLICATIONS, YES.
>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER 
THAT YOU WARNED THE UKRAINIANS 
NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN U.S. 
DOMESTIC POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I COUNSELED THEM, YES.
>> COUNSELED THEM.
IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT 
THEY -- THAT YOU FELT LIKE IT 
WAS IMPORTANT THAT YOU WERE 
ESPOUSING NOT JUST WHAT YOU 
THOUGHT BUT TRADITION AND POLICY
OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY 
THAT.
>> IT IS WHAT I KNEW FOR A FACT 
TO BE U.S. POLICY.
>> NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS NOT TO GET INVOLVED 
IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF A NATION
LIKE THE UNITED STATES?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THE FIRST 

Spanish: 
POLÍTICAS INTERNAS DE LOS 
PAÍSES?
>> LA INTERFERENCIA 201 EN DE 
RUSIA IMPACTÓ NUESTRA POLÍTICA 
INTERNA Y LAS CONSECUENCIAS 
TAMBIÉN GENERARON EFECTOS EN 
RUSIA. LAS SANCIONES YA HAN SIDO
FORZADAS CONTRA RUSIA POR SU 
INTERFERENCIA.
>> ENTONCES SEÑOR VINDMAN, ES 
O
NORMAL QUE UN CIUDADANO PRIVADO,
QUE UN GOBIERNO DE EXTRANJEROS 
SE META EN LOS ASUNTOS INTERNOS 
DEL PAÍS COMO EL SEÑOR GIULIANI 
SEA LA PRONTA
>> ESTO NO AYUDÓ A LANZAR 
NUESTROS INTERESES.
>> GRACIAS DE MI PALABRA
>> SEÑOR WE TURNER
>> LE QUIERO AGRADECER SU 

English: 
THOUGHT THAT COMES TO MIND IS 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016.
THE IMPACT THAT HAD ON INTERNAL 
POLITICS AND THE CONSEQUENCES IT
HAD FOR RUSSIA ITSELF.
>> EXACTLY.
>> THIS ADMINISTRATION ENFORCED 
SANCTIONS, HEAVY SANCTIONS 
AGAINST RUSSIA FOR THEIR 
INTERFERENCE.
AND THAT WOULD NOT BE IN U.S. 
POLICY TO -- 
>> AND SO MR. -- COLONEL, I'M 
RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> IS IT NORMAL FOR A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN, A NON-U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL, TO GET INVOLVED IN 
FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS LIKE MR. GIULIANI?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE 
EXPERIENCE TO SAY, THAT BUT IT 
CERTAINLY WASN'T HELPFUL AND IT 
DIDN'T HELP ADVANCE U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. TURNER.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT TO THANK
YOU ALSO FOR YOUR SERVICE.
YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IS 
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS WE LOOK 
TO FORMULATING POLICY WITH BOTH 
OUR ALLIES AND TO TRY TO COUNTER

English: 
THOSE WHO ARE NOT OUR ALLIES.
I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT A EUROPEAN POLICY AND HOW 
IT CAN THWART RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU ARE 
RESPONSIBLE -- AS YOU SAID, AS 
PART OF YOUR PORTFOLIO YOU RIZ 
THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT 
UKRAINE, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU SAID YOU ARE THE PRINCIPAL, 
IN YOUR OPENING YOU SAY YOU ARE 
THE PRINCIPAL ADVISER TO THE 
PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE AND YOU 
COORDINATE U.S. UKRAINE POLICY, 
CORRECT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, IN THIS 
STATEMENT I ISSUED THIS MORNING 
I PROBABLY EASED THAT BACK.
I TOOK THAT OFF MY JOB 
DESCRIPTION THAT I HAVE ON MY 
EVAL.
BUT I CERTAINLY SPENT MUCH MORE 
TIME ADVISING THE AMBASSADOR 
THAN I DID THE PRESIDENT.
>> BUT YOUR STATEMENT AS YOU 
SUBMITTED IT AND READ IT TODAY 
SAYS AT THE NSC I AM THE 
PRINCIPAL ADVISER TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND 
THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I READ INTO 
THE TRANSCRIPT.
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAD 
IN THERE YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS 
DRAFTING IT BUT I CHOSE TO EASE 
BACK ON THAT LANGUAGE EVEN 
THOUGH IT WAS IN MY EVALUATION 
JUST BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO --

Spanish: 
CONOCIMIENTO Y SU EXPERTISE, POR
SU TRABAJO CON NUESTROS ALIADOS 
Y SU TRABAJO CONTRA LOS QUE NO 
SON OTROS ALIADOS.
SEÑORA WILLIAMS, USTEDES 
RESPONSABLE ACONSEJAR AL V
VICEPRESIDENTE SOBRE UK UCR
.
UCRAUCIUCUCRANIA.
UCRAUC Y 
QUE USTED ERA TAMBIÉN LA PRI
P
PRINCIPAL CONSEJERA DEL 
VICEPRESIDENTE EN CUANTO A 
UCRANIA Y A LA POLÍTICA EXTERNA 
CORRECTO?
>>LO SAQUÉ DE MI DESCRIPCIÓN DE 
TRABAJO, PERO SIGUE ACONSEJÉ AL 
EMBAJADOR. PERO LO
>> LO QUE USTED DIJO HOY ES QUE 
USTED ERA EL CONSEJERO PRINCIPAL
DEL PRESIDENTE.
>> ESO NO ES LO QUE ESCRIBÍ, TAL

Spanish: 
VEZ ESO TENÍA AQUÍ AYER, PERO 
ELEGÍ BAJAR EL LENGUAJE. A PESAR
DE QUE NO ERA MI EVALUACIÓN
>> PERO DESCRIBIÓ LO QUE ACABO 
DE LEER
>> DEJEMOS EN EL RÉCORD ESTA 
MAÑANA QUE NO DIJE ESO.
>> ANOTADO
>> DEBIDO QUE USTED CONOCE 
UCRANIA Y HA TRABAJADO CON N
NUESTROS ALIADOS EN VARIAS 
RELACIONES Y SABE QUE UCRANIA ES
PARTE DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA O 
ASPIRA HACERLO.
>> CORRECTO
>> CORRECTOS
>> Y SABEN QUE LA OTAN Y LA U
UNIÓN EUROPEA LE HAN OFRECIDO A 
UCRANIA ENTRAR, Y USTED 
ESTABLECE TARADA ACUERDO QUE EL 
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND ES EL 
RESPONSABLE DE AVANZAR NUESTRA 
POLÍTICA INTERÉS CON UCRANIA EN 
LA OTAN Y EN LA UNIÓN EUROPEA.

English: 
>> BUT YOU WROTE WHAT I JUST 
READ.
>> CONGRESSMAN, WHAT I'M SAYING 
IS WHAT I READ INTO THE RECORD 
THIS MORNING DIDN'T SAY THAT.
>> OKAY.
NOTED.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW UKRAINE YOU 
KNOW THAT WE WORK THROUGH OUR 
ALLIES AND OUR MULTILATERAL 
RELATIONS AND YOU KNOW THAT 
UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING MEMBER OF
THE EU AND NATO.
RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS?
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> YES, CORRECT.
>> AND YOU KNOW PROBABLY THAT 
THE EU AND NATO BOTH HAVE 
OFFICES IN THE UKRAINE AND THAT 
WE TRY TO ADVANCE OUR POLICY 
WITH THE EU AND NATO AND YOU 
WOULD AGREE THAT OUR AMBASSADOR 
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND FOR ADVANCING OUR 
POLICY INTERESTS WITH UKRAINE AT
THE EU AND AT NATO.
RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY IN
TERMS OF THIS SPECIFIC 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND 

English: 
UKRAINE THAT WOULD FALL TO 
AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON AND BETWEEN
THE EU AND UKRAINE TO AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND.
BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN 
AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE AS WELL. 
>> RIGHT.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU 
AGREE?
>> I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS.
>> OKAY.
NOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU 
SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT 
THAT MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI 
PROMOTED FALSE INFORMATION THAT 
UNDERMINED THE UNITED STATES 
UKRAINE POLICY.
HAVE YOU EVER MET GIULIANI?
>> JUST TO BE, AGAIN, ACCURATE, 
I SAID FALSE NARRATIVES.
JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAID 
IN THE RECORD THIS MORNING.
I HAVE NOT MET HIM. 
>> YOU HAVE NEVER HAD HAD A 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT 
UKRAINE OR BEEN IN A MEETING 
WHERE HE SPOKE WITH OTHERS ABOUT
UKRAINE?
>> NO.
JUST WHAT I SAW, HIS COMMENTS ON
TV -- 
>> SO NEWS REPORTS.
>> YES.
>> AND SIMILAR, YOU'VE NEVER MET
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> YOU'VE NEVER ADVISED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ON UKRAINE.
>> I ADVISED HIM INDIRECTLY.
I MADE ALL HIS PREPARATIONS FOR 
THE CALLS AND -- 
>> BUT YOU'VE NEVER SPOKEN TO 
THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD HIM 
ADVICE ON UKRAINE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT YOU
SAID "IN MAY I ATTENDED THE 

Spanish: 
>> YO DIRÍA QUE EN TÉRMINOS DE 
ESTA RELACIÓN EN ESPECÍFICA E
R
ENTRE UCRANIA EL OTAN, DEPENDE 
DE EN EL REINO UNIDO Y UCRANIA 
ESE ES PARA SONDLAND. 
SUPUESTAMENTE NOS EMBAJADOR EN 
UCRANIA
>> YO ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON LO 
QUE DICE LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS .
>> CORONEL USTED DIJO QUE 
GIULIANI PROMOVIÓ INFORMACIÓN 
FALSA.
>> DIJE UNA NARRATIVA FALSA, 
PERO NO ME ENCONTRADO CON EL .
>> ENTONCES USTED NUNCA CON
CONVERSADO CON ÉL SOBRE UCRANIA
>> NO ES SÓLO LO QUE DEBÍ QUE ÉL
HACÍA ESOS COMENTARIOS A LA 
TELEVISIÓN Y LAS NOTICIAS .
>> Y USTED TAMPOCO HABLADO NUNCA
CON EL PRESIDENTE NO
>> NO
>> YO LO HE ACONSEJADO EN CUANTO
OPERACIONES Y LLAMADAS .
>> PERO QUE NUNCA HA HABLADO CON
EL NILO ACONSEJADO SOBRE 

English: 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DELEGATION LED BY 
SECRETARY PERRY.
FOLLOWING THE VISIT THE MEMBERS 
OF THE DELEGATION PROVIDED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING."
THAT'S NOT REALLY ACCURATE, 
RIGHT?
THE MEMBERS DIDN'T.
BECAUSE YOU WERE A MEMBER BUT 
YOU WEREN'T IN THAT MEETING, YOU
WERE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO WE'LL JUST HAVE A NOTE 
THERE THAT THAT MEETING OCCURRED
WITHOUT YOU.
YOU DO KNOW THAT THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE ULTS, DON'T 
YOU, LIEUTENANT COLONEL?
>> I DO, REPRESENTATIVE.
>> EXCELLENT.
NOW, YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU'RE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING 
U.S. UKRAINIAN POLICY.
>> CORRECT.
>> DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
POMPEO REPORT TO YOU?
>> HE DOES NOT.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> HE DOES NOT.
WE COORDINATE -- 
>> AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, EU, 
NATO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
EUROPE.
ANYONE AT D.O.D. REPORT TO YOU 
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF COORDINATING
U.S. POLICY WITH UKRAINE?
>> CONGRESSMAN, AT MY LEVEL I 
CONVENE WHAT'S CALLED A 
SUBPOLICY COORDINATING 
COMMITTEE.
THAT'S DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY, I COORDINATE WITH -- 
I CHAIR THOSE MEETINGS -- 
>> DOES ANYBODY NEED YOUR 

Spanish: 
UCRANIA?
>> CORRECTO
>> PERO USTED DIJO QUE FUE PARTE
DE LA INAUGURACIÓN DEL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI Y QUE FUE 
PARTE DE LA DELEGACIÓN DEL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP Y ERA 
PARTE DE LOS MIEMBROS DE LA 
DELEGACIÓN. USTED FUE MIEMBRO 
PERO NO ESTUVO EN ESA REUNIÓN NO
ES ASÍ?
>> CORRECTO
>> ENTONCES ESA REUNIÓN OCURRIÓ 
SIN USTED. SABE USTED QUE ESTA 
INVESTIGACIONES SOBRE EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP?
>> SÍ
>> POMPEO SE REPORTABA CON 
USTED?
>> NO
>> VOLKER? NO
>> EL EMBAJADOR DE LA OTAN 
CUALQUIERA DE LOS EMBAJADORES 
TENÍA QUE CORRER DIGNARSE CON 

Spanish: 
USTED?
>> EL SECRETARIO DE ESTADO YO 
ESTABA EN ESOS--
CUALQUIERA DE ELLOS NECESITA SU 
APROBACIÓN
>>
>> FUERON COORDINADOS CORRECTO
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS  TIENE 
INFORMACIÓN DE ALGUNA PERSONA 
QUE HAYA TESTIFICADO QUE SE EN 
ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN DE 
IMPEACHMENT EN SECRETO 
PÚBLICAMENTE LE HAYA MENTIDO 
ESTE COMITÉ ERA PREGUNTA
>> NO LEÍDO LOS OTROS 
TESTIMONIOS.
>> TIENE ALGO DE EVIDENCIA?
>> NO PORQUE NO LOS HE LEÍDO .
>> SEÑOR VINDMAN TIENE EVIDENCIA
DE QUE ALGUIEN HAYA TESTIFICADO 
AQUÍ Y NOS HAYA MENTIDO?

English: 
APPROVAL IN YOUR ROLE ON UKRAINE
POLICY TO FORMULATE UKRAINE 
POLICY?
DO THEY SEEK YOUR APPROVAL?
>> ACCORDING TO THE NSPM 4, THE 
POLICY SIGNED BY THE 
PRESIDENT -- THE POLICY -- 
>> SO HE GETS TO DO IT.
>> CORRECT.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY
INFORMATION THAT ANY PERSON WHO 
HAS TESTIFIED AS PART OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EITHER IN 
SECRET OR IN PUBLIC HAS EITHER 
PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE?
>> I HAVE NOT READ THE OTHER 
TESTIMONIES AND -- 
>> SO YOU -- DO YOU HAVE ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PERJURED
THEMSELVES OR LIED?
>> NO.
BECAUSE I HAVE NOT READ THEM.
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT 
ANYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS PERJURED
THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THIS 
COMMITTEE?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CARSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.

Spanish: 
>> NO QUE YO LO SEPA.
>>  CASA POR SER SU TURNO.. 
QUIERO ACLARAR UN PUNTO. NO SE 
NECESITA UN SOBORNO PARA QUE HAY
UN INTERCAMBIO DE FAVORES ES UN 
INTERCAMBIO DE VALOR. UN ACTO 
OFICIAL PUEDE SER INCLUSO UNA 
REUNIÓN EN LA CASA BLANCA  O LA 
AYUDA MILITAR. LA RAZÓN POR LA 
QUE NO LES PREGUNTAMOS A LOS 
TESTIGOS CLAVE QUE NOS DEN SU 
JUICIO DE SI SE LLEVÓ A CLARA A 
CABO UN PRIMO EN DE SOBORNO, YY 
SEGÚN LO QUE NOSTROS FUNDADOR 
TENÍAN EN MENTE CUANDO HABLARON 
DE SOBORNO Y OTROS CRÍMENES DE 
ALTO GRADO ES QUE LOS TESTIGOS
N
NO SON QUIENES DECIDEN ESTO SINO
QUE ES NUESTRO TRABAJO DECIDIR 
SI HA OCURRIDO SOBORNO. POR ESO 
NO ESTEMOS DE LAS PREGUNTAS Y 
TAMBIÉN NO SABEN TODOS LOS OTROS
HECHOS DENTRO DE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN CON ESO CEDO LA 
A

English: 
I WANTED TO JUST MAKE ONE POINT 
CLEAR FOR FOLKS THAT ARE 
WATCHING THE HEARING TODAY.
BRIBERY DOES INVOLVE A QUID PRO 
QUO.
BRIBERY INVOLVES THE 
CONDITIONING OF AN OFFICIAL ACT 
FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE.
AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING.
AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE 400 
MILLION IN MILITARY AID.
AND SOMETHING OF VALUE TO A 
PRESIDENT MIGHT INCLUDE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THEIR 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
THE REASON WE DON'T ASK 
WITNESSES THAT ARE FACT 
WITNESSES TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT 
ABOUT WHETHER A CRIME OF BRIBERY
HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR WHETHER 
MORE SIGNIFICANTLY THE -- WHAT 
THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND WHEN 
THEY ITEMIZED BRIBERY OR OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS 
YOU'RE FACT WITNESSES.
IT WILL BE OUR JOB TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THE IMPEACHABLE ACT OF 
BRIBERY HAS OCCURRED.
THAT'S WHY WE DON'T ASK YOU 
THOSE QUESTIONS.
FOR ONE THING, YOU'RE ALSO NOT 
AWARE OF ALL THE OTHER FACTS 
THAT HAVE BEEN ADDUCED DURING 
THE INVESTIGATION.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK TO MR. 
CARSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

English: 
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE IN A 
JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE, 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?
>> YOU WERE IN A JULY 10th WHITE
HOUSE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON.
>> CORRECT.
>> IN THAT MEETING THE 
UKRAINIANS ASKED ABOUT WHEN THEY
WOULD GET THEIR OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
REPLIED THAT THEY NEED TO "SPEAK
ABOUT UKRAINE DELIVERING 
SPECIFIC REGSS IN ORDER TO 
SECURE A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT."
IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU 
LATER LEARN WHY AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT?
>> I DID.
>> AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENDED
THAT MEETING, SIR, SOME OF THE 
GROUP THAT ATTENDED A FOLLOW-ON 
MEETING IN A DIFFERENT ROOM IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED THE WARD 
ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
THERE WITH THE SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DID NSC LAWYERS TELL YOU TO 
COME DIRECTLY TO THEM, SIR, IF 

Spanish: 
PALABRA
>>  GRACIAS A AMBOS POR SU 
SERVICIO USTED ESTUVO EN LA 
REUNIÓN DE JULIO .
>> NO PUEDO TARDE NO SE REÚNA
>> USTED ESTUVO EN LA REUNIÓN 
CON EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON?
>> CORRECTO
>>  EN LA QUE PREGUNTABAN CUÁNDO
VAN A TENER SU REUNIÓN EN LA 
SALA OVAL. Y BOLTON DIJO QUE 
SIGA LA ESPERA INVESTIGACIÓN 
ESPECÍFICA PARA PODER 
ENCONTRARTE  POR EL PRESIDENTE. 
ES ESO CORRECTO ? UNTA
>> CORRECTO
>> SABE POR QUÉ EL PEEMBAJADOR 
BOLTON CORTÓ LAS REUNIÓN
>> NO
>> LO QUE SE CONTINUÓ CON OTRA 
REUNIÓN QUE SE HIZO A CABO EN LA
REUNIÓN DE GUERRA
>> ASÍ ES

Spanish: 
>>  LOS ABOGADOS DE LA CASA 
BLANCA LE DIJERON QUE HABLARA 
CON ÉL DE MANERA DIRECTA SOBRE 
LA PROCURACIÓN ESTE TENÍA LUEGO 
DEL 10 DE JULIO?
>> CREO QUE LAS PALABRAS FUERON 
2  QUE TENÍA CUALQUIER OTRA DUDA
VOY HABLAR CON ELLOS"
>> EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND SE FUE 
Y EN SUS PALABRAS NO HUBO 
AMBIGÜEDAD EN CUANTO A LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN QUE ESTABA 
PIDIENDO. EL EMBAJADOR SONDLAND 
DEJÓ EN CLARO QUE HABLABA DE UNA
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE JOE BIDEN Y 
HUNTER BIDEN. ES CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO
>> ENTONCES UNA COORDINACIÓN CON
MICK MULVANEY ES ESTO CORRECTO 
CERO PREGUNTA
>> SÍ
>> EN SU CARRERA CORONEL, ALGUNA
VEZ HABÍA VISTO A UN OFICIAL 
ESTADOUNIDENSE PIDIÉNDOLE A UN 
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO QUE INV
G
INVESTIGA HACE A UN CIUDADANO  
RELACIONADO CON EL PRESIDENTE 
COMO PONENTE?
>> NO

English: 
YOU HAD ANY OTHER CONCERNS AFTER
JULY 10th?
>> THEY SAID THAT -- I BELIEVE 
THE WORDS WERE SOMETHING TO THE 
EFFECT OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER 
CONCERNS FEEL FREE TO COME BACK.
>> IN THIS FOLLOW-ON MEETING, 
SIR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEFT IN
YOUR WORDS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT 
WHAT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS HE 
WAS REQUESTING.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR 
THAT HE WAS REQUESTING AN 
INVESTIGATION OF VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN'S SON, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT, SIR?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND HE STATED HE WAS ASKING 
THESE REQUESTS IN COORDINATION 
WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, 
CORRECT, SIR?
>> THAT IS WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY.
>> COLONEL, IN YOUR CAREER HAD 
YOU EVER BEFORE WITNESSED AN 
AMERICAN OFFICIAL REQUEST THAT A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN WHO IS RELATED TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL 
OPPONENT?
>> I HAVE NOT.
>> AND COLONEL, YOU IMMEDIATELY 
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, 
CORRECT, SIR?

Spanish: 
>> QUÉ PASÓ EXACTAMENTE SE REÚNA
>> LUEGO DE QUE LO INFORME 
PERDÓN. PERDÓN ME PUEDE REPETIR 
DE NUEVO LA PREGUNTA?
>> TENÍA OCUPACIONES SOBRE ESTO 
CORRECTO QUÉ PASÓ ? UNTA
>> FUE INAPROPIADO Y NO TENÍA 
NADA QUE VER CON LA SEGURIDAD 
NACIONAL Y NUESTRA POLÍTICA 
RESPECTO. TAMBIÉN ME PREOCUPABA 
QUE HABÍAN ABOGADOS DE LA CASA 
BLANCA. REPORTE LO MISMO CON LOS
ABOGADOS, EL CONTENIDO DE LA 
CONVERSACIÓN CON EL EMBAJADOR 
SONDLAND Y NC . NO SABÍA QUE LA 
DOCTORA GIL HABÍA CONVERSADO 
TAMBIÉN Y HABÍA CONTADO LO QUE 
YO EXPERIMENTÉ CON EL CONSEJO 
LEGAL .
>> COMO SABEMOS AHORA EL EM
EMBAJADOR BOLTON HABLÓ DE SU 
PREOCUPACIÓN SOBRE LA DOCTORA 
FIONA HILL,, SU SUPERVISORA. 

English: 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED?
>> AFTER I REPORTED IT TO THE --
I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?
I APOLOGIZE.
>> YOU RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT 
THIS, CORRECT, SIR?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT HAPPENED?
>> TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IF I 
UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.
I STATED THAT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY.
>> DID YOU ALSO RAISE CONCERN 
THAT DAY WITH WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS?
>> I DID.
>> WHAT DID YOU TELL THEM?
>> I REPORTED THE SAME THING -- 
I REPORTED THE CONTENT OF THE 
CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
AT THAT POINT I WASN'T AWARE 
THAT DR. HILL HAD A CONVERSATION
WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
SO I JUST RELAYED WHAT I 
EXPERIENCED TO THE ATTORNEY, 
LEAD LEGAL COUNSEL.
>> AS WE ARE NOW AWARE, SIR, 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED HIS 
CONCERNS AND INSTRUCTED DR. 
FIONA HILL, YOUR SUPERVISOR, TO 
ALSO MEET WITH THE SAME WHITE 
HOUSE LAWYERS TO TELL THEM WHAT 
HAPPENED.
COLONEL VINDMAN, I AGREE THAT 

Spanish: 
PARA QUE SE HABLARA DE LO QUE 
PASÓ Y ESTÁN DE ACUERDO EN QUE 
NO HAY NINGUNA DUDA DE QUE HABÍA
UNA TRANSACCIÓN PARA 
INTERCAMBIAR EN UNA REUNIÓN EN 
LA CASA BLANCA CON UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN ESPECÍFICA. SEGÚN 
LO QUE YO VEO ESOS UN CRIMEN 
CEDO MI PALABRA .
>> GRACIAS CABALLERO . QUIERO 
TAMBIÉN AGREGAR AQUÍ QUE CUANDO 
ENTREMOS AL COMITÉ JUDICIAL Y SE
LLEVE A CABO UNA DECISIÓN Y 
RESOLUCIÓN VAMOS A TENER 
ENTONCES LA OPORTUNIDAD DE QUE 
LA CASA BLANCA LE ENTREGUEN SUS 
PUNTOS EL COMITEÉ JUDICIAL .
>> GRACIAS SEÑOR PRESIDENTE DE  
COMITÉ. COMO UN TENIENTE CORONEL
AGRADEZCO SU SERVICIO NUESTRO 

English: 
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
PROPOSING A TRANSACTION TO 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TRADING 
WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS FOR 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.
WITH THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, 
WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS, AND HIS 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.
IN MY VIEW, SIR, THAT'S 
APPALLING.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I WOULD JUST POINT OUT AS WELL 
THAT WHEN THE MATTER DOES MOVE 
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT 
THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION THE 
WHITE HOUSE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL 
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
SUBMIT -- MAKE A SUBMISSION TO 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
I NOW TURN TO DR. WENSTRUP.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING 
HERE.
AS AN ARMY COLONEL WHO SERVED A 
YEAR IN IRAQ, I APPRECIATE YOUR 
SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE THAT 
YOU MADE DURING THAT TIME.
AND I KNOW THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE 
THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF 
COMMAND.
IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU EMPHASIZE
THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF 
COMMAND.
YOU WERE DIRECT REPORT TO DR. 
FIONA HILL AND THEN MR. TIM 

Spanish: 
PAÍS Y ENTIENDO LA IMPORTANCIA 
DE LA CADENA DE COMANDOS. USTÉ 
FUE DIRIGIDO POR LA DOCTORA 
FIONA HILL ES ESTO CORRECTO ? 
N
UNTA
>> CORRECTO
>> CUANDO LES HABLO DE SUS 
PREOCUPACIONES DE LA LLAMADA  
ENTRÉ AMBOS PRESIDENTES  LE DIJO
AL SEÑOR MORRISON CERO PREGUNTA
>> INMEDIATAMENTE HABLÉ CON JOHN
QUE ES EL CONSEJERO LEGAL.
>> ENTONCES UTAH NO SIGUIÓ LA 
CADENA DE COMANDO LEGAL
>>----
>> HABLÉ CON JOHN, LE REPORTE 
DEL SEÑOR MORRISON. Y EN ESE 
MOMENTO ME DIJERON QUE NO---
>> POR FAVOR DEJE QUE EL TESTIGO
TERMINE.
>> GRACIAS.
>> EN LA DEPOSICIÓN DE MORRISON 

English: 
MORRISON AND THEY WERE YOUR 
SENIORS, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHEN YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE 7-25 CALL BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS, YOU DIDN'T GO TO MR.
MORRISON ABOUT THAT, DID YOU?
>> I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO JOHN 
EISENBERG, THE LEAD LEGAL 
COUNSEL.
>> SO THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE 
CHAIN OF COMMAND.
IN THE DEPOSITION -- 
>> I'M SORRY.
COULD HE ANSWER, PLEASE?
>> CONGRESSMAN.
>> PLEASE ALLOW COLONEL VINDMAN 
TO ANSWER.
>> SO I REPORTED IT TO JOHN 
EISENBERG.
I ATTEMPTED TO REPORT IT TO MR. 
MORRISON.
I -- 
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> HE DIDN'T AVAIL HIMSELF.
AND AT THAT POINT I WAS TOLD NOT
TO -- 
>> WELL, HE DID AVAIL HIMSELF 
AND I'M I'LL GET INTO THAT.
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW THE 
WITNESS TO FINISH?
COLONEL, ARE YOU FINISHED WITH 
YOUR ANSWER?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IN THE MORRISON DEPOSITION ON
PAGE 58 TO 60 THE QUESTION WAS 
DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE ON 
THE CALL WENT TO EISENBERG TO 
EXPRESS CONCERNS?
AND YOUR ANSWER WAS "I LEARNED 
BASED ON TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, 

Spanish: 
LA PREGUNTA ERA SI HABÍA 
PREOCUPACIONES Y LA RESPUESTA 
FUE QUE SEGÚN LO QUE HA VISTO 
AHORA EN LOS TESTIMONIOS A
ABIERTOS QUE NO HABÍA OTRA 
PERSONA QUE HUBIESE DICHO 
NINGUNA PREOCUPACIÓN.  LA PR
N
PREGUNTA ES QUIÉN SEGÚN LAS 
FUENTES ABIERTAS ALEX VINDMAN. Y
EL SE REPORTA CON USTED, 
RESPONDIÓ QUE SÍ. DIJO QUE NO SE
LE DIJO NADA A MORRISON. 
TENIENDO CORONEL GUSTÉ DIJO QUE 
NO HUBO NINGUNA DISCUSIÓN CON EL
SEÑOR MORRISON, Y DIJO QUE 
DESPUÉS DE LA LLAMADA  USTED 
EJERCITÓ EN LA CADENA DE COMANDO
Y QUE FUE A HABLAR CON EL 
CONSEJERO LEGAL PRINCIPAL Y 
COMPARTIÓ SU PREOCUPACIÓN ESO 
SERÍA SEÑOR JOHN?
>> LO SIENTO ME OBAMA ESTÁ 
HABLANDO ME LO PUEDE REVERTIR

English: 
BASED ON OPEN SOURCE REPORTING, 
WHICH I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE, THAT OTHER PERSONNEL 
DID RAISE CONCERNS."
QUESTION, WHO?
BASED ON OPEN SOURCE WITHOUT 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, ALEX 
VINDMAN ON MY -- ON MY STAFF.
QUESTION THEN.
AND HE REPORTS TO YOU, CORRECT?
ANSWER, HE DOES.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
DIRECT REPORT WAS MR. MORRISON.
AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IN 
YOUR DEPOSITION, PAGE 96, THE 
QUESTION WAS OKAY, AFTER THE 
CALL ON 7-25 DID YOU HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORRISON 
ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS?
ANSWER, "AFTER THE CALL I -- 
WELL, PER THE -- PER THE 
EXERCISE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
AND EXPRESSING I IMMEDIATELY 
WENT TO THE SENIOR NSC LEGAL 
COUNSEL AND SHARED THOSE 
CONCERNS."
THAT WOULD BE MR. EISENBERG, 
CORRECT?
>> I'M SORRY.
MY LAWYER WAS TALKING.
COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, 
PLEASE?
DOCTOR. 
>> YOU TWOENTD MR. EISENBERG.
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT.
SO WE CAN GO ON.

English: 
AND YOU ARE NOT A JAG OFFICER.
YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER.
AND ON PAGE 153 OF YOUR 
TESTIMONY, DEPOSITION, IN 
REFERENCE TO THAT MEETING WITH 
MR. EISENBERG, YOU SAID, "I WAS 
NOT MAKING A LEGAL JUDGMENT.
ALL I WAS DOING IS SHARING MY 
CONCERNS WITH MY CHAIN OF 
COMMAND."
YET WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR 
DIRECT REPORT IS TO MR. 
MORRISON.
SO LET'S ESTABLISH YOUR ROLE AND
YOUR TITLE.
IN YOUR DEPOSITION, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 200, 201, 
IN A COLLOQUY WITH MR. STEWART 
YOU SAID, "I WOULD SAY FIRST OF 
ALL I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR 
UKRAINE, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR 
UKRAINE, I'M THE MOST 
KNOWLEDGEABLE.
AND I'M HERE FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE."
ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE OF THE 
ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE THAT CAN
ADVISE THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE?
COULDN'T SOMEONE LIKE MISS 
WILLIAMS ALSO ADVISE ON UKRAINE?
IT'S IN HER PORTFOLIO.
>> THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT 
WOULD HAPPEN.
IT WOULD BE -- FRANKLY IT WOULD 
BE AMBASSADOR BOLTON -- 

Spanish: 
>> NO YA LO DIJO ASÍ QUE VAMOS A
CONTINUAR. ASÍ QUE TENGAS UN 
ABOGADO DE LA PÁGINA 153 DE SU 
TESTIMONIO EN REFERENCIA A 
ENCONTRARSE CON EL SEÑOR 
EISENBERG DIJO QUE COMPARTÍA SUS
PREOCUPACIONES POR LA CADENA 
COMANDO PERO ESTABLECIMOS QUE 
USTED HABLA SEÑOR MORRISON Y 
ESTABLECIMOS EL ROL DE SU TÍTULO
Y EN SU DECLARACIÓN EN LA PÁGINA
201 DIJO QUE ES EL DIRECTOR DE 
UCRANIA SOY RESPONSABLE DE 
UCRANIA SOY QUIEN MÁS SABE. Y EN
CUANTO AL CONSEJO DE SEGURIDAD 
NACIONAL LA CASA BLANCA, ES EL 
ÚNICO DEL UNIVERSO NUESTRO 
GOBIERNO QUE PUEDE ACONSEJAR EL 
PRESIDENTE SOBRE UCRANIA? NO HAY
ALGUIEN COMO LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS 
QUIEN TAMBIÉN ACONSEJABA 
RESPECTO?

Spanish: 
>> ESTO NO ES TÍPICAMENTE LO QUE
PASA EN EL EMBAJADOR BOLTON--
>> PERO OTRA GENTE PUEDE DAR 
CONSEJOS A MATUTE SOBRE UCRANIA
>> ENTONCES ENTIENDO TODO EL 
CONTEXTO ETC. EN CUANTO ESTOS 
TEMAS. EXPRESÉ MI PREOCUPACIÓN 
CON LA CADENA DE COMANDO, Y COMO
OFICIAL DE 1DEL EJÉRCITO ENTIENO
QUE ES MUY IMPORTANTE. LUEGO EN 
OTRAS PÁGINAS DE SU HUBO  
DECLARACIÓN DICE QUE FINALMENTE 
DECIDEN QUE LAS ACCIONES A 
SEGUIR SERÁN LAS SIGUIENTES. 
SEÑOR MORRISON ES QUIEN NO SABÍA
SOBRE ESTO , PUEDE SER QUE ÉL 
HAYA DECIDIDO UNA ACCIÓN A 
SEGUIR?  ESO LO QUE ESTÉ DIJO. Y
EN LA DECLARACIÓN DEL SEÑOR 
MORRISON LE PREGUNTAMOS EN QUÉ 
MOMENTO SABÍA QUE USTED HABÍA 
HABLADO CON EISENBERG EN LA 
LLAMADA. USTED DIJO QUE SI 

English: 
>> SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN ADVISE ON
UKRAINE BESIDES YOU.
GOING ON IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU 
SAID, "I UNDERSTAND ALL THE 
NUANCES, THE CONTEXT AND SO 
FORTH SURROUNDING THESE ISSUES.
I ON MY JUDGMENT WENT, I 
EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITHIN THE 
CHAIN OF COMMAND," WHICH I THINK
TO ME AS A MILITARY OFFICER IS 
COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.
AND I EXERCISED THAT CHAIN OF 
COMMAND.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IN 
YOUR DEPOSITION PAGE 259 YOU 
SAID, "I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS 
THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND
THE SENIORS THEN DECIDE THE 
ACTION TO TAKE."
MR. MORRISON'S YOUR SENIOR.
HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
HOW CAN HE DECIDE AN ACTION TO 
TAKE?
BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
IN MR. MORRISON'S DEPOSITION 
PAGE 60 THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT 
POINT DID YOU LEARN THAT 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT 
TO EISENBERG?
HE SAID ABOUT THE 25th PHONE 
CALL?
HE SAID YES.
IN THE COURSE OF REVIEWING FOR 
THIS PROCEEDING, VIEWING THE 
OPEN RECORD.
SO THE NEXT QUESTION, SO 
EISENBERG NEVER CAME TO YOU AND 
RELAYED TO YOU THE CONVERSATION?
HE SAID NO.
ELLIS NEVER DID EITHER?

Spanish: 
DURANTE ESTA AUDIENCIA. AASÍ QUE
LA PREGUNTA ES EISENBERG NUNCA 
VINO HACIA HABLAR CON USTED? NO.
EL SEÑOR MORRISON FUE SALTADO LA
CADENA DE COMANDO SOBRE SUS 
PREOCUPACIONES. ASÍ QUE SEÑOR 
MORRISON DICE QUE ES LA ÚLTIMA 
AUTORIDAD DIJO QUE VIO SUS 
EDICIONES. RECUERDA SI TODAS LAS
EDICIONES FUERON INCORPORADAS Y 
DIJO QUE SIN QUE LAS ACEPTO 
TODAS. ESTO SE LA PÁGINA 62 Y 
1
61, ÉL CREE QUE TODAS SUS 
EDICIONES FUERON ACEPTADAS. Y 
ESTABLO DE LA PALABRA DEMANDA
>> NO
>> PERO TE DIJO ESO CUANDO 
COMENZÓ HOY DÍA HABLAR ASÍ QUE 
CEDO LA PALABRA.
>> GRACIAS A USTEDES POR SU 
TESTIMONIO Y SU SERVICIO. CO
E
CORONEL VINDMAN, CCON ES EL CASO

English: 
NOT TO THE BEST OF MY 
RECOLLECTION.
SO MR. MORRISON WAS SKIPPED IN 
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT YOUR
OTHER CONCERNS.
SO MR. MORRISON SAID HE'S THE 
FINAL CLEARING AUTHORITY.
HE SAID HE SAW YOUR EDITS.
DO YOU REMEMBER IF ALL OF THE 
EDITS WERE INCORPORATED?
AND HE SAID YES, I ACCEPTED ALL 
OF THEM.
IT'S ON PAGE 61, 62.
SO HE BELIEVES ALL YOUR EDITS 
WERE ACCEPTED.
LET ME ASK, IN YOUR EDITS DID 
YOU INSIST THAT THE WORD 
"DEMAND" BE PUT INTO THE 
TRANSCRIPTION BETWEEN THE 
CONVERSATION OF THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS?
>> I DID NOT.
>> BUT YOU DID SAY THAT IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT TODAY.
THANK YOU.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> MISS SPEIER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND YOUR SERVICE.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WASN'T IT THE 
CASE THAT MR. EISENBERG THE 
ATTORNEY HAD SAID TO YOU AFTER 
THE JULY 5th MEETING THAT YOU 

Spanish: 
DE QUE SEÑOR EISENBERG EL 
ABOGADO LE DIJO QUE TENDRÍA QUE 
HABLAR CON ÉL SI TENÍA CUALQUIER
OTRA PREOCUPACIÓN?
>> ES CORRECTO
>> Y NO ES FUERA DE EL COMANDO 
DE EL HABLAR CON UN ABOGADO
>> NO ÉL ES EL MÁS ALTO OFICIAL 
ENTRE AMBOS
>> OTROS TESTIGOS RECIBIERON LA 
QUEJA DE QUE ESCUCHARON TODO 
SEGUNDA MANO. PERO TENGO QUE 
ESTÁ LA TUVO DE PRIMERA MANO 
PORQUÉ USTED  ESTUVO EN LA 
LLAMADA ES ESO CORRECTO CERO 
PREGUNTA
>> CORRECTO
>> CORRECTO
>> CORONEL USTED EN SUS 
COMENTARIOS DE HOY DIJO QUE 
QUIERE DECIR QUE LOS ATAQUES 
CONTRA ÉSTOS SERVIDORES SON 
REPRENSIBLES. QUIERE HABLARNOS 
MÁS DE ESO ? UNTA
>> CREO QUE BASTA CONSIGO MISMOS
CREO QUE NO ES NECESARIO DECIR 

English: 
SHOULD COME TO HIM IF YOU HAVE 
ANY OTHER CONCERNS?
>> AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING, 
YES, MA'AM, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND IT IS NOT GOING OUTSIDE 
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO SPEAK TO
A LAWYER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO.
HE IS THE SENIOR BETWEEN THE TWO
CERTAINLY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN 
COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHER 
WITNESSES HAVING ONLY SECONDHAND
INFORMATION.
BUT IN BOTH YOUR CASES YOU HAVE 
FIRSTHAND INFORMATION BECAUSE 
YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> NOW, COLONEL, YOU IN YOUR 
COMMENTS TODAY SAID, "I WANT TO 
STATE THAT THE VILE CHARACTER 
ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED 
AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS IS
REPREHENSIBLE."
WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THAT
AT ALL?
>> MA'AM, I THINK THEY STAND ON 
THEIR OWN.
I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO 
EXPAND ON THEM.
>> SO IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS 
SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN 

Spanish: 
MÁS.
>> EN CUANTO SU SITUACIÓN YA QUE
USTED HA DADO SU DECLARACIÓN Y 
ESTA ES PÚBLICA, VISTO SU 
EXPERIENCIA EN SUS TRABAJOS 
CAMBIANDO O HAN SIDO TRATADOS DE
MANERA DISTINTA?
>> NO
>> DESDE EL INFORME DE EL 25 DE 
JULIO DIJE QUE ME DI CUENTA DE 
QUE HABÍA SIDO SACADO DE VARIAS 
REUNIONES EN LAS QUE MI POSICIÓN
DEBERÍA ESTAR ALLÍ.
>> ENTONCES EN ALGUNOS ASPECTOS 
HAN HABIDO REPRESALIAS.
>> CREO QUE NO PUEDO JUZGAR ESO 
PERO SI QUE FUE ALGO QUE SALIÓ 
DE LO NORMAL EL QUE YO NO 
PARTICIPASE EN ALGUNOS DE ESTOS 
EVENTOS.
>>  GRACIAS. EN PREPARACIÓN PARA

English: 
DEPOSITIONS, SINCE THOSE 
DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE 
PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE 
JOBS CHANGED OR HAVE YOU BEEN 
TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?
>> I HAVE NOT, NO.
>> SINCE THE REPORT ON THE JULY 
25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE 
I WAS BEING EXCLUDED FROM 
SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY 
POSITION.
>> SO IN SOME RESPECTS, THEN, 
THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF I COULD MAKE 
THAT JUDGMENT.
I CAN SAY IT WAS OUT OF THE 
COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT 
HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF 
THESE EVENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
IN PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 25th
PHONE CALL IT'S STANDARD 
NORTHWEST NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TALKING 
POINTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> BECAUSE THE WORDS OF THE 
PRESIDENT CARRY INCREDIBLE 
WEIGHT.

English: 
IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO ENSURE 
THAT EVERYONE HAS CAREFULLY 
CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT SAY TO 
A FOREIGN LEADER?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ARE THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S 
DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE.
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN PREPARING
THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL?
>> I DID -- I PREPARED THEM.
>> SO YOU PREPARED THEM.
THEY WERE THEN REVIEWED AND 
EDITED BY MULTIPLE SENIOR 
OFFICERS AT THE NSC AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DID THE TALKING POINTS FOR 
THE PRESIDENT CONTAIN ANY 
DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE 
BIDENS OR BURISMA?
>> THEY DID NOT.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN 
PRODUCTS FROM THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL SUGGESTING THAT
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION, THE BIDENS, OR BURISMA
ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY 
OF THE UNITED STATES?

Spanish: 
LA LLAMADA DE JULIO ES ESTÁNDAR 
QUE SE DEN PUNTOS PARA CONVERSAR
CORRECTO SE RONDA? CORRECTO
ENTONCES ES IMPORTANTE 
ASEGURARSE DE QUE TODOS HAYAN 
CONSIDERADO LAS IMPLICACIONES DE
LO QUE EL PRESIDENTE LE PODRÍA 
DECIR A UN LÍDER EXTRANJERO
>> CORRECTO
>> USTED ES DE EL DIRECTOR DE 
QUIEN ESTÁ A CARGO DE PREPARAR 
LAS LOS PUNTOS DE CONVERSACIÓN 
ENTONCES LOS PREPARÓ Y LUEGO 
ESTO FUERON EDITADOS POR VARIOS 
OFICIALES EN LA CASA BLANCA NO 
ENTONCES: DE LO QUE TENÍA QUE 
HABLAR SE HABLABA DE ALGUNA I
E
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LAS 
ELECCIONES 2016 LOS BIDEN O 
BURISMA?
>> NO HAY ALGÚN PRODUCTO ESCRITO
QUE SUGIERA QUE UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LAS 
ELECCIONES 2016, LOS BIDEN O 
BURISMA SON PARTE DE LA POLÍTICA

English: 
>> NO, I AM NOT.
>> SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ALLIES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT REQUESTED THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR OFFICIAL 
POLICY REASONS AS PART OF SOME 
PLAN TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE.
IN YOUR EXPERIENCE DID THE 
OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED 
STATES INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE TO
SPECIFICALLY OPEN INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE BIDENS AND INTERFERENCE
BY UKRAINE IN THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> NOTHING THAT WE PREPARED OR 
HAD DISCUSSED UP UNTIL THAT 
POINT INCLUDED ANY OF THESE 
ELEMENTS.
>> WOULD IT EVER BE U.S. POLICY 
IN YOUR EXPERIENCE TO ASK A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION?
>> THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURES 
IN WHICH TO DO THAT.
CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT IS WELL 
WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THE NSC, 
CERTAINLY A DIRECTOR AT THE NSC 
WOULD DO.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE 
PROHIBITED FROM BEING INVOLVED 
IN ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE 

Spanish: 
OFICIAL DE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y 
REPREGUNTAR
>> NO ALGUNO DE LOS ALIADOS DEL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP DICEN 
QUE ESTO SE HIZO POR RAZONES DE 
POLÍTICA PARA SACAR LA 
CORRUPCIÓN DE UCRANIA. EN SU 
EXPERIENCIA LAS POLÍTICAS 
OFICIALES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS 
INCLUYEN PEDIR UNA INVESTIGACIÓN
ABIERTA ESPECÍFICA CONTRA LOS 
BIDEN  Y SOBRE LA INTERFERENCIA 
EN LAS ELECCIONES DOS MILES Y 
SEIS DE NUESTRO PAÍS?
>> BASTANTE. NUNCA DE UNA 
DISCUSIÓN COMO ESA.
>> USTED SU EXPERIENCIA LA P
POLÍTICA ESTÁ UNIDA EN SE HACE Y
QUE SE LE PIDA A UN LÍDER 
EXTRANJERO QUE ABRA UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN SERÁ PREGUNTA
>> HAY PROCEDIMIENTOS ADECUADOS 
PARA HACER ESO, EL PRESIENTE 
PUEDE HACER ESO A SU DERECHO. NO
ESTÁ LO QUE EL DIRECTOR HARÍA DE

Spanish: 
NINGUNA FORMA TRANS DE 
TRANSACCIÓN CON UN PODER 
EXTRANJERO PARA ASEGURARSE  DE 
QUE NO HAY PERCEPCIÓN DE 
MANIPULACIÓN DE LA CASA BLANCA. 
ASÍ QUE NO SALGO LO QUE PA
PARTICIPAMOS.
>> SEÑORA WILLIAMS USTED SABE SI
NUESTRA POLÍTICAS DE EL EXTERIOR
HAN VISTO UNA REFERENCIA A UN 
CASO COMO ESTE?
>> NO NUNCA VISTO ALGO ASÍ 
NUESTRAS POLÍTICAS DE P
PROCEDIMIENTO.
>> CORONEL VINDMAN, CUANDO 
ESCUCHAMOS HUBO DECLARACIÓN DE 
APERTURA EL RECONOZCO EL GRANERO
Y USTEDES PARA NUESTRO PAÍS Y 
DIRÍA QUE SU PADRE  LO HIZO MUY 
BIEN.
>> SOLA PALABRA
>> GRACIAS. LLES AGRADEZCO DAMOS

English: 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND A 
FOREIGN POWER TO ENSURE THAT 
THERE IS NO PERCEPTION OF 
MANIPULATION FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
SO IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE 
PARTICIPATE IN.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, IN YOUR 
EXPERIENCE DID THE OFFICIAL 
POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES 
INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE TO OPEN 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS?
>> I HAD NOT SEEN ANY REFERENCE 
TO THOSE PARTICULAR CASES IN OUR
POLICY FORMULATION PROCESS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THAT
IN LISTENING TO YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT I HAD CHIPS UP AND 
DOWN MY SPINE, AND I THINK MOST 
AMERICANS RECOGNIZE WHAT AN 
EXTRAORDINARY HERO YOU ARE TO 
OUR COUNTRY.
AND I WOULD SAY TO YOUR FATHER, 
HE DID WELL.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. STEWART.
>> THANK YOU.
MISS WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK BOTH OF 
YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
SEE YOU WEARING YOUR DRESS 
UNIFORM.
KNOWING THAT'S NOT THE UNIFORM 
OF THE DAY, YOU NORMALLY WEAR A 
SUIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, I THINK
IT'S A GREAT REMINDER OF YOUR 
MILITARY SERVICE.
I TOO COME FROM A MILITARY 

Spanish: 
POR ESTAR AQUÍ HOY, VEO QUE SE 
ESTÁ UTILIZANDO SU UNIFORME POR 
LO GENERAL UNO AQUÍ UTILIZA UN 
TRAJE Y QUE ESTO RECUERDA SU 
SERVICIO. MI PADRE TAMBIÉN FUE 
PARTE DE LA SEGUNDA GUERRA 
MUNDIAL Y ENTIENDO LA VÍA 
MILITAR. Y DE ALGUIEN QUE 
PERTENECE UNA FAMILIA MILITAR A 
OTRA LE AGRADEZCO SU SERVICIO 
USTED ES UN EJEMPLO. MUY R
RÁPIDAMENTE QUIERO HABLAR SEÑOR 
VINDMAN  USTED QUIERE SER 
LLAMADO TENIENTE CORONEL, 
SIEMPRE LE PIDE A LOS CIVILES 
QUE LO LLAMEN POR SU RANGO
>> SEÑOR STUART NO USO MI RANGO 
MILITAR, ME PARECIÓ QUE ERA 
APROPIADO. PIDO DISCULPAS Y LE 
PARECIÓ QUE ERA INADECUADO
>> PERO LOS ATAQUES QUE TENIDO 
QUE SUFRIR POR LA PRENSA Y POR 
TWITTER HAN ELIMINADO EL HECHO
D
DE QUE SOY UN OFICIAL MILITAR--
>> SÓLO LE ESTOY DICIENDO QUE NO

English: 
FAMILY.
THESE ARE MY FATHER'S AIR FORCE 
WINGS.
HE WAS A PILOT IN WORLD WAR II.
FIVE OF HIS SONS SERVED IN THE 
MILITARY.
SO AS ONE MILITARY FAMILY TO 
ANOTHER, THANK YOU AND YOUR 
BROTHERS FOR YOUR SERVICE.
YOUR EXAMPLE HERE.
VERY QUICKLY, I'M CURIOUS, WHEN 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES REFERRED 
TOY AS MR. VINDMAN YOU QUICKLY 
CORRECTED HIM AND WANTED TO BE 
CALLED LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
DO YOU ALWAYS INSIST ON 
CIVILIANS CALLING YOU BY YOUR 
RANK?
>> MR. STEWART, REPRESENTATIVE 
STEWART, I'M IN UNIFORM WEARING 
MY MILITARY RANK.
I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS 
APPROPRIATE TO STICK WITH THAT.
I APOLOGIZE -- I DON'T BELIEVE 
HE DID.
BUT THE ATTACKS THAT I'VE HAD IN
THE PRESS, IN TWITTER HAVE KIND 
OF ELIMINATED THE FACT THAT 
EITHER MARGINALIZED ME AS A 
MILITARY OFFICER OR -- 
>> LISTEN, I JUST -- I'M JUST 
TELLING YOU THAT THE RANKING 
MEMBER MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO 
YOU.
>> I BELIEVE THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO YOUR 

Spanish: 
QUIERO FALTAR AL RESPETO
>> LE CREO
>> SE HA HABLADO MUCHO DICE 
DISCUTIDO MUCHO SOBRE EL 
PRESIDENTE TRAVIS ZELENSKI Y LA 
PALABRA FAVOR QUE ES UNA BASE 
PARA EL IMPEACHMENT. YO SE DIJO 
QUE LA CULTURA MILITAR QUE USTED
Y YO CONOCEMOS  CUANDO UN SU
I
SUPERIOR NOS PIDE UN FAVOR 
NOSOTROS LO INTERPRETAMOS COMO 
UNA DEMANDA . ES ESO ALGO QUE SE
DIJO ANTES?
>> CUANDO SUPERIOR DE PIDE A LOS
UNA ORDEN.
>> ENTONCES CREE USTED QUE SU 
INTERPRETACIÓN DE FAVOR Y 
DEMANDA  VIENEN DE SU 
EXPERIENCIA DE LA CULTURA 
MILITAR?
>> CREO QUE ES CORRECTO
>> SÍ CREO QUE ES CORRECTO. EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP ES 
MILITAR?
>> NO
>> EL ALGUNA VEZ HA SERVIDO EN 
EL EJÉRCITO SINO PREGUNTA

English: 
EARLIER TESTIMONY TODAY.
MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT AS 
WE'VE DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND THE WORD "FAVOR."
AND THIS BEING INTERPRETED AS A 
BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
AND YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE 
WORD "FAVOR," AND I'LL 
PARAPHRASE YOU AND YOU FEEL FREE
TO CORRECT ME.
YOU SAID IN THE MILITARY 
CULTURE, WHICH YOU AND I ARE 
BOTH FAMILIAR WITH, WHEN A 
SUPERIOR OFFICER ASKS FOR A 
FAVOR OF A SUBORDINATE THEY WILL
INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND.
IS THAT A FAIR SYNOPSIS OF WHAT 
YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED?
>> REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN A 
SUPERIOR MAKES A REQUEST, THAT'S
AN ORDER.
>> OKAY.
IN SHORT, THEN, YOU THINK YOUR 
INTERPRETATION OF A FAVOR AS A 
DEMAND IS BASED ON YOUR MILITARY
EXPERIENCE AND THE MILITARY 
CULTURE.
>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
IS PRESIDENT TRUMP A MEMBER OF 
THE MILITARY?
>> HE IS NOT.
>> HAS HE EVER SERVED IN THE 
MILITARY?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
>> IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A 
MEMBER OF THE MILITARY?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I DON'T KNOW.

English: 
>> HE'S NOT.
WOULD IT BE FAIR, THEN, TO TAKE 
A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER SERVED IN
THE MILITARY AND TO TAKE YOUR 
REEVALUATION OF THEIR WORDS 
BASED ON YOUR MILITARY 
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR MILITARY 
CULTURE AND TO ATTACH THAT 
CULTURE AND THAT MEANING OF 
THOSE WORDS TO SOMEONE WHO HAS 
NEVER SERVED?
>> REPRESENTATIVE, I MADE THAT 
JUDGMENT.
I STICK BY THAT JUDGMENT.
>> OKAY.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I THINK IT'S
NONSENSE.
LOOK, I WAS IN THE MILITARY.
I COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A 
FAVOR AND AN ORDER AND A DEMAND 
AND SO COULD MY SUBORDINATES.
AND I THINK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
DID AS WELL.
HE NEVER INITIATED AN 
INVESTIGATION.
IN FACT, HE'S BEEN VERY CLEAR.
HE SAID I NEVER FELT ANY 
PRESSURE AT ALL.
SO YOU INTERPRETED THE WORD 
FAVOR BUT THE TWO PEOPLE WHO 
WERE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER DID 
NOT INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND.
IT WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> THE CONTEXT OF THIS CALL 
CONSISTENT WITH THE JULY 10th 
MEETING WITH THE REPORTING THAT 

Spanish: 
>> CREO QUE NO
>> SERÍA ENTONCES ADECUADO TOMAR
UNA PERSONA QUE JAMÁS HA ESTADO 
EN LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS Y TOMAR 
NUESTRA EVALUACIÓN DE LAS 
PALABRAS  BALIZADOS EN SU 
EXPERIENCIA Y SU CULTURA MILITAR
Y PONER ESA CULTURA EN ALGUIEN 
QUE NUNCA HA SERVIDO?
>> REPRESENTANTE, ICC JUICIO Y 
ME MANTENGO ALLÍ.
>> CREO QUE NO TIENE SENTIDO
>> YO PUEDO DISTINGUIR ENTRE UN 
FAVOR Y UNA ORDEN Y UNA DEMANDA 
Y TAMBIÉN USTED. CREO QUE 
PRESIENTE ZELENSKI TAMBIÉN. DE 
HECHO LA SIDO MUY CLARO, DIJO 
QUE NUNCA HABÍA SENTIDO PRESIÓN 
PARA NADA. ASÍ QUE USTED 
INTERPRETÓ LA PALABRA FAVOR, 
PERO LAS DOS PERSONAS QUE 
ESTABAN HABLANDO  NO LO 
INTERPRETARON COMO UNA DEMANDA, 
ES SU INTERPRETACIÓN..

English: 
WAS GOING ON INCLUDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY 
MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS NOT 
SIMPLY A REQUEST.
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL.
IT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL.
YOU SAY IT MAKES IT CLEAR.
IT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL.
AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE
TALKING TO EACH OTHER DIDN'T 
INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
I'D LIKE TO GO ON TO DISCUSS 
YOUR REACTION TO THE PHONE CALL 
AND AGAIN YOUR PREVIOUS 
TESTIMONY.
AND FOR BREVITY AND FOR CLARITY 
I'M GOING TO REFER TO YOUR 
PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, PAGE 155.
YOUR ATTORNEY'S WELCOME TO 
FOLLOW ALONG.
QUOTING YOU, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, "I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER
THIS WAS A CRIME OR ANYTHING OF 
THAT NATURE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG."
AND I'D LIKE TO KEY ON THE WORD 
WRONG HERE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING 
TO COME BACK TO THAT.
IN MY MIND DID I CONSIDER THE 
FACTOR THERE COULD HAVE BEEN 
OTHER IMPLICATIONS?
YES.
BUT IT WASN'T THE BASIS OF, I 
DON'T KNOW, LODGING A CRIMINAL 
COMPLAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEN YOU GO ON TO TALK ABOUT 
POLICY CONCERNS AND MORAL AND 
ETHICAL JUDGMENTS.
SO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS 

Spanish: 
>> EL CONTEXTO DE LA LLAMADA EN 
LA REUNIÓN DE JULIO DEPENDÍA DE 
ELLA INCLUYENDO PRESIDENTE EL 
ABOGADO DEL PRESIDENTE HICIERON 
CLARO QUE ESTO NO ERA 
SIMPLEMENTE UNA PETICIÓN.
>> NO ESTÁ CLARO. USTED DICE QUE
ESTÁ CLARO PERO NO ES ASÍ. Y LOS
DOS AMIGOS QUE ESTABAN HABLANDO 
LO INTERPRETARON ESA FORMA, Y DE
NUEVO ESTAMOS HABLANDO DE SU 
TESTIMONIO ANTERIOR. Y PARA 
DEJARLO TODO EN CLARO MUY HARÉ 
ESTO DE LA PÁGINA 156 SEGÚN 
USTEDC "NO SABÍA CENTRO CRIMEN O
ALGO ESTA NATURALEZA, ME PARECÓO
ERRADO." BAKER EN ESA PALABRA 
ERRADO EN LA MENTE PORQUE 
VOLVEREMOS A ELLA " PARA MÍ  NO 

Spanish: 
ERA SUFICIENTE PARA HACER UNA 
QUEJA PENAL." ENTONCES SU 
PREOCUPACIÓN POR ESTA  LLAMADA
N
NO ERA LEGAL SINO QUE ERA MÁS 
BIEN MORAL . DÉJEME PREGUNTARLE 
ESTO: USTED DIJO ESTO ESTÁ MAL 
USTED NO DIJO QUE EL EN ALGO E
T
ESTABA MAL. HAY DOCENAS DE 
NACIONES CORRUPTAS EN EL MUNDO 
CIENTOS DE OFICIALES CORRUPTOS. 
SI UN VICEPRESIDENTE VA UNA 
NACIÓN Y DEMANDA QUE SE SAQUE A 
UN INDIVIDUO EN PARTICULAR Y DA 
UNA VENTANA DE SEIS HORAS FUERA 
UN INDIVIDUO Y LUEGO HIZO SU 
HIJO ENTRÓ Y ES PAGADO. NO LE 
PARECE ESO ERRADO?
>> LA VERDAD ES QUE NO SÉ NADA 
DE ESO DE PRIMERA FUENTE.
>> HA VISTO EL VÍDEO?
>> ES DE VISTO EL VÍDEO

English: 
PHONE CALL WERE NOT LEGAL.
THEY WERE BASED ON MORAL, 
ETHICAL, AND POLICY DIFFERENCES.
WHICH YOU THOUGHT WERE WRONG, TO
USE YOUR WORD.
YOU SAID THIS WAS WRONG.
NOT ILLEGAL BUT WRONG.
THERE ARE, AS I'VE STATED 
PREVIOUS SITTING HERE, A COUPLE 
DAYS AGO, THERE ARE DOZENS OF 
CORRUPT NATIONS IN THE WORLD, 
HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS.
EXACTLY ONE TIME DID A VICE 
PRESIDENT GO TO A NATION AND 
DEMAND THE SPECIFIC FIRING OF 
ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVE A 
SIX-HOUR TIME LIMIT AND 
WITHHOLD -- OR THREATEN TO 
WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN 
AID AFGHAN -- IT WAS THE ONE 
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS INVESTIGATING
A COMPANY THAT WAS PAYING HIS 
SON.
SO I'LL ASK YOU, WAS THAT ALSO 
WRONG?
>> THAT IS NOT WHAT -- I FRANKLY
DON'T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
>> YOU HAVE NOT SEEN A VIDEO?
>> I'VE SEEN THE VIDEO -- 
>> THAT'S ALL I'VE DESCRIBED IS 
THE VIDEO.
EVERYTHING I'VE JUST SAID TO YOU
IS IN THE VIDEO.
WAS THAT WRONG AS WELL?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS 
SOMETHING I ACTUALLY 
PARTICIPATED IN.

Spanish: 
>> ESO ESTABA MAL TAMBIÉN?
>> SEÑOR ESTO ES ALGO LO QUE NO 
PUEDO RESPONDER.
>> HA TERMINADO SU TIEMPO SI 
QUIERE PUEDE RESPONDER ESTA P
G
PREGUNTA VI UNA PARTE DEL VÍDEO,
PERO NO PUEDO HACERME UN JUICIO 
RESPECTO DEL.
>>> CUANDO ALGUIEN PIDE UN FAVOR
COMO IR A BUSCAR LA ROPA, QUÉ 
PASA CUANDO EL COMANDANTE EN 
JEFE DE L PAÍS MÁS PODEROSO DEL 
MUNDO PIDEN FAVORES, ESO ES UNA 

English: 
>> I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
CAN MAKE A -- 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED.
COLONEL VINDMAN, IF YOU'D LIKE 
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU'RE 
MORE THAN WELCOME.
>> I FRANKLY DON'T KNOW THAT 
MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR 
INCIDENT.
I SAUT SNIPPET OF THE VIDEO, BUT
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A 
JUDGMENT OFF THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. QUIGLEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
COLONEL, IT'S ONE THING TO ASK 
SOMEBODY A FAVOR LIKE HEY, GO 
PICK UP MY DRY CLEANING.
IT'S ANOTHER WHEN THE COMMANDER 
IN CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL 
ARMY IN THE WORLD ASKS AN ALLY 
WHO'S IN A VULNERABLE POSITION 
TO DO HIM A FAVOR, IS IT NOT?
>> YES.
>> LET ME GO BACK TO THAT 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IF I COULD.
MS. WILLIAMS, AGAIN, WHEN DID 
YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING 
HELD UP, THE NEARLY $400 MILLION
THAT WAS REFERENCED?
>> JULY 3rd.
>> AND WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY 

English: 
ADDITIONAL -- OR DID YOU ATTEND 
ANY ADDITIONAL MEETINGS IN WHICH
THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE BEING 
WITHHELD WAS DISCUSSED?
>> I DID.
I ATTENDED MEETINGS ON JULY 23rd
AND JULY 26th WHERE THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS DISCUSSED.
I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN 
DISCUSSED ON JULY 31st.
>> AND AT THAT POINT DID ANYONE 
PROVIDE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR 
THE HOLD?
>> IN THOSE MEETINGS THE OMB 
REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT THE
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
CHIEF OF STAFF.
>> AND DID THEY GIVE WILLIAMS 
BEYOND THAT IT WAS BEING 
WITHHELD BY THE WHITE HOUSE 
CHIEF OF STAFF?
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY.
THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THERE 
WAS AN ONGOING REVIEW WHETHER 
THE FUNDING WAS STILL IN LINE 
WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES.
>> DID ANYONE IN ANY OF THOSE 
MEETINGS OR ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT
DISCUSSION YOU HAD DISCUSS THE 
LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THAT 

Spanish: 
ORDEN O NO?
>>> CORRECTO.
>>> USTED SABÍA DE ASISTENCIA 
MILITAR CONGELADA, SUBEN EN LA 
REUNIÓN DEL  23 Y 26 DE JULIO 
DONDE ESO FUE DISCUTIDO. CREO 
QUE TAMBIÉN FUE DISCUTIDO EL 21 
DE JULIO.
>>> EN ESE. ALGUIEN DIO UNA R
RAZÓN PARA ESO?
>>> DIJERON QUE ESO ESTABA A 
CARGO DEL JEFE DE GABINETE.
>
LA RACIÓN QUE SE DIO  ES QUE 
HABÍA UNA REVISIÓN RESPECTO A 
LAS PRIORIDADES DE LA 

English: 
AID?
>> THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS I 
BELIEVE IN THE JULY 31st MEETING
AND POSSIBLY PRIOR AS WELL IN 
TERMS OF DEFENSE AND STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WERE 
LOOKING INTO HOW THEY WOULD 
HANDLE A SITUATION IN WHICH 
EARMARKED FUNDING FROM CONGRESS 
THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR UKRAINE 
WOULD BE RESOLVED IF THE FUNDING
CONTINUED TO BE HELD AS WE 
APPROACHED THE END OF THE FISCAL
YEAR.
>> AND FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED 
DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT 
WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE?
>> NO.
>> COLONEL, AGAIN, JUST FOR THE 
RECORD, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS 
BEING WITHHELD?
>> ON OR ABOUT JULY 3rd.
>> AND WHAT EXACTLY HAD YOU 
LEARNED FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT I BELIEVE THAT 
PROMPTED YOU TO DRAFT THE NOTICE

Spanish: 
ADMINISTRACIÓN .
>>> EN LA  FUSIONE HICIERON SE 
DISCUTIÓ LO LEGAL QUÉ ERA ESO?
>>> EL 21 DE JULIO Y QUIZÁS 
ANTES TAMBIÉN SE DISCUTIÓ CÓMO 
IBAN A MANEJAR LA SITUACIÓN D
D
DONDE LOS FONDOS QUE ESTABAN 
DESIGNADOS POR EL CONGRESO A 
UCRANIA RESOLVERÍAN, Y 
CONTINUABAN CONGELADOS.
>>> HUBO ALGUIEN EN LA COMUNIDAD
QUE ESTABA APOYANDO ESO?
>>> NO.
>>> CORONEL, CUANDO SUPO QUE LA 

Spanish: 
AYUDA MILITAR ESTABA CONGELADA?
>>> EL 3 DE JULIO.
ESE DÍA SUPE DE UNAS 
INVESTIGACIONES RESPECTÓ A LA 
ASISTENCIA MILITAR. HAY 
DIFERENTES TIPOS. CREO QUE EN 
ESTE DÍA SE VIO UNA NOTIF
N
NOTIFICACIÓN.
>>> USTED PENSÓ QUE ESTO SERÍA 
UNA DE ELLOS?
>>> NO SE SABÍA PARA QUE SE IBA 
A UTILIZAR, NO HABÍA NADA 
ESPECÍFICO.
>>> USTED SABÍA DE ALGUIEN QUE 
APOYARA EL CONGELAMIENTO DE LOS 
FONDOS?
>>> NO. NADIE EN EL DEPARTAMENTO
DE DEFENSA DE SEGURIDAD.

English: 
ON JULY 3rd?
>> ON OR ABOUT JULY 3rd I BECAME
AWARE OF INQUIRIES INTO SECURITY
ASSISTANCE FUNDING IN GENERAL.
THERE ARE TWO TYPICAL POTS.
STATE DEPARTMENT AND D.O.D.
AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THAT
DATE THAT OMB PUT A HOLD ON 
CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.
>> HAD YOU HAD ANY EARLIER 
INDICATIONS THAT THIS MIGHT BE 
THE CASE?
>> PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE SOME
GENERAL INQUIRIES ON HOW THE 
FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT, THINGS 
OF THAT NATURE, NOTHING 
SPECIFIC.
NO HOLD CERTAINLY.
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE 
WITHIN THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COMMUNITY WHO SUPPORTED 
WITHHOLDING THE AID?
>> NO.
>> NO ONE FROM THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY?
>> NONE.
>> NO ONE FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT?
>> CORRECT.
>> NO ONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE?
>> CORRECT.
>> DID ANYONE TO YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING RAISE THE LEGALITY
OF WITHHOLDING THIS ASSISTANCE?
>> IT WAS RAISED ON SEVERAL 
OCCASIONS.
>> AND WHO RAISED THOSE 
CONCERNS?

English: 
>> SO THE -- FOLLOWING THE JULY 
18th SUB PCC, WHICH IS AGAIN 
WHAT I COORDINATE, WHAT I 
CONVENE AT MY LEVEL, THERE WAS A
JULY 23rd PCC THAT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN CONDUCTED BY MR. MORRISON.
THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED AS 
TO THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD.
OVER THE SUBSEQUENT WEEK THE 
ISSUE WAS ANALYZED AND DURING 
THE JULY 26th DEPUTIES, SO THE 
DEPUTIES FROM ALL THE 
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THERE 
WAS AN OPINION RENDERED THAT IT 
WAS -- IT WAS LEGAL TO PUT THE 
HOLD.
>> IT WAS EXCUSE ME?
>> THERE WAS AN OPINION LEGAL --
OPINION RENDERED THAT IT WAS 
OKAY TO -- THAT THE HOLD WAS 
LEGAL.
>> FROM A PURELY LEGAL POINT OF 
VIEW.
>> CORRECT.
>> I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
MISS STEFANIK.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE AND THANK YOU BOTH 

Spanish: 
EN VARIAS OCASIONES PRESENTARON 
PREOCUPACIONES POR EL 
CONGELAMIENTO DE LOS FONDOS.
>>> EL 23 DE JULIO UN PSC  FUE 
CONDUCIDO POR EL SEÑOR MORRISO,M
EL ASUNTO FUE ANALIZADO DURANTE 
LA REUNIÓN DEL 26 DE JULIO SE 
PRESENTARAN OPINIONES RESPECTO A
LA LEGALIDAD DE ESTE 

English: 
FOR YOUR SERVICE.
AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE 
WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE HYSTERIA
AND FRENZIED MEDIA COVERAGE, TWO
KEY FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT 
ARE CRITICAL TO THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
ONE, UKRAINE IN FACT RECEIVED 
THE AID.
AND TWO, THERE WAS NO 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
MY QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU TODAY
WILL FOCUS ON THE FOLLOWING.
SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION IN 
CORRUPTION.
TWO, HIGHLIGHTING FOR THE PUBLIC
THAT BY LAW AID TO UKRAINE 
REQUIRES ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORTS.
AND THREE, WHO IN OUR GOVERNMENT
HAS THE DECISION-MAKING 
AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO 
FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY MATTERS.
SO ON CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AS 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED BY THE 
UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WAS THAT THEY 
WERE FINALLY STANDING UP TO 
RAMPANT CORRUPTION IN THEIR 
COUNTRY.
WOULD YOU BOTH AGREE WITH THE 
AMBASSADOR'S ASSESSMENT?
>> YES.
>> YES.
>> AND MS. WILLIAMS, CORRUPTION 
WAS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FROM 
YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT WHEN YOU 
PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR 
HIS CONGRATULATORY CALL WITH 

Spanish: 
CONGELAMIENTO DE FONDOS.
>>> GRACIAS CABALLEROS.
>>> GRACIAS A AMBOS POR ESTAR 
AQUÍ Y POR SU SERVICIO, DOS 
HECHOS NO HAN CAMBIADO QUE SON 
CRÍTICOS PARA ESTE PROCED
O
PROCEDIMIENTO. UNOS QUE UCRANIA 
RECIBIÓ LOS FONDOS, Y QUE NO SE 
INVESTIGÓ A LOS BIDEN.
>
TTRES, QUIEN TIENE LA AUTORIDAD 
PARA DECIDIR ACERCA DE LA S
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL?
EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI FUE 
ELEGIDO PORQUE HABÍA FINALMENTE 
ALGUIEN QUE QUERÍA LUCHAR CONTRA

English: 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU TESTIFIED
THAT THE POINTS YOU WANTED TO 
COMMUNICATE ON THE CALL WERE THE
FOLLOWING.
QUOTE, "LOOK FORWARD TO SEE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REALLY 
IMPLEMENT THE AGENDA ON WHICH HE
HAD RUN RELATED TO 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS."
THAT'S CORRECT?
>> THAT IS, YES.
>> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT 
THIS FOCUS ON ANTI-CORRUPTION IS
A CRITICAL ASPECT OF OUR POLICY 
TOWARD UKRAINE?
>> I WOULD.
>> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, YOU ARE AWARE THAT IN 
2014 DURING THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION THE FIRST 
ANTI-CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION 
PARTNERED BETWEEN THE U.S., THE 
UK AND UKRAINE WAS INTO THE 
OWNER OF THE COMPANY BURISMA.
>> I'M AWARE OF IT NOW.
>> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
WERE AWARE THAT BURISMA HAD 
QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALINGS, 
THAT'S PART OF ITS TRACK RECORD.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 
REGARDING BURISMA MONEY 
LAUNDERING, TAX EVASION COMPORTS
WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW 
BUSINESS IS DONE IN UKRAINE, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF SPECIFIC 
INCIDENTS BUT MY UNDERSTANDING 
IS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE OUT 
OF -- OUT OF THE REALM OF THE 
POSSIBLE FOR BURISMA.

Spanish: 
LA CORRUPCIÓN, O NO?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> EN LA LLAMADA DE 
FELICITACIONES AL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI, USTED ESCUCHÓ QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI ESTABA FELIZ
DE REALIZAR SU AGENCIA 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN.
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> TENIENTE CORONEL, USTED SABE
QUE DURANTE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE
OBAMA,, LA ADMINISTRACIÓN 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN ENTRE ESTOS DOS 
PAÍSES PUEDE ENCONTRAR LA 
EMPRESA BURISMA.
>>> LO SÉ AHORA
>>> USTED ATESTIGUÓ QUE RESPECTO
ES EMPRESAS EL LAVADO DE DINERO 
DE QUE SE EMPRESA ES ALGO COMÚN 

Spanish: 
EN CÓMO SE REALIZAN LOS NEGOCIOS
EN ESE PAÍS..
>>> NO SÉ MUY BIEN QUE OCURRIÓ
E
EN ESE CASO..
>>> QUE SABE QUE HUNTER BIDEN 
ESTABA EN LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA EN 
BURISMA EN ESA ÉPOCA .
>>> LO SABÍAS.
>>> EL DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTADO 
ESTABA PREOCUPADO PORQUE ÉL 
ESTABA EN UNA ORGÁNICO ESTACIÓN 
CORRUPTA. LOS TESTIGOS QUE HAN 
ATESTIGUADO  HAN RESPONDIDO SI .
>
USTED CREE QUE HAY UNA 
POSIBILIDAD DE QUE HAYA UN 
CONFLICTO DE INTERESES EN ESTE 

English: 
>> WELL, THAT'S PAGE 207 FROM 
YOUR TESTIMONY.
BUT I'LL MOVE ON.
YOU ARE AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
DID SIT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA 
AT THIS TIME.
>> I AM.
>> WELL, I KNOW -- I KNOW THAT 
MY CONSTITUENTS IN NEW YORK 21 
HAVE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN, THE SON 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, SAT ON 
THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT COMPANY 
LIKE BURISMA.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S STATE
DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONCERNED.
AND YET ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO 
ALLOW THIS COMMITTEE TO CALL 
HUNTER BIDEN DESPITE OUR 
REQUESTS.
EVERY WITNESS WHO HAS TESTIFIED 
AND HAS BEEN ASKED THIS HAS 
ANSWERED YES.
DO YOU AGREE THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA HAS THE 
POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF 
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> CERTAINLY THE POTENTIAL, YES.
>> AND MS. WILLIAMS?
>> YES.
>> NOW SHIFTING TO THE LEGAL 
REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR AID TO THE
UKRAINE IS CONDITIONED ON 
ANTI-CORRUPTION, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT 
CONGRESS HAD PASSED UNDER THE 
UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
INITIATIVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO
CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS BEING
ADDRESSED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 

Spanish: 
CASO.
>>> SÍ .
>>> USTED ATESTIGUÓ QUE SE 
REQUIERE PAUTORIZACIÓN POR EL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE DEFENSA?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> ES CRÍTICO QUE EL DINERO QUE
SE ENTREGUE A UN PAÍS EXTRANJERO
QUE HAYA UN PROGRAMA 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN.
USTED ATESTIGUÓ QUE LA EFE
EFECTIVIDAD DE UN PROGRAMA ES 
UNA DE LAS HERRAMIENTAS MÁS 

English: 
IT IS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL 
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING, 
WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOCUSING ON 
ANTI-CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT 
IT IS SO CRITICAL, SO IMPORTANT 
THAT HARD-EARNED TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS WHEN GIVEN TO FOREIGN 
NATIONS THAT BY LAW, 
OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT REQUIRES ANTI-CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE IN ORDER TO GET U.S. 
TAXPAYER-FUNDED AID.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIND NAN, YOU
SPOKE EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE 
IMPORTANCE OF DEFENSIVE AID TO 
UKRAINE SPECIFICALLY JAVELINS.
THIS WAS IN YOUR DEPOSITION.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
JAVELIN IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF
ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN TERMS OF 
INFLUENCING THE RUSSIAN DECISION
CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION, IT IS 
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS 
WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO 
PROVIDING DEFENSIVE LETHAL AID.
>> SYSTEM ITSELF AND THE 
SIGNALING OF U.S. SUPPORT, YES.
>> AND IT IS A FACT THAT THAT 
AID WAS PROVIDED UNDER PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND MY LAST QUESTION, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 

English: 
KNOW YOU SERVE AT THE NSC IN THE
WHITE HOUSE.
I SERVED IN THE WEST WING OF THE
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH 
ON THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL 
AND IN THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S 
OFFICE.
SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE 
POLICY PROCESS.
I ALSO KNOW THAT AS A STAFF 
MEMBER THE PERSON WHO SETS THE 
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES IS 
THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE STAFF.
AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND I RESPECT YOUR DEEP 
EXPERTISE, YOUR TREMENDOUS 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
WE CAN NEVER REPAY THOSE THAT 
HAVE WORN THE MILITARY UNIFORM 
AND SERVED OUR NATION.
BUT I WAS STRUCK WHEN YOU 
TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION, "I
WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL I'M THE 
DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE.
I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE.
I'M THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE.
I'M THE AUTHORITY FOR UKRAINE 
FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE."
I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION.
YOU REPORT TO TIM MORRISON, 
CORRECT?
>> IN MY ADVISORY -- JUST TO 
CLARIFY, ONLY IN MY ADVISORY 
CAPACITY I ADVISE UP THROUGH THE
CHAIN OF COMMAND.
THAT'S WHAT I DO.

Spanish: 
IMPORTANTES CUANDO SE ENTREGA 
AYUDA? MILITAR
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> ES AYUDA MILITAR SE ENTREGÓ 
BAJO EL GOBIERNO DEL PRESIDENTE 
TRUMP NOVEL GOBIERNO DEL 
PRESIDENTE OBAMA?
>>> SIASÍ ES.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE ES EL QUE 
DECIDE NO EL EQUIPO, Y EL 
PRESIDENTE DECIDE LA POLÍTICA?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> NO PODEMOS PAGARLE A 
AQUELLOS QUE HAN SERVIDO 
MILITARMENTE NUESTRA NACIÓN C, 
USTED DIJO QUE USTED ERA EL QUE 
ESTABA A CARGO DE UCRANIA, PERO 
USTEDES LE INFORMA SIN MORRISON 

English: 
>> AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS 
TIM MORRISON TO AMBASSADOR JOHN 
BOLTON AND NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND DO YOU AGREE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY AS 
COMMANDER IN CHIEF AS YOU 
TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANK YOU.
MY TIME'S EXPIRED.
>> MR. SWALWELL.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
THINK THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 
THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK 
DID NOT ASK YOU BUT IS RELEVANT 
FOR EVERYONE AT HOME, ISN'T IT 
TRUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS OF 
UKRAINE HAD BEEN MET WHEN THE 
HOLD WAS PUT ON BY THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> NOW, MR. JORDAN SUGGESTED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING
NONE OF US EXPECTED BY RELEASING
THAT CALL TRANSCRIPT.
YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS 
THAT RIGHT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL?
>> THAT IS.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU ALSO 
LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> FAIR TO SAY, MS. WILLIAMS, A 
LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE AT THE WHITE
HOUSE LISTENED TO THE CALL OR 
READ THE TRANSCRIPT?
>> I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE HOW 
MANY.

Spanish: 
.
>>> SOLO EN MI CAPACIDAD SIGO LA
CADENA DE MANDO, ESO IMPLICA TIM
MORRISON  Y JOHN BOLTON
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> GRACIAS .
>>> GRACIAS A AMBOS POR SEGUIR 
LAS PREGUNTAS DE LOS COLEGAS QUE
NO HAN PREGUNTADO, ES VERDAD QUE
EL DEPARTAMENTO DE DEFENSA CREO 
QUE SE LOGRARON LAS METAS 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN EN UCRANIA?
>>> SÍ .
>>> ALGUIEN HIZO NADA DE LO 
ESPERADO CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE 
PUBLICÓ EL A TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE LA
LLAMADA?
>>> ASÍ ES.

English: 
I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE OR SIX
OF US IN THE LISTENING ROOM AT 
THE TIME.
>> AND THE TRANSCRIPT WAS 
DISTRIBUTED TO OTHERS, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> I WASN'T PART OF THAT 
PROCESS, BUT THAT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING.
>> SO THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING 
FOR US AND HIS DEFENDERS TO GIVE
HIM A GOLD STAR BECAUSE A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE LISTENED TO THE CALL 
OR SAW THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND 
THEN HE RELEASED IT.
THE DIFFERENCE OF COURSE BETWEEN
THIS AND, SAY, HIS ONE-ON-ONE 
MEETING IN HELSINKI WITH 
VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS THERE IT WAS 
A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING AND HE TOOK
THE NOTES FROM THE INTERPRETER 
SO NONE OF US COULD SEE IT.
THE POINT BEING THE PRESIDENT 
HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE THE
CALL THAT EVERYONE HAD SEEN.
NOW, YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO ALSO 
CHARACTERIZE WHAT EXACTLY 
LEGALLY ALL OF THIS MEANS.
AND MR. RATCLIFFE POINTED OUT 
THAT NO ONE HAD USED THE TERM 
"BRIBERY" IN OUR DEPOSITIONS.
AND MISS WILLIAMS, YOU'RE NOT A 
LAWYER, ARE YOU?
>> I'M NOT. 
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
ARE YOU A LAWYER?
>> THE LAWYER'S BACK THERE.
>> THE LAWYER'S YOUR BROTHER, 
RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> BORN 20 SECONDS AFTER YOU?

Spanish: 
>>> MUCHOS LEYERON  EN LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN NO ESCUCHARON LA 
LLAMADA?
>>> NO SÉ CUÁNTOS SERÁN.
>>> NO FUI PARTE .
O
>>> MUCHAS PERSONAS ESCUCHARON 
LA LLAMADA O LEYERON LA TR
TRANSCRIPCIÓN, PERO LA 
DIFERENCIA ES QUE USTED ESTUVO 
AHÍ, EL PRESIDENTE NO TENÍA OTRA
OPCIÓN MÁS QUE PUBLICAR UNA 
LLAMADA QUE SE OTRAS PERSONAS 
HABÍAN ESCUCHADO O CUYA T
TRANSCRIPCIÓN HABÍA SIDO LEÍDA 
TÚ
>>> SON USTEDES ABOGADOS?

Spanish: 
>>> NO..
>>> NO.
>>> USTÉ NACIÓPENSEMOS QUE SE Ó 
UNA VÍCTIMA QUÉ FUE LO QUE 
OCURRIÓ LUEGO DE UN CRIMEN. UNA 
PERSONA DICE ALGUIEN VINO O ME 
DISPARÓ PERO LOGRÉ SOBREVIVIR, 
PERO QUPUEDO DISTINGUIR A QUIEN 
ME DISPARÓ. PERO NO NOS DIJO QUE
ESTO ERA UN INTENTO DE HOMICIDIO
POR LO TANTO DEBEMOS DEJAR IR A 
ESA PERSONA.
>

English: 
>> NINE MINUTES.
>> NINE MINUTES AFTER YOU.
YOU'RE THE OLDER BROTHER.
>> YEAH.
>> I WANT TO GIVE YOU A 
HYPOTHETICAL HERE.
SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A SHOOTING 
VICTIM AND THE POLICE RESPOND 
AFTER THE VICTIM IS DOING A 
LITTLE BIT BETTER AND THEY ASK 
THE VICTIM, WELL, TELL US WHAT 
HAPPENED.
AND THE VICTIM SAYS, WELL, 
SOMEONE CAME UP TO MY CAR, SHOT 
INTO THE CAR, HIT ME IN THE 
SHOULDER, HIT ME IN THE BACK, 
HIT ME IN THE NECK.
MIRACULOUSLY, I SURVIVED BUT I 
CAN IDENTIFY WHO THE PERSON IS 
THAT PULLED THE TRIGGER.
THE POLICE SAY, OKAY, YOU WERE 
SHOT, YOU KNOW WHO IT IS.
BUT SHUCKS, YOU DIDN'T TELL US 
THAT THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED 
MURDER, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 
TO LET THE PERSON GO.
IS THAT HOW IT WORKS IN OUR 
JUSTICE SYSTEM, THAT UNLESS 
VICTIMS OR WITNESSES IDENTIFY 
THE LEGAL THEORIES OF A CASE WE 
JUST LET PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK?
IS THAT HOW IT WORKS, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT IT 
DOESN'T SEEM SO.
>> I DON'T THINK YOUR BROTHER 
WOULD THINK SO EITHER.
MS. WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT 

Spanish: 
AASÍ ES COMO FUNCIONA?
>>> NO LO CREO.
>>> NO CREO QUE SU MANO PIENSE 
ESO TAMPOCO, ÉL ES ABOGADO O NO?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> USTED NOS DIJO EN SU 
TESTIMONIO QUE LO QUE DIJO ERA 
FIEL A LO QUE HABÍA OCURRIDO  
DURANTE LA LLAMADA?
>>> ESO CREO AUNQUE FALTÓ UN 
POCO DE INFORMACIÓN.
>>> EN ESTE CASO USTED SE 

English: 
PENCE WAS DESCRIBED TO OUR 
COMMITTEE BY MR. MORRISON AS A, 
QUOTE, VORACIOUS READER OF HIS 
INTELLIGENCE READ BOOK.
AND AFTER THE APRIL 21 CALL WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU PUT A 
TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL IN THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S READ BOOK, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT CALLED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TWO DAYS 
LATER, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND YOU TOLD US IN THE 
DEPOSITION THAT HE STUCK PRETTY 
FAITHFULLY TO WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD SAID IN THAT APRIL 21 
CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE HIS REMARKS WERE 
CONSISTENT BUT HE ALSO SPOKE ON 
OTHER ISSUES AS WELL INCLUDING 
ANTI-CORRUPTION.
>> AND YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THE 
VICE PRESIDENT AS SOMEBODY WHO 
WOULD MAKE FOLLOW-UP CALLS TO 
WORLD LEADERS AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT HAD DONE SO, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> HE HAS ON OCCASION.
IT'S NOT A NORMAL PRACTICE.
IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
>> AND IN THAT CASE HE STUCK TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TALKING 
POINTS?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT I PROVIDED 
TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 
23rd CALL FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
WHICH INCLUDED DISCUSSION OF THE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION, WHICH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD ALSO DISCUSSED WITH 

English: 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
BUT I WOULD SAY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT DISCUSSED OTHER ISSUES
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS WELL.
>> AND AS WAS STATED EARLIER, 
THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN 
POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> YOU TOLD US AFTER THE JULY 25
CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU THAT PUT 
THE CALL TRANSCRIPT IN VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S INTELLIGENCE 
BRIEFING BOOK, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I ENSURED IT WAS THERE.
MY COLLEAGUES PREPARE THE BOOK.
BUT YES.
>> LET'S FLASH FORWARD TO 
SEPTEMBER 1, VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> YOU'RE THERE?
>> YES.
>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE THEY TALK 
ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS BUT YOU 
WILL AGREE THAT VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE DID NOT BRING UP THE 
BIDENS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
HE DID NOT.
ZPLE DID NOT BRING UP 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> NO.
>> IS ONE REASONABLE EXPLANATION
THAT ALTHOUGH VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE WILL DO A LOT OF THINGS 
FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS 
NOT WILLING TO BRING UP 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG?
>> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO 
SPECULATE.

English: 
WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THOSE 
PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS IN ANY
OF THE PREPARATORY SESSIONS WITH
THE VICE PRESIDENT -- 
>> BUT YOU DIDN'T BRING IT UP 
WITH THE UKRAINIANS AFTER THE 
JULY 25 CALL, RIGHT?
>> HE DID NOT IN THAT MEETING, 
NO.
>> AND YOU DID NOT EITHER.
>> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, DID YOU EVER ASK THE 
UKRAINIANS TO DO WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS ASKING THEM TO DO 
AFTER THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL?
>> I DIDN'T RENDER ANY OPINION 
ON WHAT WAS ASKED IN THE 25.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. HURD.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO JOIN 
MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU 
FOR YOUR SERVICE.
WE SHARE A PERSONAL HERO IN DR. 
RICE.
SO GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE.
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR 
OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION 
COLLECTED FROM THE UKRAINIANS ON
THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN?
>> NO, I DID NOT PARTICIPATE OR 
OVERHEAR DPLAGSS ALONG THOSE 
LINES.
>> THANK YOU.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
THINK ALL OF US WOULD AGREE THAT

Spanish: 
DEFINIÓ A LOS PUNTOS DE LA 
LLAMADA?
>>>  SO
>>>BIE
USTED PARTICIPÓ EN UNA 
CONVERSACIÓN CON INFORMACIÓN 

English: 
YOUR FATHER MADE THE RIGHT MOVE 
TO COME HERE, AND WE'RE GLAD 
THAT HE DID.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW PART OF 
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES IS 
DEVELOPING TALKING POINTS FOR 
YOUR PRINCIPALS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> PRESIDENT -- I'M ASSUMING YOU
ALSO DO THAT FOR YOUR DIRECT 
SUPERVISOR CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, 
MR. MORRISON, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> MR. MORRISON HAS LEFT THE 
POSITION SOME TIME AGO ALREADY, 
AT LEAST THREE WEEKS AGO.
>> BUT YOU PREPARE TALKING 
POINTS FOR YOUR SUPERVISORS, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> TYPICALLY FRANKLY AT THAT 
LEVEL THEY DON'T REALLY TAKE 
TALKING POINTS, ESPECIALLY IF 
THEY HAVE EXPERTISE.
THE TALKING POINTS ARE MORE 
INTENDED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER, ALTHOUGH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON DIDN'T REALLY REQUIRE 
THEM BECAUSE OF HIS DEEP 
EXPERTISE.
THE NEXT LEVEL UP, THE 
PRESIDENT -- 
>> BUT TRADITIONALLY I'M JUST 
TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS 
POSITION IS SOMEBODY WHO MAKES 
TALKING POINTS FOR A NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DO THEY ALWAYS USE THEM?
>> NO.
>> IS PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWN TO 
STICK TO A SCRIPT?

Spanish: 
ACERCADA  DE LOS BIDEN A CAMBIÓ 
DE AYUDA PARA UCRANIA?
>>> NO NO PARTICIPE.
>>> CORONEL, CREO QUE SU FAMILIA
TOMÓ LA DECISIÓN CORRECTA AL 
DECIDIR VENIR A LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS.
>>> EL SEÑOR MORRISON DEJÓ SU 
POSICIÓN, PERO YO TOMÓ ALGUNOS 
PUNTOS PARA ELLOS.
>
EL EMBAJADOR JOHN BOLTON NO 
NECESITABA MUCHO DE ESO PORQUE 
TIENE MUCHA EXPERIENCIA. 
>>> USTÉ AYUDÓ A MUCHAS PERSONAS

English: 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> SO IS IT ODD THAT HE DIDN'T 
USE YOUR TALKING POINTS?
>> NO, IT IS NOT.
>> IN YOUR DEPOSITION IF YOUR 
LAWYER WANTS TO FOLLOW ON, IT'S 
PAGE 306, YOU ASK ABOUT EVENTS 
DURING THE TEMPORARY HOLD ON 
U.S. ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
THIS IS THAT 55-DAY PERIOD OR 
SO.
AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE U.S. 
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RECEIVE 
ANY NEW ASSURANCES FROM THE 
UKRAINE ABOUT ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORTS AND THE FACTS ON THE 
GROUND DID NOT CHANGE BEFORE THE
HOLD WAS LIFTED.
IS THAT ACCURATE IN RECOUNTING 
YOUR TESTIMONY?
>> THAT IS ACCURATE.
>> WHEN WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SWORN IN?
>> HE WAS SWORN IN ON -- EXCUSE 
ME.
MAY 20th, 2019.
>> AND THEN HE HAD A NEW 
PARLIAMENT TOO ELECTED AFTER HE 
WAS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> HE DID.
>> AND WHEN WAS THAT PARLIAMENT 
SEATED?
>> THAT WAS -- THAT WAS, I'M 
SORRY, JULY 21st, 2019.
>> THAT WAS WHEN THEY WON.
THEY WEREN'T PROPERLY SEATED 
UNTIL AUGUST?

Spanish: 
CON ALGUNOS PUNTOS O NO?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP SIGUE 
UNA MINUTA?
>>> NO LO CREO.
>>> EN LA PÁGINA TRES C306, UST 
TESTIGOS QUE NO HUBO SE 
RECIBIERON MÁS COMENTARIOS 
RESPECTO AL PROGRAMA 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN EN UCRANIA, ES 
ASÍ?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> CUANDO SUBIÓ AL MANDO EL 

English: 
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
THEY WON.
THEY WEREN'T SEATED UNTIL 
AUGUST.
>> YOUR BOSS'S BOSS, AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON, TRAVELED TO UKRAINE IN 
LATE AUGUST, AUGUST 27, 28, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DID HE TAKE YOU WITH YOU -- 
DID HE TAKE YOU WITH HIM?
>> HE DIDN'T.
>> WE KNOW FROM OTHER WITNESS 
THAT'S WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS THERE HE MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND HIS STAFF AND THEY 
TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE 
VISUALLY EXHAUSTED BECAUSE ONE 
OF THE THINGS THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY DID DURING THAT TIME 
PERIOD WAS CHANGE THE UKRAINIAN 
CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY FROM RATA DEPUTIES, 
SOME OF THEIR PARLIAMENTARIANS 
BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN THE SOURCE
OF RAW CORRUPTION FOR A NUMBER 
OF YEARS.
IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> THAT IS ACCURATE.
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS 
IMPORTANT CHANGE TO UKRAINIAN 
LAW?
>> OF COURSE.
>> AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S 
A SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORT?
>> NO, IT IS SIGNIFICANT.
>> IT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, 
CORRECT?
ALSO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE? ZELENSKI
>>> EN MAYO DE 2019.
>>> EN ESE MOMENTO GANÓ?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> SU SUPERIOR LO LLEVÓ CON 
USTED A UCRANIA?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>>  UNA DE LAS COSAS QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI HIZO DURANTE
EL PERÍODO FUE CAMBIAR LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN PARA QUITAR TODA 
INMUNIDAD A ALGUNOS FUNCI
S
FUNCIONARIOS, PORQUE ESO ERA 
PARTE DE LA CORRUPCIÓN DURANTE 
BASTANTES AÑOS?
>>>  CORRECTO .
>>> TAMBIÉN EL EMBAJADOR TAYLOR 

Spanish: 
ATESTIGUÓ DE QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI CON ESTE NUEVO PAR
N
PARLAMENTO  ABRIÓ UNA CORTE 
ANTICORRUPCIÓN, SU DEPARTAMENTO 
O ESTABA PRESIONANDO PARA QUE 
ESO OCURRIERA, LO SABÍA?
>>> SÍ.
>>> ESO AYUDÓ CONTRA LA 
CORRUPCIÓN.
>>> ESO CREO.
>>> CUÁNTAS VECES SE CON SE 
ENCONTRÓ CON EL PRESENTE 
ZELENSKI.
>>> CREO QUE UNA SOLA VEZ.
>>> ESE FUE UNA REUNIÓN UNO A 
UNO.
>>> ESO FUE EN UNA SITUACIÓN 
PEQUEÑA, NUNCA HUBO UNA REUNIÓN 
DE UNO A UNO, PERO HUBO ALGUNOS 

English: 
THIS NEW PARLIAMENT OPENED 
UKRAINE'S HIGH ANTI-CORRUPTION 
COURT.
RIGHT?
THIS HAD BEEN AN INITIATIVE THAT
MANY FOLKS IN OUR STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN PUSHING TO 
HAPPEN.
AND THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT
TIME FRAME.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS?
>> YES.
>> DO YOU THINK THIS IS A 
SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION?
>> I DO.
>> WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- HOW 
MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MET 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
>> I THINK IT WAS JUST THE ONE 
TIME FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL 
DELEGATION.
MULTIPLE ENGAGEMENTS BUT JUST 
THE ONE TRIP.
>> AND THAT'S A ONE-ON-ONE 
MEETING?
>> THAT WAS IN A BILATERAL -- A 
LARGER BILATERAL FORMAT.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SMALLER 
VENUES.
THEY WERE ALL IN -- THERE WAS 
NEVER A ONE ON ONE.
BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF, 
AGAIN, TOUCHPOINTS.
SO THE BILATERAL MEETING, 
HANDSHAKE, MEET AND GREET.
HE HAD A -- 
>> SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE 
IN THE ROOM -- 
>> YEAH.
>> -- WHEN YOU MET WITH HIM.

Spanish: 
REUNIONES BILATERALES.
>>> ENTONCES HUBO MUCHAS 
PERSONAS EN LA HABITACIÓN?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> PERO ENTONCES VIO AL 
PRESIDENTE O A ALGÚN OTRO 
FUNCIONARIO CONVERSAR CON EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> USTÉ ACONSEJÓ AL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI QUE SE MANTUVIERA EL 
ALEJADO DE LA POLÍTICA DE LOS 
ESTADOS UNIDOS?
>>> ASÍ ES.
>>> GRACIAS A USTEDES POR SU 
SERVICIO AL PAÍS.

English: 
BUT YOU STILL ADVISED THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO WATCH OUT
FOR THE RUSSIANS.
>> YES.
>> AND THAT WAS -- AND EVERYBODY
ELSE IN THE ROOM I'M ASSUMING 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER 
WAS THERE I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE
YOU HAD OTHER MEMBERS OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION.
WAS THAT -- WERE YOUR POINTS 
PREAPPROVED?
DID THEY KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO 
BRING UP THOSE POINTS?
>> WE DID HAVE A HUDDLE 
BEFOREHAND, AND IT'S POSSIBLE I 
FLAGGED THEM BUT I DON'T RECALL 
SPECIFICALLY.
IT'S POSSIBLE I DIDN'T.
>> AND YOU COUNSELED THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO STAY OUT 
OF U.S. POLITICS?
>> CORRECT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK 
THE TIME I DO NOT HAVE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. CASTRO.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
MISS WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY.
COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SERVICE.
IT'S GREAT TO TALK TO A FELLOW 
IDENTICAL TWIN.
I HOPE YOUR BROTHER'S NICER TO 
YOU THAN MINE IS TO ME.
DOESN'T MAKE YOU GROW A BEARD.

Spanish: 
>>> ES BUENO CONOCER A OTRA 
PERSONA QUE TIENE HERMANO 
GEMELO, ESPERO QUE SEA MEJOR QUE
EL MÍO EL MÍO ME PIDE QUE ME 
DEJE QUE CRECER UNA BARBA.
>
PRESIDENTE DIJO ME GUSTARÍA  QUE
AVERIGUARÁ QUE ES LO QUE ESTÁ 
PASANDO CON UCRANIA, EL 
SERVIDOR, UCRANIA LO TIENEN, 
ESTE ES UNA TEORÍA DE CON
CONSPIRACIÓN QUE NO TIENE 
NINGUNA BASE. EESTO NO ES SÓLO 
UNA TEORÍA SOLAMENTE, SINO QUE 
NO TIENE NINGUNA BASE .
>>> CORONEL, USTED TIENE ALGUNA 
Y RAZÓN PARA CREER QUE UCRANIA 
INTERVINO EN LAS ELECCIONES DEL 
2016?
>>> NO CREO QUE ESTO FUE 

English: 
YOU BOTH LISTENED IN REAL TIME 
TO THE JULY 25th CALL.
IN PARTICULAR YOU WOULD HAVE 
HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, "I'D LIKE 
YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED 
WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH 
UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWD-STRIKE AND THE 
SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS 
IT."
THIS IS A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN 
FACT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN FORMER 
HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER, 
THOMAS P. BOSSERT, CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT 
UKRAINE INTERVENED IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS "NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY
THEORY BUT," QUOTE, "COMPLETELY 
DEBUNKED."
COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE 
OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE 
THEORY THAT THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I AM NOT.
AND FURTHERMORE, I WOULD SAY 
THAT THIS IS A RUSSIAN NARRATIVE
THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS 
PROMOTED.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PART OF 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, ITS FOREIGN
POLICY OR INTELLIGENCE 

Spanish: 
PROMOVIDO POR EL PRESIDENTE 
PUTIN Y RUSIA.
>>> USTED SABE DE ALGUIEN QUE 
CREA EN ESTA TEORÍA?
>>> NO NO LO SÉ.
>>> SE HA DICHO DEFINITIVAMENTE 
QUE RUSIA FUE QUIEN INTERVINO EN
LAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 .
>>> CORRECTO .
>>>  EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP ESTÁ 
DÁNDOLE CRÉDITO A UNA  TEORÍA 
CONSPIRADORA QUE AYUDA A RUSIA,,
POR UNA PARTE IGNORA LO QUE CREE
LA INTELIGENCIA DE LOS ESTADOS 
UNIDOS Y ADEMÁS  DEBILITA UN 
PAÍS QUE ESTÁ LUCHANDO CONTRA LA
AGRESIÓN RUSA. TAMBIÉN  SE DAÑA 
A LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL Y SE LE 
DA APOYO A RUSIA.. EN VEZ DE 
EMPUJAR CONTRA LA HOSTILIDAD 

English: 
APPARATUS, THAT SUPPORTS THAT 
THEORY?
>> NO, I'M NOT AWARE.
>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT OTHER 
PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, 
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FOR 
EXAMPLE, HAS SAID DEFINITIVELY 
THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IT SEEMS INCREDIBLY ODD, 
THOUGH, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT NOT 
INCONSISTENT TO ME THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE GIVING 
CREDENCE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY 
ABOUT UKRAINE THAT HELPS RUSSIA 
REALLY IN AT LEAST TWO WAYS.
FIRST, IT IGNORES AND FRANKLY 
UNDERMINES THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
SEEKS TO WEAKEN A STATE 
DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES 
SUPPORT TO FIGHT RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
IT ALSO FOR THE UNITED STATES 
HURTS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
EMBOLDENS RUSSIA.
AND I WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING ON HIS
CALL INSTEAD OF PUSHING BACK 
AGAINST RUSSIAN HOSTILITY.
HE WAS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO DO 
HIS POLITICAL WORK.

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED ON THAT 
JULY 25th CALL, "THERE'S A LOT 
OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT 
BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, 
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND
OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.
SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT 
SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME."
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN YOU HEAR 
THOSE WORDS, DO YOU HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT REQUESTING A 
THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-CALIBRATED 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM 
CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY?
>> I DO NOT.
>> IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENCOURAGING 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO 
ENGAGE IN PRECISELY THE SAME 
TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT 
THAT WE DISCOURAGE FOREIGN 
LEADERS FROM UNDERTAKING IN 
THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.
AND DISCOURAGING OTHER COUNTRIES
FROM UNDERTAKING POLITICALLY 

Spanish: 
RUSA, ESTABAS  PRESIONANDO A 
UCRANIA PARA HACER SU TRABAJO 
POLÍTICO. EN ESA LLAMADA DE 
JULIO 25 HUBO MUCHA HIINFORMACÓ 
HACIA EL HIJO DE BIDEN. BIDEN 
DIJO QUE HABÍA DETENIDO A LA P
FFISCALÍA, POR LO TANTO ESO ME 
SUENA TERRIBLE.
USTÉ CREE QUE ESTO TIENE QUE VER
CON EL PROGRAMA ANTICORRUPCIÓN 
DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS?
>>> NO LO CREO.
>>> DE HECHO EL PRESIDENTE 
UCRANIANO ESTABA SIENDO O 

Spanish: 
ANIMADO REALIZAR ACCIONES QUE EL
PAÍS ESTÁ TRATANDO DE EVITAR EN 
OTROS PAÍSES EXTRANJEROS ES ESO 
CORRECTO?
>>> CORRECTO  .
>>> TIENE USTED ALGUNA EVIDENCIA
DE QUE LOS BIDEN HAYAN 
INTERVENIDO INAPROPIADAMENTE 
PARA AYUDAR A SU FAMILIA?
>>> NO.
>>> USTÉ CREE QUE PRESIONAR OTRO
PAÍS ES POCO ÉTICO Y ES DI
DIFERENTE DE LO QUE SOMOS COMO 
NACIÓN? USTED DIJO QUE ESTE 
PEDIDO FUE EQUIVOCADO, Y QUE LA 
CORRUPCIÓN ES ENDÉMICA EN 
UCRANIA COMO LO ES EN OTRAS 
PARTES DEL MUNDO.
CUÁL ES EL PELIGRO DE QUE  LOS 
PRESIDENTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

English: 
MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IS IN 
FACT A MAJOR PART OF OFFICIAL 
U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND ARE YOU IN FACT AWARE OF 
ANY EVIDENCE THAT VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS FAMILY 
MEMBERS?
>> I AM NOT.
>> THESE FALSE NARRATIVES, IT 
SHOULD BE SAID, ARE DAMAGING OUR
COUNTRY.
THEY POISON OUR POLITICS AND 
DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH.
AND PRESSING ANOTHER COUNTRY TO 
ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION IS 
ANTITHETICAL TO WHO WE ARE AS A 
NATION.
YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS 
REQUEST, YOU FELT THIS REQUEST 
WAS WRONG.
AND YOU'VE ALSO SAID THAT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC
TO UKRAINE JUST AS IT IS IN 
OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.
WHAT IS THE -- CAN YOU SPEAK TO 
WHAT IS THE DANGER OF A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
WHETHER IT'S DONALD TRUMP OR ANY
FUTURE PRESIDENT, ASKING ANOTHER
NATION WHERE THERE'S RAMPANT 
CORRUPTION TO INVESTIGATE A 

Spanish: 
LE PIDAN A OTRA NACIÓN CUANDO 
HAYA CORRUPCIÓN  QUE PILLE A UN 
RIVAL POLÍTICO, O CUALQUIER 
CIUDADANO ESTADOUNIDENSE? CUÁL 
ES EL PELIGRO PARÁ? EL CIUDADANO
POLÍTICO?
>>> EL SISTEMA ES IMPERFECTO EN 
ESTE MOMENTO, ESTÁN NECESITANDO 
LA AYUDA POLMMILITAR DE LOS ESTS
UNIDOS, POR LÔ TANTO O E SO HACE
QUE PUEDAN ACCEDER A LAS 

English: 
POLITICAL RIVAL OR JUST ANY 
OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN?
WHAT WOULD BE THE DANGER TO THAT
AMERICAN?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THE UKRAINIAN 
JUDICIARY IS IMPERFECT AT THE 
MOMENT.
AND THE RELIANCE ON U.S. SUPPORT
COULD CONCEIVABLY CAUSE THEM TO 
TIP THE SCALES OF JUSTICE IN 
FAVOR OF FINDING THE U.S. 
CITIZEN GUILTY IF THEY THOUGHT 
THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT -- 
>> SO THEY COULD TRUMP UP 
CHARGES IF THEY WANTED TO IN A 
CORRUPT SYSTEM LIKE THAT.
>> THEY COULD.
AND UKRAINE IS MAKING PROGRESS 
CERTAINLY MORE BROADLY IN RUSSIA
THAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN WHERE 
THE STATE WILL BE INVOLVED IN 
JUDICIAL OUTCOMES AND DRIVE 
THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN.
>> MR. RATCLIFFE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

Spanish: 
DENSIDADES DE OTRO PAÍS.
>>> ESTO PODRÍA OCURRIR.
>>> GRACIAS PRESIDENTE. SEÑORA 
WILLIAMS USTÉ DIJO QUE LO QUE 
USTED NOTÓ COMO INUSUAL EN ESTA 
LLAMADA  QUE OCURRIÓ EL 25 DE 
JULIO CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE 
PRESENTÓ UN ASUNTO O POLÍTICO O 
DOMÉSTICO.
CORRECTO.
PERO ESO ES DIFERENTE QUE HACER 
UNA EXIGENCIA O NO?
>>> SÍ .
>>>  NO PARECE QUE USTED HUBIESE
ESCUCHADO LO QUE LUCHÓ EN ESA 
LLAMADA COMO UNA EXIGENCIA DE 
N
INVESTIGACIÓN?
>>> CREO QUE NO PUEDO 
CARACTERIZAR ESO. CREO QUE ES 
MEJOR REVISAR LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN .
>>> TENIENTE CORONEL, USTED DIJO
POR QUÉ EN SU MENTE ESO ERA UNA 

English: 
MISS WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED 
THAT WHAT YOU NOTED AS BEING 
UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CALL THAT TOOK
PLACE ON JULY 25th WAS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT RAISED WHAT APPEARED 
TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
ISSUE.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> BUT RAISING AN ISSUE, EVEN 
ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS 
UNUSUAL, IS DIFFERENT THAN 
MAKING A DEMAND.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> YES.
>> AND AS I READ YOUR DEPOSITION
IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE FROM YOUR 
TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD WHAT 
TOOK PLACE ON THAT CALL AS A 
DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I'M IN A 
POSITION TO CHARACTERIZE IT 
FURTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT DID 
IN TERMS OF ASKING FOR A FAVOR.
>> YOU DIDN'T HEAR A DEMAND?
>> AGAIN, I WOULD JUST REFER 
BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF.
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
YOU'VE TESTIFIED AND EXPLAINED 
TO US WHY IN YOUR MIND IT WAS A 
DEMAND.
AND YOU'VE GIVEN US REASONS.
THE DISPARITY OF POWER BETWEEN 

Spanish: 
EXIGENCIA. NOS DIO RAZONES . LA 
DIFERENCIA DE PODER ENTRE AMBOS 
PRESIDENTES, POR QUÉ LO HIZO 
USTÉ SINTIÓ QUE DEBÍA INFORMAR 
LO QUE LE PARECIÓ IMPROPIO. ES 
ESO CORRECTO?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> DOS PERSONAS DIFERENTES, DOS
PERSONAS IMPARCIALES, UNA 
PACIENTE QUE DEBEN INFORMARLO, 
OTRA PERSONA SINTIÓ QUE NO 
NECESITABA INFORMARLO TODO
>>> ME ASEGURÉ DE QUE MIS S
SUPERIORES TUVIERAN LA 
INFORMACIÓN..
>>> ENTONCES LO QUE USTED 
ESCUCHÓ LA LLAMADA NOS DICE QUE 
HE REACCIONADO DE UNA MANERA 
DIFERENTE.. NO VEO CONSENSO 

English: 
THE TWO PRESIDENTS.
AND BECAUSE YOU DID FEEL THAT 
WAY YOU ALSO FELT THAT YOU HAD A
DUTY TO REPORT WHAT YOU THOUGHT 
WAS IMPROPER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, TWO 
IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS, ONE FELT 
THE NEED TO REPORT THE CALL 
BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEMAND THAT 
WAS IMPROPER AND ONE THAT DIDN'T
REPORT IT TO ANYONE.
YOU DIDN'T REPORT IT TO ANYONE, 
RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS?
>> I ENSURED THAT THE 
INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO MY 
SUPERIORS.
>> SO WHILE ALL THIS MIGHT SEEM 
AS CLEAR AS MUD, I THINK YOUR 
HONEST AND KAIND ASSESSMENTS OF 
WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE CALL TELLS
US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW.
WE HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT FOLKS, 
NON-PARTISANS, AND I'M NOT 
HEARING A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE 
TWO OF YOU ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY 
YOU BOTH HEARD ON THE CALL THAT 
YOU HEARD AT THE EXACT SAME 
TIME.
AND IF YOU CAN'T REACH AN 
AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO WHAT 
HAPPENED ON THE CALL, HOW CAN 
ANY OF US.

English: 
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OVERWHELMING
AND COMPELLING.
AND IF TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL 
DISAGREE HONESTLY ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT THERE WAS A DEMAND AND 
WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING SHOULD 
BE REPORTED ON A CALL, THAT IS 
NOT A CLEAR AND COMPELLING BASIS
TO UNDO 63 MILLION VOTES AND 
REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
I YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO MR.
JORDAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WHY DIDN'T YOU 
GO -- AFTER THE CALL WHY DIDN'T 
YOU GO TO MR. MORRISON?
>> I WENT IMMEDIATELY PER THE --
PER THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE 
JULY 10th INCIDENT, I WENT 
IMMEDIATELY TO MR. EISENBERG.
AFTER THAT ONCE I MADE THAT -- 
EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS, IT WAS AN
EXTREMELY BUSY WEEK.
WE HAD A PCC JUST FINISH.
WE HAD THE CALL.
AND THEN WE HAD A DEPUTIES 
MEETING WHICH CONSUMED ALL MY 
TIME.

Spanish: 
ENTRE LO QUE USTEDES ESCUCHARON 
EN ESA LLAMADA EN EL MOMENTO 
PRECISO. SI USTEDES NO ESTÁN DE 
ACUERDO, CÓMO PODEMOS PONERNOS 
DE ACUERDO NOSOTROS?
>
EL VEREDICTO DEBERÍA SER 
UNÁNIME, SI USTEDES NO ESTÁN DE 
ACUERDO EN QUE HUBO UNA 
EXIGENCIA, O SI SE NECESITABA 
INFORMAR ACERCA DE ESA LLAMADA, 
ESO SIGNIFICA QUE NO HAY QUE 
RETIRAR A UN PRESIDENTE DE 
SUPUESTO.
>>> CORONEL, QUE HABLÓ CON EL 
SEÑOR MORRISON?
>>> ME ENCONTRÉ INMEDIATAMENTE 
CON EL SEÑOR EISENBERG, LUEGO DE
PRESENTAR MIS PREOCUPACIONES 

English: 
I WAS WORKING EXTREMELY LONG 
DAYS.
I ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO 
COMMUNICATE -- I MANAGED TO 
SPEAK TO TWO FOLKS IN THE 
INTERAGENCY.
I ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO TALK TO 
MR. MORRISON.
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BEFORE I 
RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM JOHN 
EISENBERG TO NOT TALK TO ANYBODY
ELSE ANY FURTHER.
>> SO THE LAWYER -- YOU NOT ONLY
DIDN'T GO TO YOUR BOSS.
YOU SAID YOU TRIED BUT YOU 
DIDN'T GO TO YOUR BOSS.
YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO THE LAWYER 
AND THE LAWYER TOLD YOU NOT TO 
GO TO YOUR BOSS?
>> NO, HE DIDN'T TELL ME 
UNTIL -- WHAT ENDED UP UNFOLDING
IS I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH 
THE ATTORNEY, I DID MY 
COORDINATION, MY CORE FUNCTION, 
WHICH IS COORDINATION.
I SPOKE TO THE APPROPRIATE 
PEOPLE WITHIN THE INTERAGENCY.
AND THEN CIRCLING BACK AROUND, 
MR. EISENBERG CAME BACK TO ME 
AND TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO -- 
>> I'M GOING TO READ FROM THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO YOUR DIRECT
REPORT?
YOUR RESPONSE BECAUSE MR. 
EISENBERG TOLD ME TO TAKE MY 
CONCERNS TO HIM.
THEN I ASK YOU, DID MR. 
EISENBERG TELL YOU NOT TO 
REPORT, TO GO AROUND MR. 
MORRISON?

Spanish: 
TUVIMOS UN UNA SEMANA MUY 
OCUPADA. ESO CONSUMIÓ  TODO MI 
TIEMPO, ESTABA TRABAJANDO DÍAS 
MUY LARGOS. INTENTÉ HABLAR CON 
EL SEÑOR MORRISON, PERO ESO NO 
OCURRIÓ ANTES  DE QUE EL SEÑOR 
EISENBERG ME DIJERAS NO SEGUIR 
HABLANDO CON LÁGRIMNNADIE MÁS.
>>> ENTONCES USTED NO HABLÓ CON 
SU JEFE?
>>> HABLÉ CON EL ABOGADO  HABLÉ 
CON LAS PERSONAS APROPIADAS, Y 

English: 
AND YOU SAID ACTUALLY, HE DID 
SAY THAT.
I SHOULDN'T TALK TO ANY OTHER 
PEOPLE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
BUT THERE'S A WHOLE -- THERE'S A
PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN WHEN I 
TALKED TO HIM AND WHEN HE 
CIRCLED BACK AROUND.
IT WASN'T A -- 
>> ENOUGH TIME TORE FOR YOU TO 
TALK TO SOMEONE WHO IT IS.
>> I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO, 
REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN.
>> HERE'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO.
THE LAWYER TOLD YOU DON'T TALK 
TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU 
INTERPRET THAT AS NOT TALKING TO
YOUR BOSS BUT YOU TALKED TO YOUR
BROTHER, YOU TALKED TO THE 
LAWYERS, YOU TALKED TO SECRETARY
KENT AND YOU TALKED TO THE ONE 
GUY ADAM SCHIFF WON'T TELL 
YOU -- WON'T LET YOU -- WON'T 
LET YOU TELL US WHO IT IS.
RIGHT?
>> REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, I DID 
MY JOB.
>> I'M NOT SAYING YOU DIDN'T.
I'M SAYING THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM
THE LAWYER WAS YOU SHOULDN'T 
TALK TO ANYBODY AND YOU, 

Spanish: 
LUEGO UN TIEMPO DESPUÉS, EL 
SEÑOR EISENBERG HABLÓ CONMIGO Y 
ME DIJO QUE ME QUEDARA CALLADO.
>> SALTARSE EL SEÑOR MORRISON Y 
USTED HIJO NO TENDRÉ QUE HABLAR 
CON OTROS
>> IBRAHIM PERIODO DE TIEMPO 
ALLÍ ENTRE EL QUE HABLÉ CON ÉL Y
LUEGO CUANDO VOLVÍ NO FUE UN 
PERIODO TAN LARGO PERO FUE 
SUFICIENTE PARA HABLAR CON 
ALGUIEN QUE NO DIRIGEN O NO 
QUIERES Y QUIENES.
>> ME HAN DICHO QUE NO LO HAGA
>> PROTEGER. LE DIJERON QUE NO 
HABLARA CON NADIE MÁS Y USTED 
INTERPRETA ESO COMO NO HABLAR 
CON SU JEFE PERO HABLÓ CON SU 
HERMANO HABLÓ CON UN ABOGADO 
HABLÓ CON EL DENUNCIANTE QUE ES 
EL TIPO QUE NO NOS VAN A DECIR 
QUIENES.
>> YO HICE MI TRABAJO
>> NO DIGO QUE NO LO HAYA HECHO,
LO QUE DIGO ES QUE LAS 
INSTRUCCIONES FUERON NO HABLÉ 
CON NADIE MÁS  Y USTED 

Spanish: 
INTERPRETÓ ESTO COMO NO HABLE 
CON SU TRAJEFE PERO HOY HABLAR  
ALGUIEN QUE NO NOS DIRÁ QUIÉNES
>> ES INCORRECTO
>> ES UNO DE USTED HIJO
>> ES INCORRECTO. LO SIENTO PERO
ESA SECUENCIA NO ES CÓMO 
SUCEDIÓ.
>>  LA SECUENCIA FUE 
INMEDIATAMENTE DESPUÉS DIJE MIS 
PREOCUPACIONES DI MI 
COORDINACIÓN Y DECIDÍ VOLVER A 
HABLAR CON NADIE Y EN ESTE 
PERIODO DE TIEMPO NO HABLÉ CON 
NADIE
>> ENTONCES AHÍ HABLÓ CON 
ALGUIEN
>> ASÍ ES
>>  SEÑOR PRESIDENTE EL COMITÉ 
PODEMOS VOLVER
>> USTED ESTABA EN LA SALA HA
T
HABHA DE 
GUERRA, Y ES UN PRERREQUISITO EN
UNA REUNIÓN ENTRE DOS 
PRESIDENTES SITO LOS UCRANIANOS 
TENDRÍAN QUE ENTREGAR UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LOS BIDEN. 
USTÉ DIJO QUE EL SEÑOR ZONAS 

English: 
INTERPRET THAT AS DON'T TALK TO 
MY BOSS BUT I'M GOING TO GO TALK
TO. 
>> I'M READING FROM THE 
TRANSCRIPT, COLONEL VINDMAN.
>> SEQUENCE PLAYED OUT WHERE 
IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS I 
EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS.
I DID MY COORDINATION FUNCTION.
MR. EISENBERG CIRCLED BACK 
AROUND TOLD HE ME NOT TO TALK TO
ANYBODY ELSE.
IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME -- 
>> THAT'S WHEN IT HAPPENED.
THAT'S WHEN YOU TALKED TO 
SOMEONE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> MR. HECK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
COLONEL VINDMAN, LET'S GO BACK 
TO THAT PAIR OF MEETINGS ON JULY
10th IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S 
OFFICE DOWN IN THE BOARDROOM 
WHERE YOU WITNESSED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND INFORM THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, THAT AS A 
PREREQUISITE TO A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS, "UKRAINIANS WOULD 
HAVE TO DELIVER AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE BIDENS."
YOU SAID THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS CALLING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION THAT DIDN'T EXIST 
INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

English: 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THE SAME AFTERNOON YOU WENT 
TO MR. EISENBERG?
>> THAT MEETING OCCURRED IN THE 
AFTERNOON.
WITHIN A COUPLE OF HOURS I SPOKE
TO MR. EISENBERG. 
>> HOW DID HE REACT?
>> HE WAS COOL, CALM AND 
COLLECTED.
HE TOOK NOTES AND SAID HE WOULD 
LOOK INTO IT. 
>> DID HE NOT ALSO TELL YOU TO 
FEEL FREE TO COME BACK IF YOU 
HAD ADDITIONAL CONCERNS?
>> HE DID, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU 
THAT HIS REQUEST TO THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN COORDINATED 
WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF -- 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY.
DID YOU REPORT THAT TO MR. 
EISENBERG?
>> I DID.
>> AND WHAT WAS HIS REACTION?
>> HE TOOK NOTES AND HE SAID HE 
WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP OR LOOK 
INTO IT.
I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HE 
SAID.
>> COLONEL, YOU'VE ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL NOW BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS, QUOTE, THERE WAS NO 
DOUBT, END QUOTE, THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP ASKED FOR INVESTIGATIONS 

Spanish: 
PEDÍA UNA INVESTIGACIÓN QUE NO 
EXISTÍA  SOBRE LOS BIDEN Y 
BURISMA. ES ESO CORRECTO ?.
>> CORRECTO
>> ESO OCURRIÓ LA TARDE Y EN 
UNAS POCAS HORAS HABLÉ CON EL 
SEÑOR EISENBERG.
>> CÓMO REACCIONÓ?
>>  ÉL TOMÓ NOTAS Y DIJO QUE LO 
INVESTIGARÍA.
>> Y LE DIJO QUE VOLVIESE SI 
QUERÍA TENÍA UNA PREOCUPACIÓN 
ADICIONAL?
>> ASÍ ES
>> EL BAJARON SONDLAND LE DIJO 
QUE LO QUE LE PIDIERON A LOS 
UCRANIANOS COMO JEFE DE PERSONAL
INTERINO, MICK MULVANEY ERA LO 
QUE ESTABA YENDO.
>> USTÉ REPORTÓ ESO?
>> SÍ LO HICE.
>> CUÁL FUE SU REACCIÓN
>> TOMÓ NOTAS Y DIJO QUE IBA A 
INVESTIGARLO Y HABLAR DESPUÉS 
CONMIGO NO LO RECUERDO BIEN.
>> TAMBIÉN SABEMOS QUE EN LA 

English: 
INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON IN RETURN 
FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
WITHIN AN HOUR OF THAT CALL YOU 
REPORTED THAT TO MR. EISENBERG, 
DID YOU NOT?
>> I DID. 
>> WENT BACK TO HIM JUST AS HE 
HAD SUGGESTED WOULD BE 
APPROPRIATE?
>> HE'S AN ASSISTANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
IT WAS LESS A SUGGESTION, MORE 
OF AN INSTRUCTION.
>> DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO SPEAK TO MR. 
GUILIANI?
>> YES.
>> AND THE LAWYERS IT WAS AT 
THIS POINT TOLD YOU NOT TO TALK 
TO ANYONE ELSE?
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT WITH 
REGARD TO TIMING.
THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW BACK -- THEY 
DIDN'T CIRCLE BACK AROUND.
WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS IN MY
COORDINATION ROLE I SPOKE TO 
STATE, I SPOKE TO A MEMBER OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM ONE OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE BODIES NOTIFIED
MR. EISENBERG THAT THERE WAS -- 

Spanish: 
LLAMADA EL 25 DE JULIO  HU
HUBO"NINGUNA DUDA BAKER 
PRESIDENTE DE TRUMP" Y EL HIJO 
DEL VICEZELENSKI 
QUISIEREN UNA IN-
>>  NO HABÍAN SUGERENCIAS TRAMOS
DE UNAS INSTRUCCIÓN.
>> LE DIJO LOS ABOGADOS DEL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP LE PIDÓO
A ZELENSKI QUE HABLASE CON EL 
SEÑOR GIULIANI?
>> SÍ
>> Y A LOS ABOGADOS LE DIJERON 
QUE NO HABLASE CON NADIE MÁS?
>> ESO NO ES CORRECTO LO QUE 
TERMINÓ PASANDO FUE QUE EN MI 
COORDINACIÓN HABLÉ CON UN 
MIEMBRO DE LA COMUNIDAD 
INTELIGENCIA, Y EL CONSEJO 
GENERAL DE UNO DE LOS CUERPOS DE
INTELIGENCIA ERA NOTIFICAR AL 

English: 
THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION ON 
THE CALL, ON THE JULY 25th CALL.
AT THAT POINT MR. EISENBERG TOLD
ME I SHOULDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY 
ELSE ABOUT IT.
>> COLONEL, I WANT TO GO BACK TO
2014 IN IRAQ WHEN YOU WERE BLOWN
UP.
I PRESUME THAT GIVEN THE POINT 
IN YOUR MILITARY CAREER AND WHAT
ELSE WAS GOING ON IN THE WORLD 
THAT UPON RECOVERY THERE WAS THE
VERY REAL PROSPECT OR 
POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT ONCE 
AGAIN FIND YOURSELF IN HARM'S 
WAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
IT HAPPENED IN 2004, BUT YES. 
>> '04, EXCUSE ME, THANK YOU.
DID YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE 
MILITARY SERVICE AT THAT POINT?
>> NO.
FRANKLY, CONGRESSMAN, I SUFFERED
LIGHT WOUNDS.
I WAS FORTUNATE COMPARED TO MY 
COUNTERPARTS IN THE SAME 
VEHICLE.
I RETURNED TO DUTY I THINK IT 
MAY HAVE BEEN THAT SAME DAY. 
>> BUT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN 

Spanish: 
SEÑOR EISENBERG DE QUE HABÍA 
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LA LLAMADA DEL
25 DE JULIO. Y EN ESE MOMENTO EL
SEÑOR EISENBERG ME DIJO QUE NO 
HABLASE MÁS QUE CON EL DEL 
ASUNTO.
>> QUIERO VOLVER A 2014, EEN 
IRAK. CUANDO RECIBIÓ EL GOLPE DE
LA BOMBA. ASUMO QUEDÓ EL. DE SU 
CARRERA QUE MÁS HA ESTADO 
PASANDO EN EL MUNDO QUE UNA VEZ 
QUE USTED SE RECUPERÓ PENSAD LAS
POSIBILIDADES O PROSPECTOS  DE 
DE NUEVO ENCONTRARSE EN EL 
CAMINO DEL PELIGRO?
>> SÍ
>> GRACIAS. CONSIDERO DEJAR EL 
SERVICIO MILITAR EN ESE MOMENTO 
SE ROMPA
>> NO. SUFRIR UNA HERIDA LE 
YERRA EN UN VEHÍCULO  Y VOLVÍ A 

Spanish: 
MI SERVICIO. CREO QUE ESE MISMO 
DÍA.
>> PERO SE PODRÍA HABER RECIBIÓ 
LESIONES ADICIONALES PERO 
DECIDIÓ SEGUIR SIRVIENDO CI
>> DECIDÍ SEGUIR DURANTE LOS 
PRÓXIMOS 10 MESES DEL TOUR
>> ENCUENTRO QUE ES UNA IRONÍA 
RICA PERO DOLOROSA QUE EN UNA 
SEMANA DE QUE DONALD TRUMP, 
CONTRARIO A TODO EL CONSEJO DE 
LOS OFICIALES, PERDONE A QUIENES
HAN SIDO  CONDENADOS POR 
CRÍMENES DE YERRA, CONDENADO DE 
ESTO POR TODO EL MUNDO, Y QUE 
LUEGO ALGUNOS INCLUSO ESTÁN AQÍI
TRATEN DE ACHICAR TODAS LAS C
CONTRIBUCIONES QUE USTED HAGA 
ESO POR ESTE PAÍS. EN MENOS DE 
20 MINUTOS LA CASA BLANCA DE 
MANERA OFICIAL SACÓ DE CONTEXTO 

English: 
SUBJECTED TO ADDITIONAL HARM IF 
YOU CHOSE TO SERVE IN UNIFORM?
>> I CONTINUED TO SERVE IN 
UNIFORM FOR THE REMAINING 10 OR 
11 MONTHS OF THE TOUR. 
>> COLONEL, I FINDING IT RICH 
BUT INCREDIBLE IRONY THAT WITHIN
A WEEK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTRARY
TO ALL ADVICE OF THE SENIOR 
MILITARY OFFICIALS, HE PARDONS 
THOSE WHO ARE CONVICTED OF WAR 
CRIMES, WHICH WAS WIDELY DECRIED
IN THE MILITARY COMMUNITY.
WITHIN THE WEEK OF HIM DOING 
THAT, HE IS ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT
AND ALLIES ON HIS BEHALF, 
INCLUDING SOME HERE TODAY, TO 
DEMEAN YOUR RECORD OF SERVICE 
AND THE SACRIFICE AND THE 
CONTRIBUTION YOU HAVE MADE.
INDEED, SIR, LESS THAN 20 
MINUTES AGO, THE WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALLY QUOTED OUT, OUT OF 
CONTEXT, THE COMMENTS REFERRED 
TO EARLIER BY MR. MORRISON IN 

English: 
YOUR JUDGMENT.
I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE, SIR, THAT 
WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS JUST THE 
PRESIDENT AS THE SUBJECT OF OUR 
DELIBERATIONS IN THIS INQUIRY 
ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO CAPTURE 
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
INDEED, WHAT'S SUBJECT TO THIS 
INQUIRY AND WHAT IS AT PERIL IS 
OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VERY 
VALUES UPON WHICH IT IS BASED.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SERVICE, BUT YOU KNOW THANK YOU 
DOESN'T CUT IT.
PLEASE KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT IT 
COMES FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY 
HEART AND I KNOW ON THE BOTTOMS 
OF THE HEART OF COUNTLESS OTHER 
AMERICANS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, SIR.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. JORDAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SUNDAY, SUNDAY THE SPEAKER OF 
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AN IMPOSTER.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED 
THE PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER.
THE GUY 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED 

Spanish: 
COMENTARIOS DEL SEÑOR MORRISON Y
SU JUICIO HACIA USTED. SÓLO 
PUEDO CONCLUIR SEÑOR, QUE LO QUE
PENSAMOS ERA SIMPLEMENTE EL 
PRESIDENTE COMO SUJETO DE 
NUESTRA DELIBERACIÓN EN ESTA 
INVESTIGACIÓN, PERO ESO NO ES 
SUFICIENTE PARA CAPTURAR LO QUE 
PASA AQUÍ. LO QUE TAMBIÉN ES 
OBJETO DE ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN Y 
QUE ES APARENTE ES QUE LOS 
PROPIOS VALORES Y CONSTILLA 
CONSTITUCIÓN EN LA QUE ESTAMOS 
ESTAR AQUÍ. QUIERO AGRADECERLE 
PERO ESO NO BASTA Y ESPERO QUÉ 
SEPA QUE VIENE DEL FONDO DE MI 
CORAZÓN  Y SE QUE EN EL FONDO DE
CORAZÓN DE MUCHOS DE NUESTROS 
CONCIUDADANOS. MUCHAS GRACIAS 
SEDÓ MI PALABRA
>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE EL SÁDOMING 
SE LLAMÓ AL PRESIDENTE DE ES
O
ESTADOS UNIDOS A UN UN IMPOSTOR.

Spanish: 
LO LLAMARON UN IMPOSTOR, 63 
MILLONES DE PERSONAS VOTARON 
PONE EL Y LA VOCERA DE LA CÁMARA
LO LLAMÓ UN IMPOSTOR. ES LO QUE 
LE ESTÁ PASANDO EN NUESTRO CON 
PAÍS Y EL CONGRESO. LO QUE DIJO 
LA VOCERA LO DICE TODO LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS NUNCA HAN ACEPTADO EL
VOTO DE LOS ESTADOUNIDENSES. NO 
CONFÍAN EN ELLOS, LOS 
ESTADOUNIDENSES NO TIENEN LA 
CONFIANZA LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y ELLOS
TRATAN DE HACER TODO LO QUE 
PUEDEN PARA DESHACER LO QUE EL 
PUEBLO HA DECIDIDO EL 9 DE 
NOVIEMBRE DE 2016. DDESDE EL DÍA
QUE EL PRESIDENTE FUE ELECTO 
HACE QUÉ PASA CON EL EQUIPO 
LEGAL DEL DENUNCIANTE Y EL 
ABOGADO ELLOS DICEN QUE SI, QUE 
EL PRESIDENTE YA HAYA UNA SEMANA

English: 
FOR, THE GUY THAT WON AN 
ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE THE 
SPEAKER CALLS AN IMPOSTER.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED TO OUR 
COUNTRY, TO THIS CONGRESS.
THE SPEAKER'S STATEMENT SAYS IT 
ALL.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER 
ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
DEMOCRATS DON'T TRUST THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WANTED 
TO SEND SOMEONE TO THIS TOWN WHO
WAS WILLING TO SHAKE IT UP A 
BIT.
THEY DON'T TRUST THAT.
AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO 
EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO UNDO WHAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDED ON 
NOVEMBER 8th, 2016.
THEY HAVE BEEN OUT TO GET THE 
PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY HE WAS 
ELECTED.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LAWYER, THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LEGAL TEAM SAID
THIS.
JANUARY 30th, 2017, THE 
PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE 
ABOUT A WEEK.
COUP HAS STARTED, FIRST OF MANY 
STEPS.

English: 
NEXT SENTENCE, IMPEACHMENT WILL 
FOLLOW ULTIMATELY.
I GUESS WE'RE IN THE FINAL STEP 
STARTED -- STARTED THREE AND A 
HALF YEARS AGO.
CONGRESSMAN TLAIB STARTED THIS 
CONGRESS, FIRST DAY OF CONGRESS 
SAID IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN SAID WE'VE 
GOT TO DO IT.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, FIVE DEMOCRAT 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE VOTED 
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT
BEFORE THE PHONE CALL EVER 
HAPPENED.
THE TRUTH IS THE ATTACKS 
ACTUALLY STARTED BEFORE -- 
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION, EVEN 
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
THE RANKING MEMBER TALKED ABOUT 
THIS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
JULY 2016, FBI OPENS AN 
INVESTIGATION, SO-CALLED 
TRUMP/RUSSIA COORDINATION, 
COLLUSION, WHICH WAS NEVER 
THERE.
OPENED AN INVESTIGATION, SPIED 
ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN.

Spanish: 
EN EL CARGO Y QUE COMENZARON 
MUCHOS DE LOS PASOS PARA LLEGAR 
AL IMPEACHMENT. SUPONGO QUE 
ESTAMOS EN LOS ÚLTIMOS PASOS QUE
COMENZARON HACE TRES AÑOS Y 
MEDIO. MUCHA GENTE DE ESTE 
CONGRESO, DESDE EL PRIMER DÍA 
DEL COMIENZO DIJERON  SEÑOR 
PRECP
PRESIDENTE TENEMOS QUE SACAR AL 
PRESIDENTE PORQUE SINO A GANAR 
LA REELECCIÓN.-IMPORTANTE 
VOTARON PARA MOVERSE CON EL 
IMPEACHMENT ANTES DE QUE 
SUCEDIESE LA LLAMADA.
>> ANTES DE LA INAUGURACIÓN 
INCLUSO ANTES DE LA ELECCIÓN YA 
ESTÁN HABLANDO DE ESTO, LO 
HICIERON DE MANERA PÚBLICO EN 
JULIO 2016. EL FBI ABRIÓ UNA 

English: 
MY GUESS IS THAT'S PROBABLY 
NEVER HAPPENED IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY, BUT THEY DID IT.
AND FOR TEN MONTHS JIM COMEY'S 
FBI INVESTIGATED THE PRESIDENT.
AFTER TEN MONTHS THEY HAVE 
NOTHING.
YOU KNOW HOW WE KNOW THAT?
WHEN WE DEPOSED MR. COMEY LAST 
CONGRESS HE TOLD US THEY DIDN'T 
HAVE A THING.
NO MATTER, SPECIAL COUNSEL 
MUELLER GETS APPOINTED AND THEY 
DO A TWO-YEAR, $20 MILLION, 19 
LAWYER INVESTIGATION AND THEY 
COME BACK AND GOT NOTHING.
BUT THE DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE.
SO NOW WE GET THIS.
A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS IN THE 
BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE 
CAPITOL, WITNESSES WHO AREN'T 
ALLOWED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHO THEY TALKED TO ABOUT 
THE PHONE CALL.
WE GET THIS.
ALL BASED ON SOME ANONYMOUS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
BIAS AGAINSTED THE PRESIDENT.
THESE FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED.

Spanish: 
INVESTIGACIÓN PESE A LLAMAR 
DONALD TRUMP RUSIA COLUSIÓN, 
ALGO QUE NO EXISTES. ESTO NUNCA 
SUCEDIÓ EN NUESTRA HISTORIA PERO
YO LO HICIERON. Y DURANTE 10 
MESES  SE INVESTIGÓ EL 
PRESIDENTE LUEGO DE 10 MESES NO 
TENÍA NADA. NO TENÍA NADA.  NO 
IMPORTA, LUEGO APARECE MÜLLER Y 
LUEGO DE DOS MESES Y E 
INVESTIGACIONES ADHIEREN QUE 
PASA VUELVEN Y NO HAY NADA. LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS NO LES IMPORTA TODO 
ESTO. Y AHORA ESTO. CIENTOS DE 
DECLARACIONES AQUÍ EN EL 
CAPITOLIO, TTENEMOS A GENTE QUE 
NO NOS PUEDE DECIR CON QUIEN 
HABLARON DE LA LLAMADA. EEN LO 
QUE PODEMOS DECIR TODO ESTO ESÁA
BASADO EN UN DENUNCIANTE AN
O

Spanish: 
ANÓNIMO, NO HAY CONOCIMIENTO DE 
PRIMERA MANO. QUIENES TRABAJARON
CON EL VICEPRESIDENTE BIDEN 
ALGUIEN HABLÓ CON ÉL SOBRE LA 
LLAMADA ESPERO 19 DÍAS PARA DAR 
UNA QUEJA, 18 DÍAS. Y QUE PASÓ 
ENTRE MEDIO NO LO SABEMOS.
>> Y LUEGO CONTRATAR UN EQUIPO 
LEGAL DE QUE YA HABLADO, UNO DE 
ESOS PASOS, EEN TODO EL GOLPE DE
IMPEACHMENT. DA MIEDO LO QUE 
ESTÁN HACIENDO CON NUESTRO PAÍS 
DA PENA DA MIEDO Y ESTÁ MAL. Y
L
LAS BUENAS NOTICIAS SON QUE EL 
PUEBLO LO VE TODO Y SABEN CUÁLES
SON LOS HECHOS SOBRE EL 
PRESIDENTE YA HAY CUATRO HECHOS 
QUE NUNCA CAMBIARÁN. TIENEN LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN, MUESTRA QUE NO 
HAY COORDINACIÓN NO HAY 

English: 
WHO WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT, 
WHO WROTE A MEMO THE DAY AFTER 
SOMEBODY TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE
CALL BUT WAITED 18 DAYS TO FILE 
A COMPLAINT.
18 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT.
WHAT DID HE DO IN THOSE 18 DAYS?
WE ALL KNOW.
RAN OFF AND TALKED WITH CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF'S STAFF.
AND THEN HIRED THE LEGAL TEAM 
THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT I
JUST TALKED ABOUT.
ONE OF THOSE STEPS IN THE WHOLE 
IMPEACHMENT COUP AS HIS LEGAL 
TEAM HAS SAID.
THIS IS SCARY WHAT THESE GUYS 
ARE PUTTING OUR COUNTRY THROUGH.
IT IS SAD, IT IS SCARY, IT IS 
WRONG.
AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH IT 
ALL.
THEY KNOW THE FACTS ARE ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S SIDE AS 
REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIK SAID.
FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE.
WE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH THEY
THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
NEVER RELEASE.
SHOWS NO COORDINATION, NO 
CONDITIONALITY.

Spanish: 
CONDICIONALIDAD TENEMOS A DOS 
PERSONAS CONVERSANDO DOS 
PRESIDENTES. EEL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI DICE QUE NO PASÓ NADA Y
QUE NO HABÍA NINGUNA PRESIÓN. LO
MÁS IMPORTANTE ES QUE TENEMOS A 
UN TESTIGO QUE NOS DIGA QUE 
HABÍA EVIDENCIA PERO NO HAY 
HASTA AHORA ESOS HECHOS NO VAN A
CAMBIAR POR EL LADO EL 
PRESIDENTE, EL PROCESO NO LO ES.
HA SIDO EL PROCESO MÁS INJUSTO 
QUE HEMOS VISTO EN NUESTRO PAÍS.
ELLOS ENTIENDEN Y CREO QUE 
MUCHOS DE OTROS TAMBIÉN LO 
HACEN. ELLOS HAN QUE ESTO ESTÁ 
MAL EN ESPECIAL HACE 1PORQUE FA1
MESES PARA LA ELECCIÓN  SEDÓ MI 

English: 
WE'VE GOT THE TWO GUYS ON THE 
CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WHO SAID NOTHING WRONG,
NO PUSH HERE.
UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW AID WAS 
HELD UP AND WE HAVE YET TO HAVE 
ONE WITNESS TO TELL US ANY 
EVIDENCE FROM ANYONE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID ANYTHING 
ON INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID
RELEASED.
THOSE FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE OF
THE THE FACTS ARE ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
THE PROCESS IS CERTAINLY NOT.
IT HAS BEEN THE MOST UNFAIR 
PROCESS WE HAVE EVER SEEN AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND 
THOSE 63 MILLION AMERICAN, THEY 
UNDERSTAND IT AND FRANKLY I 
THINK A LOT OF OTHERS DO AS 
WELL.
THEY SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS AND
THEY KNOW THIS IS WRONG, 
ESPECIALLY WRONG JUST 11 MONTHS 
BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. WELCH.
>> THANK YOU.
WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT I 
THINK WAS BEST STATED BY COLONEL
VINDMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT.

English: 
THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THIS.
IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A
UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
VERY WELL STATED.
I JUST LISTENED TO MR. JORDAN, 
AS YOU DID AS WELL, AND I HEARD 
HIS CRITICISMS OF THE PROCESS.
NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED, A LOT 
OF PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET THE 
PRESIDENT.
I DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE 
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT'S 
PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND TO DATE I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY 
ONE OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
COLONEL VINDMAN, MS. WILLIAMS, 
THANK YOU.
I WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS 
THAT GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND.
WHAT'S COME OUT DURING THIS 

Spanish: 
PALABRA.
>> GRACIAS LO QUE ESTA AUDIENCIA
ES, CREO, YA SE DIJO CUANDO EL 
CORONEL VINDMAN HABLÓ DEL 
PRINCIPIO SU DECLARACIÓN DE 
ABIA
EENTRADA . ES IMPROPIO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DE ESTADOS UNIDOS LE 
PIDA A OTRO GOBIERNO QUE 
INVESTIGUE A UNA PERSONA CIVIL Y
QUE ES UN OPONENTE POLÍTICO.  
ESCUCHAR SEÑOR JORDAN, COMO 
USTEDES, Y ESCUCHÉ SUS CRÍTICAS 
AL PROCESO. DDE QUE NADA PASÓ, 
DE QUE MUCHA GENTE CONFÍA ESTE 
PRESIDENTE. NO ESCUCHÉ UNA 
RESPUESTA LA PREGUNTA DE SI ES 
PROPIO QUE UN PRESIDENTE ESTADOS
UNIDOS LE DEMANDE OTRO GOBIERNO 
QUE INVESTIGUE UN CIUDADANO 
ESTADOUNIDENSE QUE SU OPONENTE 
POLÍTICO. HOY NO ESCUCHADO A 
NUDO DEN
NINGUNO DE MIS COLEGAS 
REPUBLICANOS RESPONDER ESA 
PREGUNTA. SÓLO QUIERO HABLAR DE 

English: 
PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD TWO 
UKRAINE POLICIES.
ONE WAS BIPARTISAN AND LONG 
STANDING.
AND THAT WAS TO ASSIST UKRAINE, 
WHICH HAD FREED ITSELF FROM THE 
DOMINATION OF RUSSIA, TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION AND TO RESIST RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION.
IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT, 
COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR 
CHARACTERIZATION, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AND TO GIVE FOLKS A REMINDER 
OF THE EXTENT OF CORRUPTION -- 
BY THE WAY, A LEGACY OF PUTIN'S 
RUSSIA, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT WHEN THEIR PRIOR PRESIDENT 
FLED TO RUSSIA INTO THE ARMS OF 
MR. PUTIN, HE TOOK WITH HIM $30 
TO $40 BILLION OF THAT 
IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY?
>> THERE ARE DIFFERENT ESTIMATES
BUT IT'S ON THAT SCALE, YES. 
>> VAST SCALE FOR A POOR 
COUNTRY.

Spanish: 
ANTECEDENTES SEÑORA WILLIAMS, 
QUE PARTE DE ESTE PROCESO EN 
CUANTO A LAS POLÍTICAS CON 
UCRANIA CUÁL ERA BIPARTITA Y 
CUÁL NO, CUÁL ERA PARA ASISTIR A
UCRANIA  DE LA DOMINACIÓN DE 
RUSIA, PARA LUCHAR LA CORR
N
CORRUPCIÓN, Y PARA RESISTIR LA 
AGRESIÓN RUSA. ES ESO CORRECTO 
SEÑOR VINDMAN?
>> SÍ
>> Y PARA RECORDARLES LLA 
CORRUPCIÓN QUE HA EXISTIDO ES UN
LEGADO DE PUTIN Y RUSIA. SSI LO 
ENTIENDEN, EL PRESIDENTE 
ANTERIOR DE UCRANIA LE DIJO A 
RUSIA QUE ENTRASE Y SE LLEVÓ CON
EL DE 30 A 40,000 MILLONES DE 
DÓLARES DE SU PAÍS YA 
EMPOBRECIDO.

Spanish: 
>> HAY DISTINTOS ESTIMADOS PERO 
ESTÁN EN ESA ESCALA
 ESTABAN MOTIVADOSY ELLOS 
PROTESTARON TODOS LOS UCRA
S
UCRANIANOS, CONTRA ESTE ABUSO 
INCREÍBLE DE SU PRESIDENTE EN 
ESA ÉPOCA
>> ESOS CORRECTO
>> Y SE LLAMÓ LA LA MAYOR 
REVOLUCIÓN
>> CORRECTO
>> Y LOS JÓVENES FUERON A ESA 
PLAZA EN EL CENTRO Y PROTESTARON
DURANTE MESES ES ESO CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO Y MUCHOS MURIERON.
>> 106 MURIERON Y TAMBIÉN 
ANCIANOS NO SÓLO JÓVENES 
CORRECTO?
>> ESO FUE EN FEBRERO DE 2014  
ES ESO CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO
>> 106 MURIERON INCLUYENDO A 

English: 
AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING 
THAT POWERLESS BUT MOTIVATED 
UKRAINIANS ROSE UP IN PROTEST TO
THIS INCREDIBLE THEFT AND ABUSE 
BY THEIR PRESIDENT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT WAS IN THE -- IT WAS
CALLED THE MAYDEN REVOLUTION, 
THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOUNG PEOPLE WENT INTO 
THAT SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN KYIV AND
DEMONSTRATED FOR MONTHS, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
AND 100 DIED. 
>> 106 YOUNG PEOPLE DIED AND 
OLDER PEOPLE DIED, CORRECT?
THAT WAS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 18, 
2014, AND FEBRUARY 22, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.

English: 
>> 106 DIED, INCLUDING PEOPLE 
WHO WERE SHOT BY SNIPERS, KIDS, 
AND YANUKOVYCH PUT SNIPERS THERE
TO SLAUGHTER THEM, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> BY THE WAY, I WANT TO SAY TO 
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, A LOT 
OF LEADERSHIP TO HAVE THIS 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT CAME FROM 
YOUR SIDE.
THANK YOU.
BUT OUR WHOLE COMMITMENT WAS TO 
GET RID OF CORRUPTION AND TO 
STOP THAT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT AMOUNTS TO SOME OF THE 
KEY PILLARS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THE GUILIANI, SONDLAND AND 
IT APPEARS TRUMP POLICY WAS NOT 
ABOUT THAT.
IT WAS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO
A POLITICAL OPPONENT, CORRECT?
I'LL TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK.
WE KNOW IT.
AND YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY THIS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE JOE 
BIDEN, YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE 
HUNTER BIDEN, GO AT IT.
DO IT.

Spanish: 
GENTE QUE RECIBIÓ DISPAROS DE 
FRANCOTIRADORES. LEL GOBIERNO 
PUSO FRANCOTIRADORES PARA 
DISPARARLE A LA GENTE EN ESA 
PLAZA Y MATAR Y ASESINAR A ESA 
GENTE JOVEN
>> ESO CORRECTO
>> Y QUIERO DECIRLE A MIS 
COLEGAS REPUBLICANOS, SE 
NECESITA MUCHO LIDERAZGO EN SU 
LADO GRACIAS. PERO ESTOY SEGURO 
DE QUE PARA ALEJAR A LA 
CORRUPCIÓN Y QUITAR LA AGRESIÓN 
DE RUSIA SOLICITABA ESTO 
CORRECTO SE LE PREGUNTA
>> ES UNO DE LOS PILARES CLAVE
 ASÍ ES
>>Y GIULIANI SON DLAND Y LAS 
POLÍTICAS DE DONALD TRUMP NO ERA
SOBRE ESO, SINO QUE INVESTIGAR A
UN OPONENTE POLÍTICO CORRECTO?
>> NO PERDÓN  NO QUE NOS ESA P
E
PREGUNTA. DONALD TRUMP QUE 

Spanish: 
INVESTIGARA JOE BIDEN, QUIEN I
V
INVESTIGARÁ JUAN DEL BIDEN, 
HÁGALO HÁGALO. PERO NO LO HAGA 
AL PEDIRLE A UN GOBIERNO 
EXTRANJERO QUE LO AYUDE EN SU 
CAMPAÑA. ESE SU TRABAJO NO DE 
L
ELLOS. MI META SON DOS COSAS UNA
LA RESPUESTA LA PREGUNTA CORONEL
VINDMAN, Y LA SEGUNDA DESPUÉS DE
ESTO ES COMO CONGRESO QUE 
VOLVAMOS A LA POLÍTICA CON 
UCRANIA QUE NANCY PELOSI Y KEVIN
MCCARTHY APOYABAN. NO ES UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN, EES LA 
RESTAURACIÓN DE LA DEMOCRACIA EN
UCRANIA LA RESISTENCIA DE LA 
AGRESIÓN RUSA CERO LA PALABRA
>>  GRACIAS POR ESTAR AQUÍ. 
COC

English: 
DO IT HARD.
DO IT DIRTY.
DO IT THE WAY YOU DO DO IT.
JUST DON'T DO IT BY ASKING A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO HELP YOU IN 
YOUR CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S YOUR JOB, IT'S NOT HIS.
MY GOAL IN THESE HEARINGS IS TWO
THINGS.
ONE IS TO GET AN ANSWER TO 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S QUESTION, AND 
THE SECOND COMING OUT OF THIS IS
FOR US AS A CONGRESS TO RETURN 
TO THE UKRAINE POLICY THAT NANCY
PELOSI AND KEVIN McCARTHY BOTH 
SUPPORT.
IT'S NOT INVESTIGATIONS.
IT'S THE RESTORATION OF 
DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE AND THE 
RESISTANCE OF RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. MALONEY.
>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING 
HERE.
YOU KNOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, THIS MAY BE ONE OF YOUR

Spanish: 
TENIENDO CORONEL VINDMAN ESTA 
PUEDE SER LA PRIMERA AUDIENCIA 
DE ESTE TIPO PARA USTED.
>> LA ÚLTIMA
>> NO LO CULPO POR SENTIRSE ASÍ.
ESTADO SENTADA AQUÍ ESCUCHANDO 
MIS COLEGAS REPUBLICANOS  Y UNA 
DE LAS COSAS BUENAS DE ESTAR 
AQUÍ EN LA MESA DE LOS NIÑOS ES 
QUE UNO ESCUCHA A LAS PREGUNTAS 
Y ESTABAN ESCUCHANDO A MIS 
COLEGAS REPUBLICANOS DE CERCA Y 
LOS HE ESCUCHADO DECIR DE TODO  
SALVO PARA CONTRADECIR LA 
SUSTANCIA DEL TESTIMONIO ES QUE 
TAL VEZ SE DIO CUENTA DE QUE N
D
NADIE MUCHAS QUEJAS  Y MUCHAS 
INSINUACIONES Y SUGERENCIAS TAL 
VEZ, DDE QUE SU SERVICIO ALGUNA 
FORMA NO ES UNO DE CONFIANZA . Y
HAY PREGUNTAS SOBRE SU LEALTAD 
POR ALGUNA OFERTA QUE LE DIERON 

English: 
FIRST CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS 
LIKE THIS, SO YOU MAY -- 
>> HOPEFULLY THE LAST.
>> I CAN'T BLAME YOU FOR FEELING
THAT WAY, SIR.
PARTICULARLY WHEN I'VE BEEN 
SITTING HERE LISTENING TO MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.
ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF BEING 
DOWN HERE AT THE KIDS TABLE IS 
THAT YOU GET TO HEAR THE FOLKS 
ABOVE YOU ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.
I'VE BEEN LISTENING CLOSELY TO 
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, AND 
I'VE HEARD THEM SAY JUST ABOUT 
EVERYTHING EXCEPT TO CONTRADICT 
ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY
YOU'VE BOTH GIVEN.
YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THERE'S 
BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND 
INSINUATIONS AND THERE'S BEEN A 
LOT OF SUGGESTIONS MAYBE THAT 
YOUR SERVICE IS SOMEHOW NOT TO 
BE TRUSTED.
YOU WERE TREATED TO QUESTIONS 
ABOUT YOUR LOYALTY BECAUSE OF 
SOME HALF-BAKED JOB OFFER I 
GUESS THE UKRAINIANS MADE YOU 
WHICH YOU DUTIFULLY REPORTED.
I GUESS MR. CASTOR IS IMPLYING 
YOU'VE GOT SOME DUAL LOYALTY 
WHICH IS AN OLD SMEAR WE'VE 
HEARD MANY TIMES IN OUR HISTORY.
THEY TRY TO DEMEAN YOU AS IF 

English: 
MAYBE YOU'VE OVERSTATED THE 
IMPORTANCE OF YOUR JOB.
OF COURSE YOU WERE THE GUY ON 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING 
UKRAIIAN POLICY.
WE'VE HEARD THEM AIR OUT SOME 
ALLEGATIONS WITH NO BASIS IN 
PROOF, BUT THEY JUST WANT TO GET
THEM OUT THERE AND HOPE MAYBE 
SOME OF THOSE STRANDS OF 
SPAGHETTI, I GUESS, WILL STICK 
ON THE WALL IF THEY KEEP 
THROWING THEM.
WE'VE EVEN HAD A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE, THIS IS MY FAVORITE, 
QUESTION WHY YOU WOULD WEAR YOUR
DRESS UNIFORM TODAY.
EVEN THOUGH THAT DRESS UNIFORM 
INCLUDES A BADGE -- A BREAST 
PLATE THAT HAS A COMBAT INFANTRY
BADGE ON IT AND A PURPLE HEART 
MEDAL RIBBON.
IT SEEMS LIKE IF ANYBODY GETS TO
WEAR THAT UNIFORM, IT'S SOMEBODY
WHO'S GOT A BREAST PLATE WITH 
THOSE COMMENDATIONS ON IT.
SO LET'S DO IT AGAIN.
LET'S DO THE SUBSTANCE.
CAN WE DO THAT?
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DUST 
KICKED UP.
MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HEARD THE CALL
WITH YOUR OWN EARS, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT HEARSAY, 

Spanish: 
ASÍ ALANO EN SERIO. HEMOS ESCUCO
MUCHAS VECES DE PRESTIGIO SOBRE 
HELADOS TESTIGOS. PERO YA SALGO 
LA IMPORTANCIA SU TRABAJO, POR 
SUPUESTO USTED ES EL RESPONSABLE
LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL EN LA 
POLÍTICA DE UCRANIA. SABEMOS 
ALGUNOS ALEGATOS Y NINGUNA BASE 
LA REALIDAD PERO QUE NOS INVENTE
HABLAR DE ELLAS PARA QUE ALGUNO 
DE SÁBADOS DIGAMOS FIDEO SE 
PEGUEN EL EL MURO. HAY MUCHAS 
SEGÚN PREGUNTAS QUITA MI 
FAVORITA
 PORQUE ESTÁ UTILIZANDO SU 
UNIFORME DEL EJÉRCITO YSE LE 
PRE? 
INCLUYENDO SU CORAZÓN PÚRPURA. 
HHAGÁMOSLO DE NUEVO, HAGAMOS LA 
SUSTANCIA, HAY MUCHA POLVO EN EL
AIRE. UUSTED ESCUCHÓ LA LLAMADA 

Spanish: 
CON SUS PROPIOS OÍDOS NO, NO ES 
DE SEGUNDA MANO COMO USTED 
ESCUCHÓ PRESIDENTE HABLAR, USTED
ESCUCHÓ SU VOZ. Y DIJO QUE LO 
QUE LE PREOCUPÓ ES QUE  QUISIESE
INVESTIGAR ROBAR EL BROTE FUE 
IMPROPIO E INUSUAL ESAS FUERON 
SUS PALABRAS NO
>> CORRECTO
>> SEÑOR VINDMAN USTED ESCUCHÓ 
SONDLAND HABLAR SOBRE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN Y PONER EN 
CONDICIONES O PARA LA REUNIÓN EN
LA CASA BLANCA, UNA INVE
INVESTIGACIÓN QUE LE PARECIÓ 
CONTRATANTE POLÍTICA. Y LUEGO LO
INFORMÓ VERDAD
>> CORRECTO
>>  Y USTEDES NO SE PUEDE 
ESTUVIERON EN LA LLAMADA
>> CORRECTO
>> NO FUE DE SEGUNDA MANO USTED 
ESCUCHÓ
>> CORRECTO
  USTED ESCUCHÓ LA VOZ DEL 
PRESIDENTE
>> SÍ

English: 
YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT SPEAK.
YOU HEARD HIS VOICE ON THE CALL.
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOUR CONCLUSION WAS WHAT 
HE SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE 
BIDENS WAS IN YOUR WORDS UNUSUAL
AND INAPPROPRIATE, AM I RIGHT?
>> THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY. 
>> AND MR. VINDMAN, YOU WERE 
TREATED TO A JULY 10th MEETING 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE YOU 
HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISE 
INVESTIGATIONS CONDITIONING A 
WHOUT MEETING ON THAT, 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT 
WERE UNDULY POLITICAL AND YOU 
WENT TO NSC COUNSEL AND YOU 
REPORTED IT, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND LATER YOU TOO WERE ON THE
WHITE HOUSE CALL, RIGHT?
YOU HEARD IT WITH YOUR OWN EARS?
>> CORRECT. 
>> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT FROM 
SOMEBODY ELSE, NOT HEARSAY, 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S 
VOICE ON THE CALL. 
>> I DID. 
>> AND YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THAT 
AGAIN ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE 
BIDENS. 
>> I DID. 
>> WHEN YOU HEARD HIM SAY THAT, 
WHAT WAS THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT 
WENT THROUGH YOUR MIND?
>> FRANKLY, I COULDN'T BELIEVE 

Spanish: 
>> Y LUEGO ESCUCHÓ TAMBIÉN EL 
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND SOPORTE TODO 
DE ---
>>
>>>
VOY A LEER EL PÁRRAFO. PAPÁ QUÉ 
BUENO ESTAR AQUÍ, ESTO PRUEBA DE
QUE DE NUEVO HAS HECHO Y TOMADO 

English: 
WHAT I WAS HEARING.
IT WAS PROBABLY AN ELEMENT OF 
SHOCK THAT MAYBE IN CERTAIN 
REGARDS MY WORST FEAR OF HOW OUR
UKRAINE POLICY COULD PLAY OUT 
WAS PLAYING OUT.
HOW THIS WAS LIKELY TO HAVE 
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.
>> AND YOU WENT IMMEDIATELY AND 
YOU REPORTED IT, DIDN'T YOU?
>> I DID. 
>> WHY?
>> BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY.
>> YOU STILL HAVE YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT HANDY?
>> I DO. 
>> WOULD YOU READ THE LAST 
PARAGRAPH FOR ME AGAIN, NOT THE 
VERY LAST ONE, THE SECOND TO 
LAST ONE.
WOULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN FOR 
ME, BECAUSE I THINK THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC DESERVES TO HEAR IT 
AGAIN.
>> I THINK MY DAD WOULD 
APPRECIATE THIS ONE TOO.
DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN 
THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO 
ELECTED OFFICIALS IS PROOF YOU 
MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS
AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION 
AND COME HERE TO THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A
BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY.

English: 
DO NOT WORRY, I'LL BE FINE FOR 
TELLING THE TRUTH.
>> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME 
FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY 
THAT YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF 
IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST
POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR?
>> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT 
OF RISK. 
>> AND I'M STRUCK BY THAT PHRASE
DO NOT WORRY YOU ADDRESSED TO 
YOUR DAD.
WAS YOUR DAD A WARRIOR?
>> HE DID SERVE.
IT WAS A DIFFERENT MILITARY, 
THOUGH. 
>> AND YOU WERE WORRIED IF YOU 
WERE PUTTING YOURSELF UP AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES?
>> HE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT IT.
IN HIS CONTEXT, IT WAS THE 
ULTIMATE RISK.
>> AND WHY DO YOU HAVE 
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT 
AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS 
AMERICA.
THIS IS THE COUNTRY I'VE SERVED 
AND DEFENDED, THAT ALL OF MY 
BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE 
RIGHT MATTERS. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.

Spanish: 
LA DECISIÓN CORRECTA , SOBRE 
TODO PARA NUESTRA FAMILIA.  VOY 
A ESTAR BIEN
>> SE DA CUENTA DE QUE CUANDO 
USTED VOLVIÓ POR SU SENTIDO DE 
DEBER SE PUSO EN OPOSICIÓN CON 
LA PERSONA MÁS PODEROSA EN EL 
MUNDO SE DA CUENTA DE ESO SE LE 
PREGUNTA
>> ME DI CUENTA QUE HABÍA MUCHO 
RIESGO
 Y ME IMPACTA QUE SU PADRE LE NO
SE PREOCUPE. ERA SU PAPÁ 
UNGUERRERO?
>>  SÍ
>>EL SE PREOCUPABA POR ESO PO
U
PORQUE SABÍA QUE ESE ES EL 
RIESGO MÁXIMO
>> Y POR QUÉ USTED TIENE LA 
CONFIANZA QUE LO PUEDE HACER 
HIJO SU PADRE QUE NO SE 
PREOCUPEN
>> PORQUE ESTOS AMÉRICA, ES EL 
PAÍS QUE SERVIDO Y HA DEFENDIDO.
TODOS MIS HERMANOS LE HAN 
SERVIDO, Y AQUÍ LO QUE ES 

Spanish: 
CORRECTO IMPORTA
>> GRACIAS
>>(APLAUSOS(
>> GRACIAS, GRACIAS POR SU 
SERVICIO NUESTRA NACIÓN DE 
VERDAD IMPORTA EN ESTE CORONEL 
VINDMANM TUVE EL HONOR DE HABLAR
ESTE FIN DE SEMANA CON USTED Y 
LO QUE LES DIJE ES QUE NO HABÍAN
PALABRAS, NO HAY PALABRAS 
ADECUADAS O SUFICIENTES PARA V
R
VERDAD EXPRESAR NUESTRA GRATITUD
POR SU SERVICIO NUESTRA NACIÓN. 
AHORA ATINENTE CORONEL, NNO HAY 
PALABRAS PARA USTED, NO SON 
SUFICIENTES PARA EXPRESAR 
NUESTRA GRATITUD A USTED POR LO 
QUE HA HECHO POR LA NACIÓN E 
INCREÍBLEMENTE LO QUE AÚN ESTÁ 

English: 
YIELD BACK.
>> MS. DEMINGS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, MS. WILLIAMS, LET 
ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO
OUR NATION.
IT TRULY MATTERS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I 
HAVE THE HONOR OF SPEAKING TO A 
GROUP OF VETERANS THIS PAST 
WEEKEND.
WHAT I SAID TO THEM WAS THAT NO 
WORDS, NO WORDS ARE REALLY 
ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT TO FULLY 
EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE FOR THEIR 
SERVICE TO OUR NATION.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
TODAY I SAY TO YOU, THERE ARE NO
WORDS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO 
FULLY EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO 
YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR 
OUR NATION AND AMAZINGLY WHAT 
YOU ARE STILL WILLING TO DO FOR 
OUR NATION.

Spanish: 
DISPUESTO A HACER POR NOSOTROS. 
ES VITALMENTE IMPORTANTE QUE EL 
PUEBLO ENTIENDA CÓMO NUESTRO 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP HA 
PEDIDO COSAS Y NO ÉTICAS 
MOTIVADAS POR LA POLÍTICA  HA 
PEDIDO INVESTIGACIÓN A CAMBIO 
DEL SERVICIO MILITAR Y ASÍ UN 
RIESGO DE SEGURIDAD PARA NUESTRO
PAÍS  ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA.
EEL PRESIDENTE NO ESTABA 
SIMPLEMENTE JUGANDO UN JUEGO 
POLÍTICO AL NO ENTREGAR LA AYUDA
MILITAR, AMENAZÓ A CIENTOS DE 
MILLONES DE DÓLARES DE AYUDA 
MILITAR QUE EL CONGRESO HABÍA 
APROBADO, Y ESTO TIENE 
CONSECUENCIAS DE VIDA REAL PARA 
UCRANIA Y PARA ESTADOS UNIDOS. 
EN SU SUMO DECLARACIÓN USTED 
TESTIFICÓ Y CITO "UNA UCRANIA 
INDEPENDIENTE ES CRÍTICA PARA 
NUESTRA SEGURIDAD Y NUESTRO 

English: 
IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNETHICAL 
DEMAND THAT UKRAINE DELIVER 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE CREATED A 
SECURITY RISK FOR OUR, THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT JUST 
PLAYING A POLITICAL GAME BY 
UPHOLDING MILITARY AID AND 
MEETINGS WITH UKRAINE.
THREATENING THE HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE THAT CONGRESS HAD 
APPROPRIATED HAS REAL-LIFE 
CONSEQUENCES FOR UKRAINE AND FOR
THE USA.
IN YOUR DEPOSITION, COLONEL 
VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED, AND I 
QUOTE, A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT 
UKRAINE IS CRITICAL TO OUR 
SECURITY INTERESTS.
COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY A 

English: 
STRONG AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE 
IS SO CRITICAL, AND WHY IT IS SO
VITAL TO U.S. INTERESTS?
>> WE SOMETIMES REFER TO UKRAINE
AS A FRONT LINE STATE.
IT'S ON THE FRONT LINE OF 
EUROPE.
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED TO 
ME, THE UKRAINIANS, IT IS A -- 
THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS A 
BARRIER BETWEEN RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION AND EUROPE.
WHAT I'VE HEARD THEM DESCRIBE IS
THE NEED FOR U.S. SUPPORT IN 
ORDER TO SERVE THIS ROLE, IN 
ORDER TO PROTECT EUROPEAN AND 
WESTERN SECURITY.
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL, THIS IS 
NOT JUST A THEORETICAL CONFLICT 
BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA.
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THIS MORNING
THAT RUSSIA IS ACTIVELY FIGHTING
TO EXPAND INTO UKRAINE, THAT 
UKRAINE IS IN A HOT WAR WITH 
RUSSIA RIGHT NOW, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> IT'S STABLE, BUT IT'S STILL A
HOT WAR.

Spanish: 
INTERÉS DE SEGURIDAD" . NO SOY 
EXPLICAR POR QUÉ ES TAN CRÍTICO 
QUE SEA DEPENDIENTE Y POR QUÉ 
ESTÁN VITAL PARA NUESTROS 
INTERESES?
>> VEMOS A UCRANIA COMO QUIEN 
ESTÁ EN LA LÍNEA DE FRENTE DE LA
BATALLA. ELLOS LO HAN DESCRITO 
COMO, SE CONSIDERAN A SÍ MISMOS 
COMO UNA BARRERA ENTRE LA 
AGRESIÓN RUSA RUSAY E Y EUROPA, 
ESO HABLAN DE LA NECESIDAD DEL 
APOYO ESTADOUNIDENSE PARA LA 
SEGURIDAD
>> ESTO NO ES UN CONFLICTO 
TEÓRICO ENTRE UCRANIA Y RUSIA. 
YA NO DIJO ESTA MAÑANA QUE RUSIA
ESTÁ LUCHANDO ACTIVAMENTE PARA 
EXPANDIRSE EN UCRANIA, YY QUIERO
UCRANIA ESTÁN UNA GUERRA CON 

Spanish: 
UCRANIA CONCON
RUSIA 
RUSIA AHORA, EES ESTO CORRECTO 
SE REPRODUCEN
>> SÍ ES ESTABLE PERO CORRECTO
>> FINALMENTE SE LE DIO LA AYUDA
A UCRANIA PERO ESTUVO RETRASADA 
ESTO LE PUEDE DAR A RUSIA LA 
SEÑAL DE QUE EL VÍNCULO ENTRE 
UCRANIA Y RUSIA Y ESTADOS UNIDOS
SE HA VISTO
  DEBILITADO.
>> ESTO ENTONCES AYUDA QUE RUSIA
SEA MÁS AGRESIVA?
>>  SÍ
>> EL MES PASADO EL PRESIDENTE 
PUTIN  BROMEÓ SOBRE INTERFERIR 
EN NUESTRA ELECCIÓN POLÍTICA, 
SÓLO PUEDO ADIVINAR QUE ES UN 
HOMO SUELTO PARA RUSIA Y SU 
PRESIDENTE. CREO QUE SINTIÓ QUE 
TENÍA MAYOR PODER DEBIDO A LAS 

English: 
>> AND ISN'T IT TRUE, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL, THAT EVEN IF THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS 
EVENTUALLY DELIVERED TO UKRAINE,
THE FACT THAT IT WAS DELAYED, 
JUST THAT FACT COULD SIGNAL TO 
RUSSIA THAT THE BOND BETWEEN 
UKRAINE AND THE U.S. WAS 
WEAKENING?
>> THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF 
MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES. 
>> AND WAS THE RISK OF EVEN THE 
APPEARANCE THAT THE U.S./UKRAINE
BOND IS SHAKY, IS THAT IT COULD 
EMBOLDEN RUSSIA TO ACT WITH MORE
AGGRESSION.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S CORRECT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS MY 
TESTIMONY. 
>> JUST LAST MONTH DURING AN 
INTERVIEW, PRESIDENT PUTIN JOKED
ABOUT INTERFERING IN OUR 
POLITICAL ELECTIONS.
I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE 
HAVE BECOME TO RUSSIA AND ITS 
PRESIDENT.
I THINK HE FELT EMBOLDENED BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S RECKLESS ACTIONS
BOTH ATTEMPTS TO HOLD CRITICAL 

English: 
MITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO 
BLAME UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, FOR 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, I CAN ONLY SAY 
THAT EVERY AMERICAN, REGARDLESS 
OF OUR POLITICS, SHOULD BE 
CRITICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
YES, WE DO TRUST THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TRUST US TOO AS MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS TO SUPPORT, PROTECT 
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF 
THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL 
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
AND WE INTEND TO DO JUST THAT.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR 
SERVICE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. 
WILLIAMS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

Spanish: 
ADOPCIONES DE NUESTRO PRESIDENTE
AL NO AYUDAR A UCRANIA Y EL 
ESFUERZO DE DONALD TRUMP PARA 
CULPAR UCRANIA Y NO A RUSIA  POR
LA INTERFERENCIA LAS ELECCIONES 
DE 2016. SEÑORA WILLIAMS Y 
TENIENTE CORONEL VINDMAN LE 
TENGO QUE DECIR QUE TODOS DEBEN 
ESTAR PREOCUPADOS SOBRE ESTE. Y 
DÉJENME HACERLO ASÍ SI SI 
CONFIAMOS EN EL PUEBLO 
ESTADOUNIDENSE PERO SABEN QUE 
ELLOS CONFÍAN EN NOSOTROS 
TAMBIÉN COMO MIEMBROS DEL 
CONGRESO PARA APOYAR, PROTEGER Y
DEFENDER LA CONSTITUCIÓN DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS DE NUEVO PARA 
TODOS NUESTROS CIUDADANOS QUE 
HAYA NACIDO EN EL PAÍS O FUERA 
DE ÉL. MUCHAS GRACIAS CEDO LA 
PALABRA BUENAS TARDES TENIENTE 
VINDMAN Y SEÑORA WILLIAMS 

English: 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN I'M 
CONCERNED THAT YOUR LOYALTY HAS 
BEEN QUESTIONED NOT JUST BECAUSE
YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD EVIDENCE
OF WRONGDOING AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
BUT BECAUSE YOU'RE AN IMMIGRANT.
RECENTLY FOX NEWS HOST BRIAN 
KILMEADE SAID HE, MEANING YOU, 
WERE BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION, 
IMMIGRATED WITH HIS FAMILY 
YOUNG.
HE TENDS TO FEEL SYMPATICO WITH 
THE UKRAINE.
I FIND THAT STATEMENT 
REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT APPEARS
YOUR IMMIGRANT HERITAGE IS BEING
USED AGAINST YOU.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, I CAME TO 
THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS 3 MONTHS
OLD.
YOUR FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET 
UNION AND MOVED TO AMERICA WHEN 
YOU WERE JUST 3 1/2 YEARS OLD, 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR 
FATHER WORKED MULTIPLE JOBS 
WHILE ALSO LEARNING ENGLISH, 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> YOUR FATHER STRESSED THE 
IMPORTANCE OF EMBRACING WHAT IT 
MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ALL YOUR CHILDHOOD MEMORIES 
RELATE TO BEING AN AMERICAN, 

Spanish: 
GRACIAS POR SU SERVICIO.
>> ESTOY PREOCUPADO DE QUE SU 
LEALTAD HAYA SIDO CUESTIONADA NO
SOLAMENTE POR LA EVIDENCIA QUE 
HA TRAÍDO CONTRA EL PRESIDENTE 
DE ESTADOS UNIDOS PERO PORQUE 
S
USTED ES UN INMIGRANTE.
>> HACE POCO FOX NEWS DIJO QUE 
USTED NACIÓ EN LA UNIÓN 
SOVIÉTICA, QUE EMIGRÓ CON SU F
M
FAMILIA PONDRÁ PEQUEÑO. ELLOS ÉE
SIENTES SIMPATÍA POR UCRANIA. 
ENCUENTRO QUE ESTO ES REPR
L
REPRENSIBLE PORQUE PARECIERA QUE
EL QUE USTEDES EMIGRANTE ES ALGO
NEGATIVO. TENÍA DE CORONEL YO 
LLEGUÉ AQUÍ CUANDO TENÍA TRES 
MESES DE EDAD, SU FAMILIA HUYÓ 
DE LA GUERRA DE LA UNIÓN SOCIAL 
CUANDO TENÍA TRES AÑOS Y MEDIO 
NO? Y ENTIENDO QUE SU PADRE 
TRABAJÓ EN VARIOS TRABAJOS 
MENTES APRENDÍA INGLÉS. SU PADRE
ES PRESTABA LA IMPORTANCIA DE LO
QUE SIGNIFICABA SER 

English: 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FACED 
DIFFICULT TIMES DURING YOUR 
CHILDHOOD, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> I CAN RELATE, THAT'S MY STORY
TOO.
BUT YOUR FATHER WENT ON TO 
BECOME AN ENGINEER, RIGHT?
>> HE RE-ESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN 
HIS FORMER PROFESSION IN THE 
UNITED STATES.
>> I CAN RELATE, I GOT A B.S. IN
ENGINEERING.
OF COURSE SOME PEOPLE CLAIM I 
PRACTICE THE B.S. PART NOW.
YOUR FATHER NEVER GAVE UP 
WORKING HARD TO BUILD HIS VERY 
OWN AMERICAN DREAM, DID HE?
>> HE DID NOT.
>> WELL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, YOUR FATHER ACHIEVED 
THE AMERICAN DREAM AND SO DID 
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.
FROM ONE IMMIGRANT AMERICAN TO 
ANOTHER IMMIGRANT AMERICAN, I 
WANT TO SAY TO YOU THAT YOU AND 
YOUR FAMILY REPRESENT THE VERY 
BEST OF AMERICA.
I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE AS PROUD 

Spanish: 
ESTADOUNIDENSE CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO
>>  TODAS SUS MEMORIAS DE NIÑA 
SE  RELACIONA LO QUE SER 
ESTADOUNIDENSE CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO
>> ESAS MI HISTORIA TAMBIÉN LO 
ENTIENDO. PERO SU PADRE LUEGO SE
VOLVIÓ UN INGENIERO NO
>> SÍ. ESA ERA SU ANTIGUA 
PROFESIÓN LO ENTIENDO.
LO ENTIENDO
>> SU PADRE NUNCA DEJÓ DE 
TRABAJAR PARA CONSTRUIR SU SUEÑO
AMERICANO
>> NO LO HIZO
>> NO SE DETUVO
>> USTEDES TODO SU FAMILIA LO 
A
HAN HECHO DE UN INMIGRANTE 
EMIGRANTE A OTRO EMIGRANTE 
ESTADOUNIDENSE LE QUIERO DECIR 
QUE USTED Y SU FAMILIA 
REPRESENTAN LO MEJOR DE LOS E
A
ESTADOUNIDENSES. ASUMO QUE ESTÁ 
TAN ORGULLOSO DE SER 
ESTADOUNIDENSE COMO YO. COR
O

English: 
TO BE AN AMERICAN AS I AM, 
CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> SIR, I WANT TO TURN YOUR 
ATTENTION TO YURIY LUTSENKO.
YOU CALLED HIM A DISRUPTIVE 
ACTOR, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> HE HAS MADE VARIOUS CLAIMS 
ABOUT VARIOUS AMERICANS, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU ARE UNAWARE OF ANY 
FACTUAL BASIS FOR HIS 
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> HE ALSO WAS A SOURCE FOR AN 
ARTICLE BY JOHN SOLOMON IN "THE 
HILL," RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU SAID THAT KEY 
ELEMENTS OF THAT ARTICLE AS WELL
AS HIS ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE, 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> LUTSENKO IS NOT A CREDIBLE 
SOURCE, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> SIR, THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMS 
THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO 
PRESSURE ON THIS JULY 25th PHONE
CALL.

Spanish: 
CORRECTO?
>> CORRECTO
>> SEÑOR,  QUIERE PONGAMOS LA 
ATENCIÓN EN EL OFICIAL UCRANIANO
QUE ABRIÓ HABLÓ CUANDO COMENZÓ A
COM
. SE HAN DICHO VARIAS COSAS 
SOBRE NUESTROS COMPATRIOTAS SE 
USTED ESTÁ CLARO DE QUE ESTAS 
ACUSACIONES TENGAN ALGUNA BASE 
CONTRA LA EMBAJADORA YOVANOVITCH
>> CORRECTO
>> TAMBIÉN FUE UNA LA FUENTE 
PARA UN ARTÍCULO CONTRA SOL 
ALEMÁN EN EL CAPITOLIO
>> CORRECTO
>> Y LOS TEMAS CLAVE EN ESE A
I

English: 
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD 
EARLIER, RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE SO.
>> AND YOU HAVE TERMED WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED IN TERMS 
OF INVESTIGATIONS ON THAT PHONE 
CALL AS A DEMAND, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOU POINTED OUT THE LARGE
POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE ONE HAND 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 
OTHER, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> THERE WAS PRESSURE ON THAT 
PHONE CALL, RIGHT?
>> THE -- THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED 
THE MEETING.
THE UKRAINIANS SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN
THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT NEEDED 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
>> SO PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO 
BEAR ON THEM, CORRECT?
>> I BELIEVE SO.
>> SIR, COLONEL VINDMAN, LAST 
WEEK WE HEARD A DECORATED 
MILITARY VETERAN, NAMELY 
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, COME 
BEFORE US.
YOU INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH 

Spanish: 
ARTÍCULO SON FALSOS CORRECTO
>> CORRECTO
>>,, EL OTRO LADO DICE QUE NO 
HUBO PRESIÓN EN LA CONVERSACIÓN 
DEL D25 DE JULIO?
>>> CORRECTO .
>>> ENTONCES HUBO PRESIÓN, 
VERDAD?
>>> LOS UCRANIANOS NECESITABAN 
LA REUNIÓN, POR LO TANTO CUANDO 
SE DIERON CUENTA DE QUE EL 
ASISTENCIA HABÍA SIDO CONGELADA,
POR LO TANTO LA PRESIÓN FUE 
PUESTA SOBRE ELLOS, ESO CREO YO.

English: 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND YOU KNOW 
HIM TO BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND
HE'S A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, ISN'T
THAT RIGHT?
>> SUPERB INDIVIDUAL. 
>> I ASKED HIM A SERIES OF 
QUESTIONS BASED ON HIS 
EXPERIENCE.
IS AN OFFICER ALLOWED TO HOLD UP
ACTION PLACING HIS TROOPS AT 
RISK UNTIL SOMEONE PROVIDES THEM
A PERSONAL BENEFIT?
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED NO, 
SIR.
COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE 
WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?
>> I DO. 
>> I THEN ASKED AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, QUOTE, IS THAT BECAUSE 
THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING THEIR 
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NATION?
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED YES,
SIR.
COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE 
WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?
>> I DO. 
>> I THEN ASKED AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, QUOTE, COULD THAT TYPE 
OF CONDUCT TRIGGER A 
COURT-MARTIAL?
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID, YES, 
SIR.
DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> I DO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER 
QUESTIONING.
REPRESENTATIVE NUNES YOU'RE 
RECOGNIZED FOR ANY CONCLUDING 
REMARKS. 
>> ACT ONE OF TODAY'S CIRCUS IS 

Spanish: 
>>>  LA SEMANA PASADA HEMOS 
ESCUCHADO QUE BILL TAYLOR Y 
USTED INTERACTUARON 
PERIÓDICAMENTE . ELES UN P
PATRIOTA O NO?
>>> ES UN INDIVIDUO SUPERIOR .
>>> USTED ESTÁ DE ACUERDO CON LO
QUE DIJO EL EMBAJADOR TAYLOR?
>>> SÍ .
>>> USTED ESTÁ DE ACUERDO EN QUE
ESO SERÍA TRAICIONAR A LOS 
ESTADOS UNIDOS?
>>> SÍ .
>>>  GRACIAS POR SU SERVICIO.

Spanish: 
>>> CON ESO SE TERMINA LAS 
PREGUNTAS .
>>> LUEGO DE QUE ESTE ES EL  STO
TERMINA, LOS DEMÓCRATAS NO ESTÁN
CERCA DE ENJUICIAR MÁS DE LO QUE
ESTABAN HACE TRES AÑOS. SE HA 
REALIZADO MUCHO DAÑO, LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS CONTINÚAN ENVENENANDO
A LOS ESTADOUNIDENSES CON ESTE 
SINSENTIDO, SIN EVIDENCIAS PARA 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. LO QUE ES 
ALGO MUY GRAVE SEGÚN LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. EL FRACASO DE LOS 

English: 
OVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN 
WATCHING IT AT HOME, THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE NO CLOSER TO 
IMPEACHMENT THAN WHERE THEY WERE
THREE YEARS AGO.
IN THE PROCESS THEY HAVE -- THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI, 
STATE DEPARTMENT, ELEMENTS 
WITHIN THE I.C., THE ICIG HAVE 
ALL SUFFERED LONG-TERM DAMAGE.
THE DEMOCRATS CAN CONTINUE TO 
PUT -- TO POISON THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WITH THIS NONSENSE.
WE SAT HERE ALL MORNING WITHOUT 
ANY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT 
WHICH WILL BE A VERY SERIOUS 
CRIME, HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANORS IT SAYS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
NO SUCH THING.
POLICY AGREEMENTS AND THE 
DEMOCRATS' FAILURE TO 
ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN
THE 2016 ELECTION, I WOULD SAY 
IT'S ASTONISHING THAT THAT WOULD
BE PUTTING TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS 
ON THEIR ACTIONS.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE 

Spanish: 
DEMÓCRATAS DE DEMOSTRAR QUE HUBO
INTERFERENCIA EN LAS ELECCIONES 
DEL 2016 SE SU MAESTRO . CON E
T
ESTO QUIERO SE DE LA PALABRA .
>>> QUIERO AGRADECERLES A AMBOS 
POR EL SERVICIO AL PAÍS, TAMBIÉN
LE GUSTARÍA HABLAR DEL EVIDENCIA
QUE USTEDES PRESENTARON. PRI
O
PRIMERO, QUIERO UNIRME A LOS 
COLEGAS POR AGRADECERLES SU 
SERVICIO. AL CORONEL POR SU 
SERVICIO MILITAR. Y NO NOS 
IMPORTA PORQUE FUE A HABLAR CON 
SU SU

English: 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES 
TODAY, MS. WILLIAMS, COLONEL 
VINDMAN, BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY AND FOR 
YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.
AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS 
BRIEFLY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE YOU
PRESENTED AS WELL AS OTHERS THUS
FAR IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JOIN MY 
COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU, 
COLONEL VINDMAN, FOR YOUR 
MILITARY SERVICE.
AND I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT 
NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THE 
QUESTIONS YOU GOT ON WHY DIDN'T 
YOU GO TALK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, 
WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TALK TO MR. 
MORRISON, WHY DID YOU GO TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, AS IF 
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH 
GOING WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY
LAWYER, ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE 
ASKED MR. MORRISON WHETHER HE 
WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
LAWYER RIGHT AFTER THE CALL AND 
THAT HE DID?
>> I AM. 
>> AND ARE YOU AWARE ALSO THAT 
WE ASKED HIM, WELL, IF YOU HAD 

English: 
THIS PROBLEM WITH COLONEL 
VINDMAN NOT GOING TO YOU INSTEAD
OF THE LAWYER, NATURALLY YOU 
MUST HAVE GONE TO YOUR 
SUPERVISOR.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT HIS ANSWER WAS?
HE DIDN'T GO TO HIS SUPERVISOR 
EITHER.
HE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER SO I 
HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL GIVE HIM
THE SAME HARD TIME FOR NOT 
FOLLOWING HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND 
AS THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT WITH 
YOU.
THE PRESIDENT MAY ATTACK YOU AND
HAS.
OTHERS ON RIGHT-WING TV MIGHT 
ATTACK YOU, AND THEY HAVE.
BUT I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW 
AND MAYBE YOU KNOW ALREADY THAT 
THIS IS WHAT THE FORMER CHAIRMAN
OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF HAD
TO SAY ABOUT YOU, COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
HE IS A PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT 
PATRIOTIC AND LOYAL OFFICER.
HE HAS MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY 
CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECURITY OF 
OUR NATION IN BOTH PEACE TIME 
AND COMBAT.
I'M SURE YOUR DAD IS PROUD TO 
HEAR THAT.
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TRIED TO MAKE
THE ARGUMENT HERE TODAY, AND 

Spanish: 
EL SEÑOR EISENBERG EN VEZ DE SU 
SUPERIOR. UUSTED SABE QUE ÉL 
TAMBIÉN FUE A HABLAR ACERCA DE 
LA LLAMADA. EL SEÑOR MORRISON 
TAMPOCO HABLÓ CON SU SUPERIOR, 
SINO QUE HABLÓ CON  UNA PERSONA 
DE INTELIGENCIA. LA PERSONA QUE 
LO ATACA HOMO TAMBIÉN OTRAS 
PERSONAS SE DERECHA QUE LO 
ATACARÁN, NO IMPORTA ESTO ES LO 
QUE DIJERON DE USTED.
>>> ÉL ES UNA PERSONA COMP
E
COMPETENTE, LEAL, HA HECHO UNA 
CONTRIBUCIÓN SORPRENDENTE LA 
SEGURIDAD DE NUESTRO PAÍS  EN LA
PAZ Y EN EL COMBATE . ESTOY 
SEGURO DE QUE SU PADRE SE S

English: 
WE'VE HEARD IT BEFORE, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS JUST INTERESTED IN
FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
THAT'S OUR GOAL, FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THIS 
TERRIBLY CORRUPT COUNTRY.
THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, WITH 
THAT IS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF 
THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION.
THE EVIDENCE ALL POINTS IN THE 
OTHER DIRECTION.
THE EVIDENCE POINTS IN THE 
DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 
INVITING UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN 
THE CORRUPT ACT OF INVESTIGATING
A U.S. POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS KNOWN
AS A STRONG FIGHTER OF 
CORRUPTION, SO WHAT DOES THE 
PRESIDENT DO?
HE RECALLS HER FROM HER POST.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IN FACT 
WAS AT A MEETING CELEBRATING 
OTHER ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHTERS, 
INCLUDING A WOMAN WHO HAD ACID 
THROWN IN HER FACE ON THE DAY 
SHE WAS TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT 
PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON.
YOU PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR 
THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST 
CONVERSATION WITH ZELENSKY.
HE'S SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT 

Spanish: 
SENTIRÁ ORGULLOSO DE ESCUCHAR 
ESO.
>>> EL PRESIDENTE SÓLO QUERÍA 
LUCHAR CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN ESO 
ES LO QUE DICEN LOS GITANOS, 
PORQUE ESTE ES UN PAÍS MUY 
CORRUPTO, EL PROBLEMA DE ESO ES 
QUE NO HAY EVIDENCIA DE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTUVIERA LUCHANDO 
CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN. LA 
EVIDENCIA MUESTRA QUÉ EL 
PRESIDENTE INVITÓ A UCRANIA  A  
INCURRIR EN CORRUPCIÓN AL 
INVESTIGAR A UN OPONENTE 
POLÍTICO. LA EMBAJADORA 
YOVANOVITCH LUCHA CONTRA LA 
CORRUPCIÓN, POR LO TANTO LO QUE 
HACE ES RETIRARLA DE SUPUESTO, 
LA EMBAJADORA YOVANOVITCH  
ESTABA EN UNA REUNIÓN CELEBRANDO

English: 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION.
IF THIS PRESIDENT HAD SUCH A 
DEEP INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SURELY HE
WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IN THE 
CALL BUT OF COURSE WE NOW KNOW 
THAT HE DID NOT.
WE THEN SEE RUDY GIULIANI NOT 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION, BUT ASKING 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS.
MY COLLEAGUES SAY MAYBE HE WAS 
ACTING ON HIS OWN, EVEN THOUGH 
HE SAYS HE'S ACTING AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.
MAYBE HE WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN.
BUT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI WANTED COME UP IN 
THE MEETING YOU PARTICIPATE IN 
ON JULY 10th AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGS 
UP THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND 
2016.
TELLS THE UKRAINIANS WHO WANT 
THAT MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE,
YOU'VE GOT TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
NOW, THEY WOULD SAY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN, 
BUT THAT DOESN'T QUITE WORK 
EITHER BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CALL 
RECORD FROM JULY 25th, WHICH THE
PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELEASE,
IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
BRING UP CORRUPTION.

Spanish: 
UN ÉXITO CONTRA LA CORRUPCIÓN 
CUANDO LE DIJERON QUE DEBÍA 
VOLVER A WASHINGTON. SI ESTE 
PRESIDENTE REALMENTE LE 
INTERESARA LUCHAR CONTRA LA 
CORRUPCIÓN, SEGUIDO OTRO CURSO 
DE ACCIÓN. LUEGO VEMOS A RUDY 
GIULIANI NO LUCHANDO CONTRA LA 
COLUSIÓN SI LUSINO PIDIENDO UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA LOS BIDEN. 
LAS INVESTIGACIONES QUE RUDY 
GIULIANI QUERÍAS APARECEN EN LA 
REUNIÓN DEL 10 DE JULIO EN LA 
QUE USTEDES ESTABAN, DONDE LE 

Spanish: 
DICEN QUE SI EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI QUIERE UNA REUNIÓN CON 
EL PRESIDENTE TRAPA TEUMP TENDÁ 
INVESTIGAR LOS BIDEN. LO QUE 
DICE EL PRESIDENTE ES QUE QUIERE
QUE INVESTIGUEN A LOS BIDEN Y LA
INVEST
Y LA IDEA DE PUTIN DE QUE LOS 
UCRANIANOS ESTABAN INVOLUCRADOS 
EN LA ELECCIÓN DEL 2016. TAMBIÉN
DEJÓ CLARO QUE SÍ QUERÍAN UNA 
REUNIÓN EN LA CASA BLANCA  Y LOS
400 MILLONES DE DÓLARES  DE 
AYUDA POLÍTICA TENÍAN QUE HACER 
LO QUE DEBÍAN HACER, PERO NO 
FUERON EXITOSOS, LOS ATRAPARON, 

English: 
HE DOESN'T SAY HOW ARE THOSE 
ANTI-CORRUPTION COURTS GOING OR 
GREAT WORK.
OF COURSE NOT.
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY?
I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS AND THIS DEBUNKED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY PUSHED BY 
VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT ALSO HELPS 
ME IN MY RE-ELECTION.
SO MUCH FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
THE MESSAGE TO UKRAINE, THE REAL
MESSAGE TO UKRAINE, OUR U.S. 
POLICY MESSAGE IS DON'T ENGAGE 
IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT, 
HOWEVER, WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
DO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS AND DO IT FOR MY 
RE-ELECTION.
AND IT'S ALSO MADE CLEAR THEY 
WANT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND
ULTIMATELY IF THEY WANT $400 
MILLION IN U.S. AID, THIS IS 
WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
THE ONLY LAMENT I HEAR FROM MY 
COLLEAGUES IS IT WASN'T 
SUCCESSFUL.
THEY GOT CAUGHT.
THEY DIDN'T GET THE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS AND THEY STILL 
HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY.
THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, BUT THEY 
HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY BECAUSE
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BLEW THE 

English: 
WHISTLE.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THE PRESIDENT
WANTS TO PUNISH.
AND BECAUSE CONGRESS ANNOUNCED 
IT WAS DOING INVESTIGATIONS, 
THEN VERY SOON THEREAFTER THE 
PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO LIFT THE
HOLD ON THE AID.
THEY ARGUE, WELL, THIS MAKES IT 
OKAY, THAT IT WAS A FAILED 
EFFORT TO BRIBE UKRAINE, A 
FAILED EFFORT TO EXTORT UKRAINE.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT BETTER.
IT'S NO LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT 
WAS DISCOVERED AND IT WAS 
STOPPED.
WE HAVE COURAGEOUS PEOPLE LIKE 
YOURSELF WHO COME FORWARD, WHO 
REPORT THINGS, WHO DO WHAT THEY 
SHOULD DO, WHO HAVE A SENSE AS 
YOU PUT IT, COLONEL, OF DUTY, OF
DUTY, NOT TO THE PERSON OF THE 
PRESIDENT BUT TO THE PRESIDENCY 
AND TO THE COUNTRY.
AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK 
THIS ALL COMES BACK TO SOMETHING
WE HEARD FROM ANOTHER CAREER 
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER JUST 
LAST FRIDAY IN A CONVERSATION HE

Spanish: 
POR LÔ TANTO TUVIERON QUE 
LIBERAR EL DINERO, PORQUE EL 
DENUNCIANTE  LOS DENUNCIO PUNTOS
Y POR QUÉ EL CONGRESO ANUNCIÓ 
QUE IBA HABER INVESTIGACIÓN 
CONTRA ELLOS, POR LO TANTO T
TUVIERON QUE LIBERAR LA AYUDA. 
LOS REPUBLICANOS DICEN QUE ESTO 
LO SOLUCIONA TODO, PERO NO LO 
MEJORA, SIMPLEMENTE FUE 
DESCUBIERTO Y DETENIDO . TENEMOS
PERSONAS VALIENTES COMO USTEDES 
QUE ES ALZA LA VOZ Y DENUNCIAN Y
HACEN LO QUE DEBEN HACER, COMO 
USTED LO PONE CORONEL, ES UN 
DEBER, PARA EL PAÍS Y LA 
PRESIDENCIA, Y LES AGRADECEMOS 
POR ESO. AL FINAL DEL DÍA CREO 
QUE ESTO SE TRATA DE LO QUE OTRA

Spanish: 
PERSONA DIJO EL VIERNES EN UNA 
CONVERSACIÓN QUE ESCUCHÓ EN UN 
RESTAURANTE DEL PRESIDENTE CON
E
EL SEÑOR SONDLAND. ESTO ES UN 
DÍA DESPUÉS DE LA LLAMADA DEL 25
DE JULIO. EL SEÑOR SONDLAND 
ASEGURÓ QUE LOS UCRANIANOS LO 
IBAN A SHACER. EL PRESIDENTE NO 
SE EXPLAYA CERCA DE UCRANIA, 
SÓLO LE IMPORTAN LAS COSAS G
GRANDES, LOS QUE AYUDA SU 
INTERÉS PERSONAL ES TODO LO QUE 
DEBEN SABER ESO NO ES ACERCA DE 
UCRANIA,, ELLOS ESTÁN LUCHANDO 

English: 
OVERHEARD WITH THE PRESIDENT IN 
A RESTAURANT IN UKRAINE IN WHICH
THE PRESIDENT, NOT RUDY 
GIULIANI, NOT ANYONE ELSE, THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WANTED TO KNOW ARE THEY GONNA DO
THE INVESTIGATIONS?
THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THAT JULY 
25th CALL.
ARE THEY GONNA DO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
AND HE'S ASSURED BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.
AND WHAT DOES SONDLAND RELATE TO
THIS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER 
AFTER HE HANGS UP THAT CALL?
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GIVE A 
EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG 
THINGS THAT HELP HIS PERSONAL 
INTERESTS.
THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
AND IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT UKRAINE,
OF COURSE.
UKRAINE IS FIGHTING OUR FIGHT 
AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, AGAINST 
THEIR EXPANSIONISM.
THAT'S OUR FIGHT TOO.
THAT'S OUR FIGHT TOO.
AT LEAST WE THOUGHT SO ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS.
THAT'S OUR FIGHT TOO.
THAT'S WHY WE SUPPORT UKRAINE 
WITH THE MILITARY AID THAT WE 

English: 
HAVE.
WELL, THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT CARE
ABOUT IT, BUT WE DO.
WE CARE ABOUT OUR DEFENSE.
WE CARE ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF OUR
ALLIES, AND WE DARN WELL CARE 
ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
I PLEASE ASK THE AUDIENCE TO 
ALLOW THE WITNESSES AND THE 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE TO GO VOTE TO 
LEAVE FIRST.
>>> AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE'VE
GOT A LOT MORE TO GO.
WE'RE OVER FOUR AND A HALF HOURS
NOW INTO THIS HEARING, THE 
SECOND WEEK OF IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY HEARINGS AND THE 
WITNESSES TODAY, JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS, STATE DEPARTMENT 
EMPLOYEE ATTACHED TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN.
WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT
THEY WERE LISTENING TO THAT JULY
25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
BOTH WERE BOTHERED BY IT AND 
PRETTY MUCH STUCK TO THEIR 
STORIES IN VERY MATTER OF FACT 
TESTIMONY.
WE'LL BREAK THAT DOWN IN JUST A 
MOMENT.
BUT WE WANT TO KNOW THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD A CABINET MEETING 
TODAY IN WHICH HE DISCUSSED SOME

Spanish: 
UNA GUERRA  CONTRA RUSIA Y LA 
EXPANSIÓN, ESA LUCHA TAMBIÉN ES 
NUESTRA. ESTAPOR ESO AYUDAMOS A 
UCRANIANOS CON AYUDA, PERO EL 
PRESIDENTE NO LE IMPORTA, A 
NOSOTROS Y. NOS IMPORTAN 
NUESTROS ALIADOS LUY LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN .
 CON ESTOCCON ESTO SE TERMINA ÓN
.
>>> VEMOS LOS TESTIGOS LA SEÑORA
WILLIAMS Y EL CORONEL VINDMAN 
QUE ESCUCHARON LA CONVERSACIÓN 
DEL PRESIDENTE TRUMP CON EL 
PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI EL 25 DE 
JULIO. VOLVEREMOS EN UN MOMENTO 

Spanish: 
PERO LES DIREMOS QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE TENÍA UNA REUNIÓN DE 
GABINETE QUE ESTUVO COMENTANDO 
LO QUE ESTÁ OCURRIENDO.
VAMOS CON HALLIE JACKSON.
>>> SUS PALABRAS ÉL CREÍA QUE 
LOS REPUBLICANOS LO ESTABA 
HACIENDO MUY BIEN, ÉL ESTABA MUY
CONTENTO. ESTABA EN EL GABINETE 
CON MIS COLEGAS Y LUEGO DE QUE 
EL PRESIDENTE CRITICÓ A ANNAN SI
PELOSI COMO INCOMPETENTE, LE 
PREGUNTÉ SI ÉL CREÍA  QUE 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN ES UN TESTIGO 
CREÍBLE AUTO
>>> ESA MUJER ES ABSURDA SÓLO 
ESTÁ ENFOCADA EN EL JUICIO 

English: 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT ONGOING 
EFFORTS.
LET'S GO TO HALLIE JACKSON RIGHT
NOW AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
HALLIE. 
>> Reporter: LESTER, WE KNOW 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
WATCHING AT LEAST PART OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS THIS 
MORNING.
IN HIS WORDS HE SAID HE BELIEVED
REPUBLICANS WERE KILLING IT.
PLEASED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE.
I WAS ACTUALLY IN THAT CABINET 
MEETING ON BEHALF OF MY 
COLLEAGUES HERE AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE PRESS CORPS.
AFTER THE PRESIDENT BLASTED 
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AS 
N
INCOMPETENT, I ASKED HIM WHETHER
HE BELIEVED LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN WAS A CREDIBLE
WITNESS.
WATCH.
>> THE WOMAN IS GROSSLY 
INCOMPETENT.
ALL SHE WANTS TO DO IS FOCUS ON 
IMPEACHMENT, WHICH IS JUST A 
LITTLE PIPE DREAM SHE'S GOT.
AND SHE CAN KEEP PLAYING THAT 
GAME.
AND I'VE BEEN TOLD, WHO KNOWS IF
THIS IS SO, BUT I THINK IT'S SO,
I HAVE PRETTY GOOD AUTHORITY ON 
IT, THAT SHE'S USING USMCA 
BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE 
IMPEACHMENT VOTES SO SHE'S USING
USMCA TO GET THE IMPEACHMENT 
VOTE.

Spanish: 
POLÍTICO. ME DIJERON QUE ESTABA 
IZANDO OOTROS MEDIOS PARA 
CONSEGUIR LOS VOTOS DEL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO PERO NO IMPORTA, PORQU 
REPUBLICANOS LO ESTÁN HACIENDO 
MUY BIEN. PORQUE ESTO ES UNA 
ESTAFA, UNA GRAN ESTAFA.
NO CONOZCO AL CORONEL VINDMAN, 
NUNCA HE VISTO AL HOMBRE.
>
NO LO CONOZCO, LO QUE SE ES QUE 
ÉL DIJO QUE LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN 
ESTABA CORRECTA. PARA CUALQUIERA
QUE LEA LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN SE DAÁA

English: 
AND IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE 
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A KANGAROO 
COURT HEADED BY LITTLE SHIFTY 
SCHIFF WHERE WE DON'T HAVE 
LAWYERS, WE DON'T HAVE 
WITNESSES, WE DON'T HAVE 
ANYTHING AND YET I JUST GOT TO 
WATCH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT.
THEY ARE DOING SO WELL, BECAUSE 
IT'S A SCAM.
IT'S A BIG SCAM.
THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT THE
FOUNDERS NEVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE 
AND THE FOUNDERS DIDN'T WANT.
I DON'T KNOW HIM.
I DON'T KNOW AS HE SAYS THE 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
I UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY HAD THE 
MISS FORTUNE OF CALLING HIM 
MISTER AND HE CORRECTED THEM.
I UNDERSTAND NOW HE WEARS HIS 
UNIFORM WHEN HE GOES IN.
NO, I DON'T KNOW VINDMAN AT ALL.
WHAT I DO KNOW IS EVEN HE SAID 
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT.
IF ANYBODY READS THE 
TRANSCRIPTS, I HAD TWO CALLS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, 
WHO, BY THE WAY, SAID THERE WAS 
NO PRESSURE WHATSOEVER.
THERE WAS NO ANYTHING.
THEY DON'T -- THEY PROBABLY 
THINK -- THEY PROBABLY CAN'T 
EVEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING 

English: 
ON WITH THIS COUNTRY.
BUT VINDMAN, I WATCHED HIM FOR A
LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING.
AND I THINK HE -- I'M GOING TO 
LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN 
DETERMINATION. 
>> Reporter: SO THERE YOU HAVE 
THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS.
LET ME BRING YOU BEHIND THE 
SCENES INSIDE THE WEST WING AS 
TO WHAT WE ARE HEARING FROM OUR 
SOURCES BASED ON OUR REPORTING 
OVER THE LAST FOUR, FOUR AND A 
HALF HOURS OR SO.
THE WHITE HOUSE, OUR SOURCES ARE
LARGELY DOWNPLAYING THE HEARING 
CALLING THIS A DUD ESSENTIALLY.
THAT'S COMING FROM OFFICIALS WHO
HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT RAPID RESPONSE TEAM 
INTENDED TO MESSAGE OUT THEIR 
PERSPECTIVE HERE.
UNSURPRISINGLY THESE OFFICIALS 
ARE PICKING UP PARTS OF THE 
TESTIMONY FROM LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, FROM JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AS WELL.
OF COURSE A DETAILEE TO THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE IN THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS, 
TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT BACK 
UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE'S VIEW 
THEIR ARGUMENT AND THE ARGUMENT 
FROM THE PRESIDENT.
YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT OF IT 
THERE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING EVEN 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN SAID THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT, SAID THE
TRANSCRIPT WAS LARGELY ACCURATE 
ESSENTIALLY.
SO I WOULD WATCH FOR THAT MOVING

Spanish: 
CUENTA DE QUE NO HABÍA NADA, 
ELLOS PROBABLEMENTE NO ENTIENDE 
LO QUE ESTÁ OCURRIENDO. VI A 
VINDMAN POR UN RATO ESTA MAÑANA,
CREO QUE DEJARÉ QUE LAS PERSONAS
TOMEN UNA DETERMINACIÓN POR SÍ 
MISMAS  .
>>> LO QUE HEMOS ESCUCHADO DE 
NUESTRAS FUENTES ES QUE 
ESTUVIERON UNAS CUATRO HORAS Y 
MEDIA EN UNA REUNIÓN, QUE ESTÁ 
EN MIS Y MINNIMIZANDO EL IMPACT 
AUDIENCIA. HAN RECOGIDO PARTE DE
LOS TESTIMONIOS Y HABLAN DE LOS 
ARGUMENTOS DE LA CASA BLANCA Y 

Spanish: 
DEL PRESIDENTE. SE QUEDARON CON 
EL HECHO DE QUE EL CORONEL 
DIJERA QUE LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN ERA 
PRECISA. NO LO ATACÓ, PERO SI 
ATACÓ A MARIE YOVANOVITCH LA 
SEMANA PASADA. ESO NO HA 
OCURRIDO ESTA SEMANA, EL P
PRESIDENTE QUIZÁS ESTÁ  
ENTENDIENDO, POR QUÉ EL CORONEL 
ES ALGUIEN QUE SERVÍ O AL LAL 
PAÍS, Y HA SIDO CONDECORADO. EEL
PRESIDENTE TENDRÁ UNA SEMANA MUY
OCUPADA, PARA TRATAR DE 
CONTRARRESTAR LAS AUDIENCIAS. 

English: 
FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S NOTABLE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT MORE DIRECTLY 
ATTACK LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
REMEMBER HE DID SO LAST WEEK 
WHEN FORMER AMBASSADOR TO 
UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS 
TESTIFYING.
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED HER, 
BLASTING HER SERVICE.
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED SO FAR.
THE PRESIDENT PERHAPS COGNIZANT 
OF THE OPTICS OF THIS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL A PURPLE 
HEART RECIPIENT, SERVED IN THE 
U.S. MILITARY SHOWING UP IN 
UNIFORM ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM
CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE ANY 
FURTHER PUBLIC EVENTS SCHEDULED 
BUT HE HAS A BI BUSY WEEK HERE.
YOU HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT TRADE 
AND THE USMCA TRADE DEAL WITH 
MEXICO AND CANADA JUST BEFORE 
THAT CABINET MEETING.
HE BROUGHT IN LOCAL RADIO 
REPORTERS FROM AROUND THE 
COUNTRY TO DO INTERVIEWS, TO 
TALK WITH HIS TEAM, TO TALK WITH
HIS CABINET ABOUT THAT.
TOMORROW HE HEADS DOWN TO TEXAS 
FOR ANOTHER EVENT.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO 
SHOW EVEN AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE 

English: 
FOCUSING ON IMPEACHMENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO DO 
THE WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT SAID, THE PRESIDENT, 
OBVIOUSLY BY HIS OWN 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, IS VERY CLEARLY
ENGAGED IN WHAT IS UNFOLDING IN 
FRONT OF AMERICA RIGHT NOW. 
>> HALLIE JACKSON, THANKS.
IT PROBABLY BECAME SELF-EVIDENT 
BUT HE SAID I THINK THE WOMAN IS
GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, HE WAS 
TALKING ABOUT NANCY PELOSI, NOT 
THE WITNESS, JENNIFER WILLIAMS.
I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR 
BEFORE I BRING BACK OUR PANEL, 
CHUCK TODD AND BERIT BERGER JOIN
US HERE.
LET ME START WITH YOU.
WE KNEW GOING IN THAT 
REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO HAVE A
DIFFICULT TIME OF HOW TO HANDLE 
THE COLONEL BECAUSE HE'S A 
WOUNDED WAR VET, A COMBAT 
VETERAN.
THEY CHOSE TO GO AT THE ISSUE OF
HIM JUMPING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
IN TERMS OF HOW HE REPORTED HIS 
DISCOMFORT WITH THE CALL.
DID THEY MAKE INROADS THERE?
>> I THINK IT PROBABLY DEPENDS 
ON WHO YOU ASK.
THEY CERTAINLY MUDDIED THE 
WATERS A LITTLE BIT.
WHAT TO ME WAS VERY CLEAR FROM 

Spanish: 
CCONVERSARÁN ACERCA DEL ACUERDO 
CON CANADÁ Y MÉXICO. MAÑANA 
TENDREMOS OTROS EVENTOS, LA CASA
BLANCA ESTÁ TRATANDO DE 
DEMOSTRAR QUE AUNQUE ES EXISTA 
LAS AUDIENCIAS EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTÁ SIRVIENDO A LOS ES
ESTADOUNIDENSES. ESTÁ SIN 
EMBARGO BASTANTE INVOLUCRADO CON
LO QUE ESTÁ OCURRIENDO .
>>> QUIERO ACLARAR QUE CUANDO  
EL PRESIDENTE DIJO QUE LA MUJER 
ERA INCOMPETENTE ESTABA HABLANDO
DE NANCY PELOSI NO DE LA TESTIGO
LA SEÑORA WILLIAMS.
> COME
>
PARECE QUE EL TUVIERON MÁS 
DIFICULTAD PARA HABLAR CON EL 

English: 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY IS 
THAT HE WAS DESPERATELY TRYING 
TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT.
HE WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE 
APPROPRIATE CHANNELS, FIRST 
REACHING OUT TO THE LAWYER, 
TAKING DIRECTION FROM THE 
LAWYER, TRYING TO SHARE THIS 
INFORMATION.
NOW, DID REPUBLICANS SCORE ANY 
POINTS BY SAYING, WELL, YOU 
SHOULD HAVE GONE TO YOUR DIRECT 
SUPERVISOR, YOU SHOULD HAVE NOT 
TALKED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE.
IT'S HARD TO TELL.
BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT THEY 
PROBABLY WERE A LITTLE DESPERATE
AS TO HOW TO ATTACK THIS TYPE OF
A WITNESS IF THE TYPE OF 
REPORTING AND THE FORM OF 
REPORTING IS WHAT THEY CHOSE TO 
FOCUS ON. 
>> IT WAS THERE AND ALSO THEY 
SEIZED ON HIS RELUCTANCE OR 
UNWILLINGNESS TO POINT OUT WHO 
MIGHT BE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
>> AND THEY WENT THROUGH THIS 
WHOLE DID YOU TALK TO "THE 
WASHINGTON POST," "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES," THEY WERE TRYING TO 
PAINT HIM AS SOMEBODY THAT WAS 
OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT THE 
WHOLE TIME AND MAY HAVE BEEN A 
LEAKER.
YOU KNOW, I FELT TODAY WAS THE 
EQUIVALENT OF WATCHING SOMEBODY 
PUNCH COUCH CUSHIONS.
THE REPUBLICANS WERE TRYING 
DESPERATELY, YEAH, AND THEY 
WOULD SIT THERE AND TRY TO THROW

Spanish: 
CORONEL, POR QUÉ SIRVE A LA 
MILICIA. .
>>> PARA MÍ FUE MUY CLARO DE 
PARTE DEL CORONEL, QUE EL 
DESESPERADAMENTE ESTABA TRATANDO
DE ENTREGAR LA INFORMACIÓN POR 
LOS CANALES APROPIADOS  . LOS 
REPUBLICANOS QUIZÁS TUVIERAN 
ALGUNOS PUNTOS CUANDO DIJERON 
QUE DEBERÍA HABLADO CON SU SU
R
SUPERIOR, PERO ESO MUESTRA QUE 
ESTABA DESESPERADO, POR ESTE 
TIPO DE TESTIGOS Y COMO ESTABA 
INFORMANDO.
>>> NO LO VEN TITUBEAN DO..
>>> LO MUESTRAN COMO ALGUIEN QUE

Spanish: 
SEA DÉBIL, LOS REPUBLICANOS 
DESESPERADAMENTE ESTABAN 
HACIENDO UN ESFUERZO PERO LUEGO 
SE SIENTAN, NO TIENEN UNA MANERA
DE ARRUINAR SU CREDIBILIDAD CREO
QUE LO INTENTARON PERO NO 
LLEGARON A NINGUNA PARTE. TODOS 
SUS INTENTOS POR DISMINUIR ESTE 
TESTIGO FUERON UN FRACASO.
ME PARECE MUY INTERESANTE EL 
TESTIMONIO DEL SEÑOR PÓQUER POR 
QUÉ VA A CAMBIAR CÓMO VA A 
AFECTAR ESO A LOS REPUBLICANOS. 
COMO ESO SERÁ RECIBIDO HOY LO 
VEREMOS MÁS ADELANTE.

English: 
SOMETHING OUT THERE AND IT WOULD
GO SORT OF NOWHERE, IT WOULD 
FALL FLAT.
THEY DON'T HAVE A WAY OF SORT OF
UNDERMINING THE CREDIBILITY.
I THINK THEY TRIED.
IT DIDN'T REALLY GO ANYWHERE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY THE WHITE 
HOUSE SPIN IS SAYING IT'S A DUD.
WELL, IT'S A DUD FOR THEM 
BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO
UNDERMINE THESE FOLKS DIDN'T 
WORK.
LOOK, THEY HAVE TO PREPARE FOR 
WHAT'S COMING.
WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE TESTIMONY IN 
THE SECOND HALF TODAY FROM 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO IS GOING 
TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY.
AND HOW THAT PLAYS WITH THAT 
PANEL BOTH DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS, WE'RE GOING TO GET 
A LITTLE HINT OF HOW TOMORROW IS
GOING TO GO.
GORDON SONDLAND HAS HAD TO 
CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY SINCE THE 
DEPOSITION.
WE'LL ALSO HAVE AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER DOING THE SAME THING.
HOW THAT IS RECEIVED TODAY WILL 
GIVE US A HINT AT WHAT TOMORROW 
IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. 
>> AND TIMOTHY MORRISON WILL 
TESTIFY.
COLONEL VINDMAN'S BOSS AND CAN 
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. 
>> AND REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING TO
MAKE MORRISON -- THEY BELIEVE 

Spanish: 
>>> TIM MORRISON TAMBIÉN VA A 
T
ATESTIGUAR TODO
>>>  ELLOS CREEN QUE MORRISON Y 
PÓQUER PODR 
VOLKER PODRÁN AYUDAR A SU 
DISCURSO.
>>> QUÉ TAN CRÍTICOS SON ESTOS 
TESTIGOS AL CONTINUAR EL EN ESTA
NARRATIVA.
>>> CREO QUE SERÁN MUY 
IMPORTANTES POR LO QUE VISTE 
CHUCK. NO SABEMOS EXACTAMENTE 
CÓMO SE VAN A APROXIMAR ESTO 
QUIZÁS A HACER UN POCO MÁS 
DIFÍCIL PARA LOS DEMÓCRATAS, 
PERO CREO QUE CIERTAMENTE SON 
IMPORTANTES PARA LA REL. COMO 
VIERON NARRATIVA. COMO VEN HOY
H

English: 
MORRISON AND VOLKER CAN HELP 
THEIR STORY A BIT HERE, CAN HELP
THE PRESIDENT A BIT.
I DON'T KNOW -- YOU KNOW, I 
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE IF
AMBASSADOR VOLKER ENDS UP HAVING
TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY AGAIN.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A REAL 
PROBLEM. 
>> BERIT, HOW CRITICAL ARE 
VOLKER AND MORRISON NOW IN TERMS
OF TELLING THIS NARRATIVE 
DEMOCRATS WANT TO TELL?
>> I THINK THEY'LL BE VERY 
IMPORTANT WITNESSES FOR THE SAME
REASONS CHUCK WAS SAYING.
FIRST OF ALL, THESE ARE SORT OF 
THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES THAT 
YOU'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW 
DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO APPROACH 
THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
NECESSARILY FALL INTO THE SAME 
CATEGORY OF WHOLLY HELPFUL OR 
FRIENDLY WITNESSES TO THEM.
SO IT MAY BE A LITTLE TRICKIER 
FOR DEMOCRATS, THEIR QUESTIONING
OF THESE WITNESSES TOO.
BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY IMPORTANT
FOR THE NARRATIVE.
LOOK, YOU SAW ONE OF THE THINGS 
COLONEL VINDMAN WAS REALLY CROSS
EXAMINED ON TODAY WAS HIS 
JUDGMENT.
YOU HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE PUTTING
OUT ON THEIR PAGE SAYING THAT 
MORRISON QUESTIONED VINDMAN'S 
JUDGMENT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING 

Spanish: 
HUBO MUCHO JUICIO,, DICIENDO QUE
MORRISON ESTÁ CUESTIONANDO EL 
JUICIO DE VINDMAN. QUÉ SIGNIFICA
ESO? ÉL TIENE POCO JUICIO?
>>>  NO PARECÍA MUY PREOCUPADO 
AL FINAL, PORQUE  MORRISON VA A 
ATE ATESTIGUAR LO MISMO, DE QUE 
USTED FUE AL ABOGADO PRIMERO NO 
A SU SUPERIOR. PERO YO TAMBIÉN 
CREO QUE LOS REPUBLICANOS ESTÁN 
CONTANDO CON MORRISON, ESPERAN 
QUE AYUDE MÁS.
>>> HABLEMOS AHORA CONTIGO 
RICHAR NUESTRO  CORRESPONSAL EN 
EUROPA.
PUEDES PONER EN PERSPECTIVA LO 
QUE DIJERON LOS UCRANIANOS 

English: 
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE 
WITNESS NOW TO ASK HIM WHAT 
EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN?
DID YOU THINK THIS WAS SOMEBODY 
THAT HAD POOR JUDGMENT?
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT FOR THIS 
PROCEEDING?
>> ADAM SCHIFF SEEMED CONCERNED 
ABOUT IT ENOUGH THAT HE 
REDIRECTED AT THE ENDING THERE, 
ALMOST SAYING, LOOK, MORRISON IS
GOING TO END UP TESTIFYING TO 
THE SAME THING YOU DID, WHICH IS
YOU WENT TO THE LAWYER FIRST, 
YOU DIDN'T GO TO YOUR DIRECT 
REPORT.
SO IT'S INTERESTING, THEY'RE 
NERVOUS ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO 
REDIRECT THAT.
BUT I ALSO THINK IT GOES TO 
REPUBLICANS ARE COUNTING ON, I 
THINK, MORRISON TO BE MORE 
HELPFUL THAN PERHAPS HE WILL BE.
>> I WANT TO GO TO RICHARD ENGLE
RIGHT NOW IN LONDON, OUR CHIEF 
FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT.
RICHARD, REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO
MENTION ZELENSKY PUBLICLY SAID 
THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.
WE REMEMBER THAT GET-TOGETHER 
WITH THE PRESIDENT AT THE U.N.
CAN YOU PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE,
WHAT THE UKRAINIANS HAVE SAID 
ABOUT WHAT THE U.S. EXPECTED, 
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION 
EXPECTED?

Spanish: 
ACERCA DE LO QUE SE ESPERABA DE 
ELLOS DE PARTE DE LA AD
ADMINISTRACIÓN?
>>> POR SUPUESTO HABÍA PRESIÓN, 
HE HABLADO CON MUCHOS 
FUNCIONARIOS UCRANIANOS SE HAN  
HABÍA HECHO CLARO DURANTE MESES 
DE CAMPAÑA QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
QUERÍA ESA INFORMACIÓN, ESA 
INVESTIGACIÓN, DE LA I
INVESTIGACIÓN DEL 2016  Y LOS 
BIDEN. POR LO TANTO EMPIEZA LA 
LLAMADA  SABIENDO CUÁLES ERAN 
SUS EXPECTATIVAS. EL PRESIDENTE 
TRUMP PREGUNTA AL PRESIDENTE 

English: 
>> WELL, OF COURSE THERE WAS 
PRESSURE.
I'VE SPOKEN TO NUMEROUS 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 
AND THEY SAID THERE IS NO WAY 
THAT THERE COULD BE ANYTHING BUT
PRESSURE.
YOU HAVE THE BRAND-NEW UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR TO 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS OVER A 
SEVERAL MONTH-LONG CAMPAIGN THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS THIS 
INFORMATION, WANTS 
INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT BOTH 
INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND INTO
THE BIDEN FAMILY.
SO HE'S GOING INTO THIS PHONE 
CALL KNOWING WHAT THE 
EXPECTATIONS ARE AND THEN HE HAS
TO COME OUT AND SAY WERE YOU 
PRESSURED.
IF YOU LOOK BACK, IT IS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO BASICALLY 
SAYS TO HIM WERE YOU PRESSURED?
WHAT DO YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO 
SAY?
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SAID, YES, 
OF COURSE HE WAS PRESSURED.
AND ONE OFFICIAL DESCRIBED THIS 
TO ME ALMOST LIKE A HOSTAGE 
VIDEO.
THAT HE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY 
OTHER CHOICE.
NOW, WHAT I THINK IS GOING 
FORWARD, AS CHUCK WAS SAYING 

Spanish: 
ZELENSKI "SINTIÓ PRESIÓN?", POR 
SUPUESTO NO IBA RESPONDER QUE 
I
SÍ, PARECE SECUESTRADO. LO QUE 
VAMOS A VER ES UN TESTIMONIO MUY
DIFERENTE CON SONDLAND Y VOLKER,
PORQUE LO QUE HEMOS TENIDO HASTA
AHORA ES PERSONAS QUE ESTABAN DE
ACUERDO CON LO QUE EL PRESIDENTE
ESTABA HACIENDO. NO LES GUSTÓ LO
QUE RUDY GIULIANI LO QUE  EL 
EQUIPO DEL PRESIDENTE ESTABA 
EXIGIENDO, LUEGO TENEMOS AL 
EMBAJADOR QUE ESTABA EN 
OPOSICIÓN A ESTO, Y OTRA PERSONA
QUE FUE DESPEDIDA, HOY DOS 
PERSONAS DOS EXPERTOS, QUE NO 
ESTABAN DE ACUERDO CON LO QUE 
HABÍAN ESCUCHADO POR EL OTRO 
LADO TENEMOS A PERSONAS QUE 

English: 
EARLIER, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A 
VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF TESTIMONY
WITH SONDLAND AND VOLKER.
SO FAR WHAT WE'VE HAD ARE PEOPLE
WHO FELT AGGRIEVED BY WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING, 
PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THIS 
ALTERNATIVE TRACK FOR UKRAINE 
POLICY.
YOU HAD THE FIRST TWO SENIOR 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, WHO 
DIDN'T LIKE THAT RUDY GIULIANI 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEAM WERE 
TRYING TO DEMAND THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF WITHHOLDING 
AID.
THEN YOU HAD THE AMBASSADOR WHO 
WAS OPPOSED TO IT AND FOUND 
HERSELF SLANDERED AND REMOVED 
FROM HER OFFICE.
NOW YOU HAD TWO PEOPLE TODAY WHO
WERE ON THE PHONE CALL, TWO 
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHO THEN 
RAISED THE RED FLAG.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY WERE 
HEARING.
GOING FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO 
SEE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER CAMP, 
PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, THIS ALLEGED
ABUSE OF POWER, BECAUSE IT WAS 
VOLKER WHO WAS TRYING TO GET THE
UKRAINIANS TO DO THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
IT WAS GUILIANI'S CAMP THAT WAS 
TRYING TO DO THIS.
CRITICALLY GORDON SONDLAND AS A 

English: 
MAJOR PLAYER IN THIS.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A 
SHIFT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE 
APPALLED BY WHAT WAS HAPPENING 
TO THOSE WHO WERE ACTIVELY 
INVOLVED ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
SIDE. 
>> AND WE'RE JOINED BY JEREMY 
BASH NOW, A NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST.
I WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY 
ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS 
INFORMATION, THIS CONVERSATION 
WAS PUT IN THE SECRET SERVER.
HE SEEMED TO ALLOW THAT A LITTLE
UNUSUAL, BUT THERE COULD BE 
OTHER REASONS FOR IT.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAN 
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SENSE 
THAT THIS NEEDED TO STAY OUT OF 
PUBLIC VIEW BECAUSE IT WAS 
POLITICALLY TOXIC?
>> LOOK, I THINK, LESTER, UNDER 
ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WILL 
WORK HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THESE SENSITIVE TRANSCRIPTS 
AREN'T DISCLOSED.
BUT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT 
THEY WOULD PUT IT IN A COMPUTER 
SYSTEM THAT'S REALLY RESERVED 
FOR THE MOST SECRET, MOST 
CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE.
IT SHOWS THAT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF WAS 
WORRIED NOT JUST THAT 
CONVERSATIONS WOULD LEAK OUT BUT
THAT THE CONTENT OF THIS 
CONVERSATION WAS POTENTIALLY SO 

Spanish: 
ESTABAN INVOLUCRADAS EN ESTE 
ABUSO DE PODER. EERAN PARTE DEL 
EQUIPO DE GIULIANI. POR LÔ TANTO
VEREMOS UN CAMBIO DE PERSONAS 
QUE ESTABAN OPONIÉNDOSE, Y A 
PERSONAS QUE ESTÁN PARTICIPANDO 
DEL ESQUEMA.
>>> QUIERO HABLAR TAMBIÉN AHORA 
DE LO QUE PARECÍA UN POCO 
INUSUAL, PERO PODÍA HABER TENIDO
ALGUNAS RAZONES, VEZ QUE ESTO 
DEBÍA SER PARTE DE LA OPINIÓN 
PÚBLICA?
>>> EN SITUACIONES ORDINARIAS, 
ES IMPORTANTE QUE ESTAS LLAMADAS
SE HAN CONFIDENCIALES, PERO ESTA
LLAMADA FUE PUESTA EN EL 

English: 
EXPLOSIVE.
AND OF COURSE IT'S THE 
TRANSCRIPT ITSELF WHICH HAS 
FUELED SO MANY OF THESE 
HEARINGS, MUCH OF THIS INQUIRY.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT'S A 
PERFECT TRANSCRIPT.
HEREIN, LESTER, YOU SEE THE 
STATE OF THE REPUBLICAN DEFENSE,
IN ESSENCE REPRESENTATIVE 
STEFANIK SAID, LOOK, WE THINK 
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION BY 
UKRAINE, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
AND THERE'S WHERE THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO GO.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO 
DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT'S 
UNDERLYING CONDUCT.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND 
THAT TRANSCRIPT.
THEY CAN'T CLAIM THERE WAS NO 
LINKAGE, NO QUID PRO QUO.
THEY CAN'T CLAIM IT'S HEARSAY.
THEY'LL HAVE TO DEFEND THE 
UNDERLYING -- 
>> WE LOST JEREMY THERE.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS, CHUCK, HAVE
HAD SEVERAL DEFENSES AND WE SAW 
THEM ALL PUT UP THERE TODAY.
BUT THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE SEIZED
UPON IS IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE.
SO IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACTS 
OF THE CASE AS THE DEMOCRATS PUT
OUT, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN GOT TO 
THE PART WHERE THEY SAY HERE'S 
WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED. 

Spanish: 
SERVIDOR DE MAYOR 
CONFIDENCIALIDAD. PENSARON QUE 
EL CONTENIDO DE ESTA LLAMADA 
PODÍA SER EXPLOSIVA, MUCHO DE 
ESTAS INVESTIGACIONES NOS PISEN 
QUE ESTO ERA EXTRAÑO. AÚN CUANDO
EL PRESIDENTE DIGA  QUE NO HABÍA
PROBLEMA. 
LOS REPUBLICANOS TENDRÁN QUE 
DEFENDER LA CONDUCTA DEL 
PRESIDENTE. DEBERÁN  DEFENDER LA
TRANSCRIPCIÓN Y NO PODRÁN DECIR 
Q
QUE NO HUBO UN INTERCAMBIO DE 
FAVORES..
>>> LOS DEMÓCRATAS DIJERON POR 

English: 
>> I WOULD GET FOLKS ON TO WHAT 
JIM JORDAN DID.
HE SPENT HIS FIVE MINUTES 
BASICALLY SEIZING ON THE -- 
MAKING THE CAMPAIGN ASPECT, 
BASICALLY MAKING A CAMPAIGN 
ARGUMENT, NOT A BAD ONE IF 
YOU'RE THE REPUBLICANS, 
ESSENTIALLY SAID DEMOCRATS HAVE 
BEEN WANTING TO GET HIM FROM DAY
ONE.
THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
THIS IS A CAMPAIGN.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL ABOUT THEY'RE
UNDERMINING THAT ELECTION AND 
TRYING TO GET HIM THERE AND THEY
WANT TO SHORT CIRCUIT THE 
ABILITY OF THE VOTERS TO BE ABLE
TO DO THIS.
IT'S STILL THEIR BEST ARGUMENT 
THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH IS AT THE 
END OF THE DAY, SHOULD THIS BE 
DECIDED BY CONGRESS OR THE 
VOTERS.
AND I THINK THE FACT THAT JIM 
JORDAN WENT TO THAT DEFENSE 
TODAY, THAT HE COULDN'T -- THAT 
HE REALIZED THERE WAS NOTHING TO
BE GAINED BY GOING AFTER 
VINDMAN.
THEY MADE AN EARLY EFFORT, THEY 
GOT NOTHING.
THE FACT THAT HE USED HIS ENTIRE
FIVE MINUTES AT THE END TO 
ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE CAMPAIGN 

Spanish: 
QUÉ HAY QUE ENJUICIAR AL 
PRESIDENTE.
>>> QUE LLORAN NO CUESTIONÓ A 
NADIE, SIMPLEMENTE EL ARGUMENTÓ 
DE BASTANTE BUENA MANERA LO QUE 
QUIEREN LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y COMO 
HAN INTENTADO DE CONSEGUIRLO 
DESDE EL PRINCIPIO. QUIEREN  
INFLUIR EN LOS VOTANTES PARA 
LOGRAR LO QUE QUIEREN. Y CREO 
QUE EL CASO DE JIM DE JJORDAN   

English: 
ARGUMENT SAYING THEY'RE JUST 
TRYING TO GET HIM.
LET'S JUST MAKE THIS -- I THINK 
IT'S EFFECTIVE POLITICALLY BUT 
IT'S ALSO AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
THEY CAN'T WIN ON THE FACTS. 
>> IT'S DONE IN PLAIN SPEAK.
BERIT, AS WE SIT HERE AND TALK, 
WE KNOW ALL THESE NAMES AND WHO 
PLAYS HERE.
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, PEOPLE ARE
WORKING, THEY'RE AT SCHOOL -- 
>> IT'S A POLITICAL FIGHT, 
SHOULD IT BE AT THE BALLOT BOX. 
>> HOW DO THE DEMOCRATS BREAK 
THROUGH WHAT'S BECOMING MORE AND
MORE COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF 
JUST THE PLAYERS?
>> IT GOES BACK TO SOMETHING 
ANDREW WEISMAN SAID ON DAY ONE.
IF THE OUTCOME IS TO DISQUALIFY 
THE PRESIDENT FROM SEEKING 
ANOTHER TERM, IF IT IS, THEY 
NEED TO BE MORE EXPLICIT THAT 
HE'S BEEN TRYING TO CHEAT ON 
2020, THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS 
ABOUT.
HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO DO THIS.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER 
COUNTRIES HE'S DONE.
THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT

Spanish: 
UTILIZÓ SUS ÚLTIMOS CINCO 
MINUTOS PARA HABLAR DE UNA 
CAMPAÑA, ELLOS ESTÁN INTENTANDO 
DE AFECTAR POLÍTICAMENTE  . ESO 
SIGNIFICA QUE NO PUEDEN GANAR  
SÓLO EN BASE A HECHOS .
>>>  EL ESTADOUNIDENSE PROMEDIO 
NO ESTÁ TAN CONVENCIDO. ESTO SE 
ESTÁ COMPLICANDO. LOS DEMÓCRATAS
QUIEREN DESCALIFICAR AL 
PRESIDENTE DE GANAR OTRO TÉ
O
TÉRMINO, CREO QUE TIENEN QUE SER
MÁS EXPLÍCITOS, DE QUE ÉL 

English: 
I THINK AS UP FRONT.
IF THAT IS -- YOU'RE ASKING THE 
COUNTRY TO MAKE AN EXTRAORDINARY
DECISION, TO SHORT CIRCUIT WHAT 
WOULD BE THEIR CALL.
AND YOU WANT THEM TO DO IT WITH 
LESS THAN A YEAR TO GO BEFORE 
THE ELECTION.
AGAIN, AND IT MAY BE A 
LEGITIMATE THING TO SAY THAT YOU
HAVE TO DO.
I DON'T KNOW IF DEMOCRATS HAVE 
BEEN AS EXPLICIT AS THEY NEED TO
BE TO MAKE THAT CASE. 
>> BERIT, IS THERE A STAR 
WITNESS HERE?
YOU DO TRIALS.
DO YOU BRING OUT YOUR HEAVIEST 
HITTER AT THE END, AT THE 
BEGINNING OR DOES THAT PERSON 
EXIST?
>> I'M SURE THAT PERSON EXISTS, 
I'M NOT SURE WE'LL HEAR FROM 
THAT PERSON.
THERE COULD BE SOME STAR 
WITNESSES. 
>> JOHN BOLTON. 
>> JOHN BOLTON, EISENBERG.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHOSE 
NAMES WE KEEP HEARING BUT MY 
GUESS IS WE'LL NEVER HEAR FROM 
THEM.
AS FAR AS WITNESSES THAT WE'LL 
HEAR FROM THIS WEEK, THE MOST 
INTERESTING I THINK WILL BE 
SONDLAND.
HE CERTAINLY HAS THE MOST -- 
HE'S SORT OF RIGHT IN THE SOUP 
OF ALL OF THIS.
I THINK HE'LL BE THE MOST 
INTERESTING TO SEE HOW HE 
EXPLAINS THE CHANGE IN HIS 
TESTIMONY, HOW HE RECONCILES HIS
TESTIMONY WITH THAT OF SOME OF 

Spanish: 
INTENTÓ HACER TRAMPA DEL 2020, 
DE QUE NO PODEMOS EN ENGAÑAR 
DEJARNOS ENGAÑAR. LE ESTÁN 
PIDIENDO EL PAÍS QUE TOME UNA 
DECISIÓN IMPORTANTE, EN MENOS DE
UN AÑO. QUIZÁS SEA ALGO LEG
O
LEGÍTIMO, PERO NO SÉ SI LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS HAN SIDO LO 
SUFICIENTEMENTE EXPLÍCITOS.
>>> HAY ALGÚN TESTIGO ESTRELLA?
>>> EXISTE PERO NO SÉ SI VAMOS A
ESCUCHAR DE ESTA PERSONA..
>>> JOHN BOLTON?
>>>  SÍ. PERO YO CREO QUE NO 
VAMOS A ESCUCHAR DE ELLOS. ESTA 
SEMANA CREO QUE EL MÁS 
INTERESANTE SERÁ SONDLAND. CREO 

Spanish: 
QUE SERÁ INTERESANTE VER CÓMO 
EXPLICA LOS CAMBIOS EN SU TE
M
TESTIMONIÓ,  PERO 
DESAFORTUNADAMENTE ESTOS 
TESTIGOS MÁS IMPORTANTES NO SE 
LES PERMITIRÁ ATESTIGUAR.
>>> JEFF BENNETT, ESTÁS CON 
NOSOTROS?
>>>  EL JUEVES EL PAÍS  TENDRÁ 
QUE ACEPTAR UN NUEVO CAMBIO O EN
EL PRESUPUESTO, CREEN QUE PODRÁN
EXCULPAR AL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. SI

English: 
THE OTHER WITNESSES.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT ALL COMES BACK
TO THE HYPOCRISY OF SAYING THERE
ARE ALL THESE WITNESSES THAT 
HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT 
WERE RIGHT THERE BUT WE'RE NOT 
GOING TO LET THEM TESTIFY. 
>> LET'S GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE
HALLWAY BUZZ AT THE CAPITOL IS.
THIS SESSION IS ADJOURNED.
GEOFF BENNETT IS STANDING BY.
GEOFF. 
>> Reporter: AS I STAND HERE AND
TALK TO YOU, YOU HAVE MEMBERS ON
THE COMMITTEE RUSHING ACROSS THE
STREET TO VOTE ON UNRELATED 
LEGISLATION THAT WILL FUNDING 
THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND THIS 
THURSDAY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS 
SET TO RUN OUT OF MONEY.
THERE'S A HUGE QUESTION MARK 
AROUND WHAT COMES NEXT.
WE'RE SET TO HEAR FROM TIM 
MORRISON AND KURT VOLKER.
IN PART BECAUSE FOR WEEKS I'VE 
TALKED TO REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE 
BEEN HITCHING THEIR WAGON ON 
THIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM 
MORRISON AND VOLKER BECAUSE THEY
THINK IT WILL BE EXCULPATORY FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IF YOU READ THROUGH THE 
TESTIMONY -- THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THEIR PRIVATE TESTIMONY, NEITHER
MAN GOES AS FAR AS REPUBLICANS 

Spanish: 
SE LE EL TESTIMONIO LOS 
TRANSCRIPCIONES, NINGUNO DE LOS 
HOMBRES DICEN QUE LA INTERACCIÓN
SEA ILEGAL, SINO QUE LO DICEN. 
ES QUE ES PROBLEMÁTICA. SONDLAND
VA A DECIR QUE NO VIVO UNA RELÓN
ENTRE EL FONDO QUE FUE CONGELADO
Y LAS DEMANDAS DEL PRESIDENTE. 
PROBABLEMENTE VAN A HABLAR DE 
BURISMA Y DE LOS BIDEN, PORQUE 
ESE FUE UN ASUNTO  DOMÉSTICO, 
QUE SEGURO VAN A TOCAR.

English: 
ARE TELEGRAPHING THAT THEY WILL.
MORRISON HAS SAID THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S INTERACTION WITH HIS 
UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART IS NOT 
ILLEGAL, HE JUST FOUNDING IT TO 
BE POLITICALLY PROBLEMATIC.
VOLKER PREVIOUSLY SAID HE WASN'T
AWARE OF A QUID PRO QUO.
REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN THAT AND 
SAID HE SAID THERE WAS NONE AT 
ALL.
I'M TOLD THAT VOLKER IS PREPARED
TO AMEND HIS TESTIMONY AND HE IS
GOING TO SAY THAT HE DOES NOT 
DISPUTE THERE WAS A DIRECT LINK 
BETWEEN THE DELIVERY OF AID, 
BETWEEN THE OFFER OF THIS WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND THE OPENING OF
THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE 
UKRAINIANS TO OPEN.
HE'S JUST GOING TO SAY NOW HE 
WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF IT.
HE WASN'T AWARE THAT WHEN 
UKRAINIANS WERE TALKING ABOUT 
BURISMA, WHEN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WERE 
TALKING ABOUT BURISMA THAT THAT 
HAD ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT THE 
BIDENS BECAUSE THAT WAS A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL ISSUE HE 
WASN'T FULLY BRIEFED ON.
THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT THESE TWO 
MEN TO TALK ABOUT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS 
HAVE BEEN SAYING THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS 

Spanish: 
>>> LOS DEFENSORES DEL 
PRESIDENTE DICEN  QUE SI SE 
ENFOCAN TANTO EN ESTE JUICIO 
NADA VA A OCURRIR. PERO  QUÉ ES 
LO QUE ESTÁ OCURRIENDO POR FUERA
DE LAS AUDIENCIAS. NAN S
>>> NAZI PELOSI DICE QUE ESTÁN 
REVISANDO LEYES POR EJEMPLO LAS 
DE EL CONTROL DE ARMAS. PERO LOS
REPUBLICANOS NO ESTÁN AYUDANDO 
MUCHO.
>>> HEMOS CONCLUIDO LA PRIMERA 
PARTE DE ESTA AUDIENCIA, AHORA 
VAMOS A ESCUCHAR DE DOS TES
S
TESTIGOS, JOHN WALKER  Y GORDON 
SONDLAND. SOY LESTER HOLT PARA
E

English: 
FOCUSED ON IMPEACHMENT AND 
NOTHING IS GETTING DONE.
WHAT'S YOUR SENSE ABOUT THE WORK
OF CONGRESS OUTSIDE THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> Reporter: WELL, HOUSE SPEAKER
NANCY PELOSI REJECTS THAT 
ARGUMENT OUT OF HAND ENTIRELY.
SHE POINTS TO DOZENS OF BILLS 
THAT THE DEMOCRATIC-LED HOUSE 
HAS PASSED FROM GUN CONTROL, TO 
LOWERING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 
TO A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS THAT 
THE REPUBLICAN SENATE WON'T TAKE
UP.
THE REASON WHY MITCH McCONNELL 
SAYS HE WON'T TAKE THEM UP IS 
BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO PASS 
ANYTHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WILL NOT SIGN. 
>> GEOFF BENNETT, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
SO THE FIRST PART OF TODAY'S 
HEARING IS CONCLUDED.
AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, WHEN 
THE COMMITTEE RETURNS IT WILL 
HEAR FROM TWO MORE WITNESSES.
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL
ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND TIM 
MORRISON.
WE'LL BE BACK ON THE AIR WHEN 
THE COMMITTEE RETURNS.
FOR NOW I'M LESTER HOLT, NBC 
NEWS IN NEW YORK.
GOOD DAY, EVERYONE.
HE'LL GO AGAINST HIS OWN 

Spanish: 
TESTIMONIOS CONOCIDOS DE 
PRESIDENTE  Y SU PROPIO CONSEJO
>> BUENOS DÍAS A TODOS
>> COMIENZA LA AUDIENCIA
>> VAMOS A COMENZAR EN EL RECESO
EL COMITÉ SE PUEDE HACER EN 
CUALQUIER MOMENTO. VAMOS A 
PROCEDER DE LA MISMA FORMA QUE 
LA PRIMERA AUDIENCIA VOY HACER 
UNA  APERTURA Y LUEGO TODOS 
PODRÁN HACER ES SU TESTIMONIO DE
APERTURA Y LUEGO PODRÁN HACE 
PREGUNTAS MIEMBROS DE LA 
AUDIENCIA LES REGRESEMOS ESTÁN 
AQUÍ POR FAVOR LES PEDIMOS QUE 
TENGAN RESPETO A MEDIDA QUE 
AVANCE LA AUDIENCIA. QUEREMOS 
CONTINUAR SIN INTERRUPCIONES . 
TOMARÉ TODOS LOS PASOS PARA 
MANTENER EL ORDEN Y ASEGURARNOS 
DE QUE LAS RESOLUCIONES Y CAUSAS
SEIS 60 SE CUMPLAN. VAMOS A 

English: 
COUNSEL, I WON'T --
>> MORNING, EVERYONE.
>> THE HEARING BEGINS. 
>> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING
AS PART OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES' IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS 
AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS 
AT ANY TIME THERE IS A QUORUM 
PRESENT.
WE'LL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME 
FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING.
I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT 
AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES WILL 
HAVE A CHANCE FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
WE'LL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR 
THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS AND 
THEN TO QUESTIONS.
FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME
YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN
BEING HERE.
IN TURN WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT 
AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S 
HEARING.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE 
COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT 
DISRUPTIONS.
AS CHAIRMAN, I'LL TAKE ALL 
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS 
TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
AND ENSURE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS
RUN IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE
RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO 
GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD 
J. TRUMP, THE 45th PRESIDENT OF 

English: 
THE UNITED STATES.
LAST WEEK WE HEARD FROM THREE 
EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS WHO 
TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S SCHEME TO CONDITION 
OFFICIAL ACTS WITH HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF U.S. MILITARY AID TO
FIGHT RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE 
BY NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO POLITICLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED 
WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN.
ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS 
INVOLVED THE BIDENS AND THE 
OTHER INVOLVED A DISCREDITED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE 
AND NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE 
FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 
ELECTION.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD 
LATER TELL DAVID HOLMES 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO 
THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT 
GIVE A -- HE THEN USED AN 
EXPLETIVE -- ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF 
THAT 
BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE
BIDEN INVESTIGATION.
TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, 

Spanish: 
COMENZAR CON LA INVESTIGACIÓN DE
IMPEACHMENT PARA EL PRESIDENTE 
46 DONALD TRUMP. LA SEMANA 
PASADA SE TESTIFICÓ SOBRE LOS 
ACTOS DEL PRESIDENTE SOBRE LA 
RETENCIÓN DE AYUDA A LAS EL PAÍS
DE UCRANIA. SE LE PIDIÓ AL 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO ZELENSKI 
QUE LLEVA SECADO UNA IN
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA LOS BIDEN Y
LA OTRA UNA TEORÍA CONSPIRATIVA 
QUE DECÍA QUE UCRANIA ERA LA 
RESPONSABLE DE LAS ELECCIONES 
0
2016.
LUEGO DE HABLAR CON EL 
PRESIDENTE NO DIO , AQUÍ USA UNA
MALA PALABRA, NINGÚN INTERÉS S
B
SOBRE  UCRANIA. SOLO LIME LE 

Spanish: 
INTERESABA LA INVESTIGACIÓN 
CONTRA LOS BIDEN. SE ANUNCIÓ UNA
INVESTIGACIÓN Y ESO ERA LO QUE 
TRONCO QUERÍA, EERA SU INTERÉS 
POLÍTICO. HA MINADO NUESTRO 
APOYO MILITAR A NUESTROS ALIADOS
CLAVES Y NUESTRA LUCHA CONTRA LA
CORRUPCIÓN EN UCRANIA. LE PIDIÓ 
A UCRANIA QUE NO INVESTIGARSE 
CIUDADANOS UCRANIANOS EN CO
CORRUPCIÓN  PERO SE ESTABA 
ENTRANDO AL MISMO TIPO 
INVESTIGACIÓN CORRUPTA EN NO 
CONTRA DE NUESTROS CIUDADANOS. 
LOS PROFESIONALES DE CARRERA DE 
LA CASA BLANCA SE PREOCUPARON 
DEL CANAL IRREGULAR EN EL QUE 
TRABAJABA MICK MULVANEYM GORDON 
SONDLAND Y GIULIANI CONTRA LOS 
INTERESES NACIONALES. HOY 

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS
ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION.
HE UNDERMINED OUR MILITARY AND 
DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY 
ALLY AND UNDERCUT U.S. 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE.
HOW COULD OUR DIPLOMATS URGE 
UKRAINE TO REFRAIN FROM 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ITS 
OWN CITIZENS IF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS URGING 
UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN PRECISELY 
THE SAME KIND OF CORRUPT AND 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE 
OF OUR OWN CITIZENS.
AT THE WHITE HOUSE, CAREER 
PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AN 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT INVOLVED 
HIS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK 
MULVANEY, EU AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI, WAS 
PUSHING A POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE
AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO OF
THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE 
OF THOSE EFFORTS.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN,
WHOSE FAMILY FLED OPPRESSION IN 

Spanish: 
ESCUCHAREMOS A DOS PROFESIONALES
QUE SUPIERON DE ESTOS ESFUERZOS.
TENIENTE CORONEL ALEX BATEMAN. 
ÉL ES UN OFICIAL DE CARRERA DE 
EL EJÉRCITO ES UN VETERANO DE 
GUERRA Y UN EXPERTO EN RUSIA Y 
UCRANIA QUE HA TRABAJADO LOS 
NIVELES MÁS ALTOS DEL PENTÁGONO.
EN JULIO 2016 VUELVE LA CASA 
BLANCA PARA COORDINAR LA 
POLÍTICA SOBRE UCRANIA.
 JENNIFER WILLIAM MACYES UN 
OFICIAL ASISTENTE QUE HA 
TRABAJADO LA OFICINA DEL 
VICEPRESIDENTE Y ES RESPONSABLE 
DE LAS RELACIONES EURO ASI
S
ASIÁTICAS. EESTUVIERON PRESENTES
EN LA LLAMADA EL 26 U ABRIL. LA 
SEÑORA WILLIAMS TRABAJO EN LA 
LOGÍSTICA DE LOS VIAJES  Y MANÓO

English: 
THE SOVIET UNION WHEN HE WAS A 
TODDLER IS A CAREER ARMY 
OFFICER, AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN WHO
WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND 
AN EXPERT IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE 
WHO HAS WORKED AT THE HIGHEST 
LEVELS OF THE PENTAGON.
IN JULY 2018 HE WAS DETAILED TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE, IN PART, TO 
COORDINATE POLICY ON UKRAINE.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS A CAREER 
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO IS 
CURRENTLY DETAILED TO THE OFFICE
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE AND 
EURASIA ISSUES.
FOLLOWING HIS CONGRATULATORY 
CALL WITH VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO 
COME TO HIS UPCOMING 
INAUGURATION.
PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED 
ATTENDEE, SECOND IN SIGNIFICANCE
ONLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD 
HAVE SENT AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF
SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT.
IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER, RUDY 
GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLANNING TO GO

English: 
TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTERESTS IN HAVING 
THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED, BUT HAD
TO CALL OFF THE TRIP AFTER IT 
BECAME PUBLIC.
AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI BLAMED 
PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR 
HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED 
THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO TRUMP.
INSTEAD A LOWER-LEVEL DELEGATION
WAS NAMED, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK
PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THE 
THREE AMIGOS.
SENATOR RON JOHNSON AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD
ALSO ATTEND.
AFTER RETURNING FROM THE 
INAUGURATION, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE DELEGATION BRIEFED TRUMP ON 
THEIR FIRST ENCOURAGING 
INTERACTIONS WITH ZELENSKY.
THEY URGED TRUMP TO MEET WITH 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, BUT 
TRUMP INSTEAD CRITICIZED UKRAINE
AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH
JUDY -- WORK WITH RUDY.
A FEW WEEKS LATER ON JULY 10th, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET AT THE 

Spanish: 
UNA FUERTE SEÑAL DE APOYO PARA 
NUEVO PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA. SIN
EMBARGÓ RUDY GIULIANI QUERÍA QUE
SE SIGUIESEN LOS INTERESES DEL 
PRESIDENTE PARA INVESTIGAR A LOS
BIDEN. ESTE VIAJE LUEGO SE 
VOLVIÓ PÚBLICO, MESES DESPUÉS 
GIULIANI CULPÓ A LA GENTE QUE 
RODEABA AL PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO 
PARA CANCELAR LA REUNIÓN. TRES 
DÍAS DESPUÉS EL PRESIDENTE LLAMA
AL PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO EN SU 
INAUGURACIÓN. EN VEZ DE ESTO SE 
GENERÓ UNA PEQUEÑA DELEGACIÓN 
CON DISTINTOS EMBAJADORES Y 
MINISTRO DE ENERGÍA LOS LLA
S
LLAMADOS"TRES AMIGOS". EELLOS 
TAMBIÉN ATENDIERON ESTA REUNIÓN 
. LUEGO SIETE MIEMBROS DE 
DELEGACIÓN HABLARON DE LAS 
INTERACCIONES DEL PRESIDENTE CON
ZELENSKI. PERO TRUMP CRITICÓ A 
OTRA UCRANIA Y TAMBIÉN LOS 
OBSTRUYÓ PARA TRABAJAR CON RUDY 
GIULIANI. UNAS POCAS SEMANAS 

English: 
WHITE HOUSE WITH A GROUP OF U.S.
AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, 
INCLUDING COLONEL VINDMAN AND 
FORMED THE GROUP, ACCORDING TO 
CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE 
MEETING WITH ZELENSKY WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD TAKE PLACE
IF THEY DID CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID 
HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER
DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY 
ARE COOKING UP ON THIS.
I'M DETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT 
THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWN TO
ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT, ACCORDING
TO WITNESSES.
UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE 
THE BIDENS OR BURISMA IF THEY 
WERE TO GET A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING WITH TRUMP.
AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH 
VINDMAN WITHNESSED, HE WENT TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S 
TOP LAWYER TO REPORT THE MATTER.
HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN WITH ANY 
CONCERNS.
HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO 
DO SO.
A WEEK LATER ON JULY 18th A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ANNOUNCED 
ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT 

Spanish: 
DESPUÉS EL 10 DE JULIO, SON 
GRANDES SE UNIÓ CON LOS OFI
E
OFICIALES INCLUYENDO A VINDMAN Y
C
Y MULVANEY. HABLARON DE LÔ QUÉ 
PASARÍA SI UCRANIA LLEGÓ A 
SECADO CIERTAS INVESTIGACIONES. 
TERMINARON LA REUNIÓN Y DIJERON 
LUEGO QUE NO SERÍA PARTE DE E
E
ESTE"TRATO DE DROGAS" QUE SUN 
LINE Y MULVANEY ESTÁN CREANDO. 
LUEGO SIGUIÓ ESTA CONVERSACIÓN 
OTRA PARTE DE LA CASA BLANCA Y 
FUE MÁS EXPLÍCITA SEGÚN LOS 
TESTIGOS. TENÍA QUE INVESTIGAR A
LOS BIDEN YYBYRISMA. LUEGO ESA 
DISCUSIÓN HABLARON CON SU 
ABOGADO PRINCIPAL SOBRE ESTE 
ASUNTO. HABLARON DEL FUTURO SIN 
NINGUNA PREOCUPACIÓN, UNA SEMANA

Spanish: 
DESPUÉS EL 18 DE JULIO 
ANUNCIARON EN UNA CONFERENCIA DE
VÍDEO QUÉ MULVANEY SEGUÍA LA 
DIRECCIÓN DE RETENER LA 
ASISTENCIA MILITAR A UCRANIA QUE
HABÍA SIDO APROBADA POR EL 
CONGRESO A FAVOR DEL LA 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL. Y DESDE 
ENTONCES LLEGÓ LA LLAMADA INFAME
CON EL PRESIDENTE ZELENSKI, 
DDURANTE ESA LLAMADA DEL PRE
E
PRESIDENTE SE QUEJÓ DE QUE LAS 
RELACIONES NO HABÍA SIDO 
RECÍPROCAS. LUEGO ZELENSKI LE 
AGRADECE SU AYUDA EN LA DEFENSA 
Y LE DICE QUE UCRANIA ESTÁ LISTA
PARA COMPRAR MÁS JABALINAS, UN 
ARMA ANTITANQUE QUE ES LA MÁS 
IMPORTANTE CONTRA LA ACCIÓN 
RUSA.  LA INMEDIATA RESPUESTA 
DEL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP FUE 
QUISIERA QUE NOS HICIERAS UN 
FAVOR SI?
ESTO DESCRITA LA TEORÍA DE 
CONSPIRACIÓN Y PIDE TAMBIÉN QUE 

English: 
MULVANEY, AT TRUMP'S DIRECTION, 
WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION
IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED 
BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE 
SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT.
ONE WEEK AFTER THAT TRUMP WOULD 
HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY.
DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP 
COMPLAINED THAT THE U.S. 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD 
NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL.
LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR 
HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF 
DEFENSE AND SAYS UKRAINE WAS 
READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS,
AN ANTI-TANK WEAPON, THE MOST 
IMPORTANCE DETERRENCE OF FURTHER
RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION.
TRUMP'S RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE 
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY 
INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016
CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE 
OMINOUSLY LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.
NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL
PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE 
CALL, BUT THEY WERE IN DONALD 
TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST AND IN
THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 

English: 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW 
ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE 
SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN 
PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION, BURISMA AND THE 
BIDENS.
BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS 
WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL.
VINDMAN TESTIFIED DUE TO THE 
UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION OF 
THE TWO LEADERS AND UKRAINE'S 
DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S., THE 
FAVOR TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY WAS 
REALLY A DEMAND.
AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE 
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING VINDMAN, 
WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT 
IT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER.
IT WAS THE SECOND TIME IN TWO 
WEEKS THAT VINDMAN RAISED 
CONCERNS WITH NSC LAWYERS.
FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO 
BELIEVED ASKING ZELENSKY TO 
UNDERTAKE THESE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN 
SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHE HAD 
BECOME AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE 

Spanish: 
SE INVESTIGUE A LOS BIDEN. ESTO 
ERAN INTERÉS PERSONAL DE DONALD 
TRUMP PARA SU CAMPAÑA DE 
REELECCIÓN DE 2020. SONDLAND 
DIODOS  HAN PRESIONADO UCRANIA 
HACE SEMANAS PARA QUINES 
LLEGASEN LAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 
LOS BIDEN Y BURISMA.
ESTAS PERSONAS ESTUVIERON EN ESA
LLAMADA Y MUESTRAN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP TENÍA UN
PODER SUPERIOR EN LA LLAMADA. EL
PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP DE V
VERDAD LE PREGUNTÓ SI IBA Y 
SEGUIR LA DEMANDA. LUEGO DE LA 
LLAMADA MUCHOS INDIVIDUOS ESTÁN 
PREOCUPADOS POR LA LLAMADA DE 
HABLARON CON LOS ABOGADOS DE LA 
CASA BLANCA. POR SEGUNDA VEZ EN 
UNA SEMANA VINDMAN HABÍA HABLADO
DE SUS PREOCUPACIONES. TTAMBIÉN 
CREEN QUE ES INAPROPIADO QUE EL 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE PIDIESE ESTA AYUDA DE
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA LOS BEIDEN 
EL CORONEL VINDMAN Y LA SEÑORA 
WILLIAMS TOMARON NOTA DE LA 
PALABRABURI BURISMA  DICHA POR  
PRESIDENTEZELENSKI, QUE LUEGO NO
APARECÍA LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN. 
ENTONCES PUDIERON HACER LA 
CONEXIÓN ENTRE ESTA EMPRESA Y 
LOS BIDEN PARA EL PRESIDENTE. EN
LAS SEMANAS QUE SIGUIERON EN LA 
INDIA A LA LLAMADA, VINDMAN 
SIGUIÓ PIDIENDO QUE SE LIBERASEN
LA AYUDA UCRANIA Y TUVO 
PROBLEMAS PARA SABER POR QUÉ SE 
RETENÍA. PARA MEDIADOS DE AGOSTO
EL EMBAJADOR LE PREGUNTÓ POR QÉE
ESTADOS UNIDOS NO DABA LA AYUDA,
A PESAR DE NO TENER UN AYUDA 
SONDLAND DEJÓ MUY EXPRESO QUE 
NECESITABAN DE MANERA PÚBLICA 
O

English: 
INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. 
MILITARY AID.
VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS TOOK 
NOTE OF THE WORD BURISMA BY 
ZELENSKY.
A FACT CONSPICUOUSLY LEFT OUT OF
THE CALL NOW LOCKED AWAY ON AN 
ULTRASECURE SERVER.
COLONEL VINDMAN BELIEVED 
ZELENSKY MUST HAVE BEEN PREPPED 
FOR THE CALL TO MAKE THE 
CONNECTION BETWEEN BIDEN AND 
BURISMA, A FACT OTHER WITNESSES 
HAVE NOW CONFIRMED.
IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE 
JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN 
CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR A RELEASE 
OF THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE 
AND STRUGGLED TO LEARN WHY IT 
WAS BEING WITHHELD.
MORE DISTURBING, WORD OF THE 
HOLD REACHED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC.
BY MID-AUGUST THE DEPUTY 
AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE
UNITED STATES WAS WITHHOLDING 
THE AID.
VINDMAN DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
THEY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY COMMIT 
TO THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF 
THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID.
MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE 

Spanish: 
COMPROMETERSE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 
SI QUERÍAN OBTENER ESTA AYUDA 
MILITAR. SEÑORA WILLIAMS TODOS 
VIMOS EL TWEET QUE EL 
VICEPRESIDENTE HIZO SÓLO CONTRA 
USTED Y LOS INSULTOS. EESTÁ 
USTED AQUÍ HOY, Y LA GENTE ESTÁ 
AGRADECIDA. CORONEL VINDMAN 
HEMOS VISTO TAMBIÉN LOS ATAQUES 
CONTRA USTED Y HEMOS VISTO CI
T
CIERTAS PERSONALIDADES EN FOX 
CUESTIONAR SU LEALTAD. SÉ QUE 
USTED HA DERRAMADO SANGRE POR 
NUESTRO PAÍS Y LE DÉ ME DEBEMOS 
GRATITUD. ESPERO QUE NADIE EN 
ESTE COMITÉ SEA PARTE DE ESOS 
ATAQUES.
 LOS TESTIGOS DE HOY, COMO 
QUIENES TESTIFICARON LA SEMANA 
PASADA ESTÁN AQUÍ PORQUE FUERON 
CITADOS. NO PORQUE ESTÁ EN 
CONTRA O A FAVOR DEL IMPEA
T
IMPEACHMENT, ESA PREGUNTA ES DE 
LECH PARA EL CONGRESO NO LOS 
TESTIGOS. SI EL PRESIDENTE ABUÓO
DE SU PODER, SÍ BUSCÓ 
EXTORSIONAR A UNO DE NUESTROS 

English: 
PRESIDENT'S TWEET ABOUT YOU ON 
SUNDAY AFTERNOON.
AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST 
FRIDAY.
YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL.
COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN 
MORE ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER 
AND WATCHED CERTAIN 
PERSONALITIES ON FOX QUESTION 
YOUR LOYALTY.
I KNOW YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR 
AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU AN 
IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE.
I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE 
BACKS PART OF THOSE ATTACKS.
TODAY'S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE 
WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK, ARE 
HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBPOENAED
TO HERE, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE 
FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT.
THAT QUESTION IS FOR CONGRESS, 
NOT THE FACT WITNESSES.
IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, 
COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY 
INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS 
TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN 

English: 
AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING 
OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY 
AID, IT WILL BE UP TO US TO 
DECIDE WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE 
COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO MAKE. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW 
WORDS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WATCHING AT HOME.
IF YOU WATCHED THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS LAST WEEK, YOU MAY HAVE
NOTICED A DISCONNECT BETWEEN 
WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW AND THE 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACCOUNTS 
DESCRIBING IT.
WHEN YOU SAW THREE DIPLOMATS, 
WHO DISLIKED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
UKRAINE POLICY, DISCUSSING 
SECONDHAND AND THIRDHAND 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEIR 
OBJECTIONS WITH THE TRUMP 
POLICY.
MEANWHILE, THEY ADMITTED THEY 
HAD NOT TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT THESE MATTERS.
AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY
ANY CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED.
BUT WHAT YOU READ IN THE PRESS 

Spanish: 
ALIADOS PARA OBTENER ESTA 
INVESTIGACIÓN Y AYUDAR A SU 
REELECCIÓN Y UTILIZÓ LOS MILES 
DE MILLONES DE DÓLARES QUE 
HABÍAN SIDO RETENIDOS COMO AYUDA
MILITAR SERÁ LO QUE NOSOTROS 
DECIDIREMOS, PERO ESTOS ACTOS 
SON COMPARABLES CON CRÍMENES LA 
EL CARGO DE LA PRESIDENCIA.
>> QUISIERA DECIR ALGO BASTANTE 
RÁPIDO A LOS AMERICANOS QUE 
ESTÁN VIENDO ESTO EN CASA. SI 
BIEN, LLAS AUDIENCIAS DE LA 
SEMANA PASADA Y LA SIGUIERON 
VERÁN QUE UNA DESCONEXIÓN ENTRE 
LO QUE PASÓ Y LO QUE DIJO LADOS 
MEDIOS. SE DIO COMO SE ESCONDIÓ 
CONVERSACIONES DE SEGUNDA MANO 
SOBRE LAS OBJECIONES CONTRA LAS 
POLÍTICAS DE TRUMP, MIENTRAS 
TANTO ADMITIERON QUE NO LA 
PRESIENTE ESTOS ASUNTOS Y NO 
PUDIERON IDENTIFICAR NINGÚN 

English: 
WERE ACCOUNTS OF SHOCKING, 
DAMNING AND EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY 
THAT FULLY SUPPORTS THE 
DEMOCRATS' ACCUSATIONS.
IF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE A 
FAMILIAR RING IT'S BECAUSE THIS 
IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS 
REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR 
THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX.
THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA 
REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE 
NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, 
SHOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE 
RUSSIAN AGENTS.
IT REALLY WASN'T LONG AGO WE 
WERE READING THESE HEADLINES.
FROM CNN, CONGRESS, 
INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INVESTMENT
FUND WITH TIES TO TRUMP 
OFFICIALS.
THIS WAS FALSE.
"NEW YORK TIMES," TRUMP CAMPAIGN
AIDES REPEATED CONTACTS WITH 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
ALSO FALSE.
SLATE, WAS A TRUMP SERVER 
COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA?
THIS WAS FALSE.
12K3W4R50ISHGSDZ

Spanish: 
CRIMEN U OFENSA ENJUICIADA VALE.
LO QUE LEYERON EN LA PRENSA  
FUERON TESTIMONIOS QUE APOYAN 
LAS ACUSACIONES DEMÓCRATAS PERO 
ESTO SUENA BASTANTE FAMILIAR 
PORQUE ES LO MISMO QUE SE HA 
DICHO DE LADOS MEDIOS Y QUE HAN 
DADO DURANTE TRES AÑOS DURA 
SOBRE LA FARSA DE RUSIA.  ESTA 
NUEVA REVELACIÓN BOMBA MUESTRA 
AL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP Y A 
TODOS QUIENES LO RODEAN COMO 
AGENTES RUSOS. DE VERDAD NO 
FUESE TANTO QUE ES LEÍAMOS ESTOS
TITULARES, DDESDE CNN "EL 
CONGRESO INVESTIGA A LOS OFI
L
OFICIALES DE TRUMP" ESTO ES 
FALSO
NEW YORK TIMES "REPETIDO 
CONTACTO CON ÉL LA INTELIGENCIA 
RUSA"TAMBIÉN FALSO
>>UN SERVER DE TRUMP SE 

Spanish: 
COMUNICABA CON RUSIA"FALSO
>>> SE ENCONTRABA CON SU 
CONTRAPARTE"
FALSO
EL GUARDIÁN "CONVERSACIONES 
SECRETAS CON LA EMBAJADA DE 
ECUADOR" TAMBIÉN FALSO
VA 
"SE LE PIDE AL PRESIDENTE QUE 
MIENTA SOBRE MOSCÚ" FALSO
>>> NO HABÍA OBJETIVIDAD Y CIA 
EN LO QUE SE DECÍA LOS 
TITULARES. LOS MEDIOS NO SON 
ALGO DISTINTO LO QUE REALMENTE 
SE VE SON TÍTERES DE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS. CON SU IDEA DE QUE 
EL LEAL ENGAÑO DE RUSIA ERA 
CIERTO HAN HECHO ESTAS HISTORIAS

English: 
"NEW YORK "MAGAZINE, THIS IS 
FALSE.
"THE GUARDIAN," THEY HELD SECRET
TALKS WITH AN ECUADORAN EMBASSY.
ALSO FALSE.
BUZZFEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO 
CONGRESS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TOWER 
PROJECT.
ALL OF THESE WERE FALSE.
THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVITY OR 
FAIRNESS IN THE MEDIA RUSSIA 
STORIES JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH 
TO TARNISH A PRESIDENT WHO 
PRETEND THE MEDIA IS SOMETHING 
DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT THEY REALLY
ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY.
WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON 
THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE MEDIA LOST 
CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF 
AMERICANS AND BECAUSE THEY 
REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY 
THEY BOTCHED THE STORY, THEY 
LEARNED NO LESSONS AND SIMPLY 
EXPECT AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE 
THEM AS THEY TRY TO STOKE YET 
ANOTHER PARTISAN FRENZY.
IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS I'VE 

English: 
OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE 
DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA DON'T WANT 
ASKED OR ANSWERED.
INSTEAD OF SHEDDING LIGHT ON 
THESE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS, THE 
MEDIA ARE TRYING TO SMOTHER AND 
DISMISS THEM.
THOSE QUESTIONS START WITH, WHAT
IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION 
WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO 
ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH?
THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED 
THE DEMOCRATS' STUNNING REVERSAL
ON THE NEED FOR THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY TO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE 
INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY, THE 
MEDIA WANTED IT, TOO.
BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT
BECAME CLEAR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC
QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE -- 
WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S PRIOR 
COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF, HIS STAFF AND ANY PEOPLE
HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE HE 
PREPARED THE COMPLAINT?
WHAT ARE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECTIONS

Spanish: 
Y NO HAN APRENDIDO NADA ESPERAN 
QUE LOS CIUDADANOS LES CREAN. 
ENTRE AUDIENCIAS ANTERIORES HE 
PUESTO TRES PREGUNTAS QUE NOS 
HAN QUERIDO PREGUNTAR 
PREGUNTARON RESPONDER. SON 
PREGUNTAS CRUCIALES QUE DE LOS 
MEDIOS TRATAN DE BORRAR. YY 
COMIENZAN CON: CON LA 
COORDINACIÓN Y LA EXTENSIÓN DE 
ESTA DE LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y EL 
ESFUERZO DE EL DELATOR? CUÁL ERA
LA NECESIDAD DE QUE EL DELATOR 
NO ESTUVIESE AQUÍ. LOS MEDIOS 
QUERÍAN ESTO, PERO LAS COSAS HAN
CAMBIADO YA QUE ESTÁ CLARO QUE 
EL DELATOR TENDRÁ QUE RESPONDER 
PREGUNTAS PROBLEMÁTICAS  QUE 
INCLUYEN ESTAS: CUÁL ERA SU 
COORDINACIÓN CON EL PRESIDENTE 
DEL COMITÉ MIENTRAS PREPARABA LA

English: 
TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS?
HOW DOES THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE 
COMPLAINT?
WHAT CONTACT DID THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER HAVE WITH THE 
MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE 
ONGOING?
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S INFORMATION?
WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO?
AND WAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM RECEIVING
OR CONVEYING ANY OF THAT 
INFORMATION?
THE MEDIA HAVE JOINED THE 
DEMOCRATS IN DISMISSING THE 
IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINING 
THIS CRUCIAL WITNESS NOW THAT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS 
SUCCESSFULLY KICKSTARTED 
IMPEACHMENT, HE HAS DISAPPEARED 
FROM THE STORY, AS IF THE 
DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
IN THEIR OWN WITNESS PROTECTION 
PROGRAM.
MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE
FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S 
ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN?
IN THESE DEPOSITIONS AND 
HEARINGS, REPUBLICANS HAVE CITED
NUMEROUS INDICATIONS OF UKRAINE 

Spanish: 
QUERELLA? CUÁLES ERAN SUS 
CONEXIONES POLÍTICAS CON LOS 
POLÍTICOS DEMÓCRATAS? COMO 
EXPLICA LAS IMPRECISIONES EN SU 
QUERELLA? QUÉ CONTACTO TENÍA CON
LOS MEDIOS, QUE PARECÍA ESTAR 
SIENDO CONTINUA? CUÁLES ERAN LAS
FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN DE ESTA 
PERSONA? CON QUIÉNES HABLÓ? Y 
POR QUÉ SE LE PROHIBIÓ POR LEY 
DAR ESA INFORMACIÓN? 
LOS MEDIOS SE HAN UNIDO A LOS 
DEMÓCRATASPPARA NO CUESTIONAR A 
ESTE TESTIGO CLAVE. ESTA PERSONA
COMENZÓ DEL IMPEACHMENT Y AHORA 
DESAPARECIÓ DE LA HISTORIA YA 
QUE SE ELLOS LO HAN PUESTO EN EL
PROGRAMA DE PROTECCIÓN DE TE
TESTIGOS PROPIOS DE LOS 

Spanish: 
DEMÓCRATAS.  CUÁL FUE LA REAL 
METIDA DE LOS DUCRANIANOS EN 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES DE 2016 PARA
OPONERSE A LA CAMPAÑA DE DONALD 
TRUMP? HAY MUCHAS FUENTES DE 
PRIMERA FUENTE Y DOCUMENTOS DE 
ELLOS QUE MUESTRAN QUE AQUÍ HAY 
UNA CRUZADA. SONDLAND HABLÓ 
CONTRA BIDEN IDO DE LAS ELE
ELECCIONES QUE FUERON 
FRAUDULENTAS DEBIDO UCRANIA.
DE HECHO LA PUBLICACIÓN DE HILL 
MUESTRA QUE LOS REPORTES DE 
UCRANIA SON FALSOS  Y ESTO VIENE
TRES DÍAS DESPUÉS DE QUE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS EN ESTE COMITÉ DI
DIJESEN QUE LLEVA DEJAR DE 
HABLAR CON EL CAPITOLIO PORQUE 
HABÍA CAMBIADO LAS HISTORIAS DE 

English: 
MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO
OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE 
REPORTED INCLUDING THE POSTING 
OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS
BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE 
JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON.
SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED 
FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FOR THEIR
IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, SOLOMON'S 
REPORTING ON BURISMA, HUNTER 
BIDEN AND UKRAINE ELECTION 
MEDDLING HAS BECOME INCONVENIENT
SO THE MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY 
SMEARING AND LIBELING SOLOMON.
THE PUBLICATION "THE HILL" SAID 
IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF 
SOLOMON'S REPORTING.
COINCIDENTALLY THE DECISION 
COMES THREE DAYS AFTER A 
DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD 
A "HILL" WRITER SHE WOULD STOP 
SPEAKING TO "THE HILL" BECAUSE 
IT HAD RUN SOLOMON'S STORIES.
AND SHE URGED THE WRITER TO 

Spanish: 
SONDLAND, LE PIDIERON QUE 
HABLASE DE LAS PREOCUPACIONES 
QUE LE CAUSABA HILL. ASÍ QUE 
AHORA SONDLAND ES UN PROBLEMA 
PARA LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y TAMBIÉN 
LOS MEDIOS. QUIERO ESTAR EN LOS 
RÉCORDS QUE SONDLAND PUSO UNA 
HISTORIA EEN LA QUE HE LLAMADO A
LA IMPERFECCIÓN INTERFERENCIA DE
UCRANIA. QUIERO QUE LEAN ESTA 
HISTORIA Y SAQUEN SUS PROPIAS 
CONCLUSIONES SOBRE LA EVIDENCIA 
QUE SON MAN HA REUNIDO.
>>> DIO SU CONSENTIMIENTO PARA 
QUE ESTUDIEN REGISTROS
>>> NO HAY OBJECIÓN
>>> ALGUNOS DE SUS COLEGAS 
IMPACTAN CON LO QUE HAN HECHO Y 
LO VAMOS DE NUEVOS EN LOS 
INFORMES DEL NEW YORK TIMES, 
TEORÍAS DE CONSPIRACIÓN LUEGO DE
ASUNTOS SIMILARES QUE INCLUYEN A

English: 
RELAY HER CONCERNS TO "HILL'S" 
MANAGEMENT.
NOW THAT SOLOMON'S REPORTING FOR
THE DEMOCRATS IS A PROBLEM FOR 
THE DEMOCRATS, IT'S A PROBLEM 
FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER SOLOMON'S 
STORY ABOUT UKRAINE'S 
INTERFERENCE.
I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO 
READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR 
OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE 
EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED.
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE PUT 
THIS INTO THE RECORD, MR. CHAIR.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY THE
MEDIA DISCREDIT AND DISOWN SOME 
OF THEIR OWN COLLEAGUES IS 
SHOCKING.
AND WE SEE IT AGAIN IN THE 
SUDDEN DENUNCIATIONS OF "NEW 
YORK TIMES" REPORTER KEN VOGEL 
AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AFTER 
HE COVERED SIMILAR ISSUES, 
INCLUDING A 2017 POLITICO PIECE 

Spanish: 
UNA PIEZA POLÍTICA TITULADA "
"ESFUERZOS UCRANIANOS PARA 
SABOTEAR OTRO, SALIERON MA " 
PORQUE SE CONTRATÓ A BIDEN, 
SUPOSICIÓN AFECTÓ A CUALQUIERA 
BAJO LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE OBAMA?
AHORA ESCUCHAMOS TESTIMONIO DE 
LOS DEMÓCRATAS Y SUS PROPIOS 
TESTIGOS DE QUE DIPLOMA ENTRAN 
ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS UN CONFLICTO 
DE INTERÉS CON HUNTER BIDEN , YY
ESO ES PORQUE TENÍA UNA POSICIÓN
ASEGURADA A PESAR DE NO TENER 
CALIFICACIONES Y ESTABA EN UNA 
COMPAÑÍA CORRUPTA UCRANIANA 
MIENTRAS SU PADRE ERA 
VICEPRESIDENTE A CARGO DE VER 
S
ASUNTOS UCRANIA. HUGO FUE VARIAS
SUS ACUSACIONES CONTRA DONALD 
TRUMP PERO SE LLEVÓ FINALMENTE  
A REPORTES EN LOS QUE RE
REEMPLAZARON EL CAMBIO D
FAVORES EN EL ALEGATO, POR QUÉ 
NO ESTABA FUNCIONANDO BIEN. LOS 

English: 
ENTITLED "UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO 
SABOTAGE TRUMP BACKFIRE."
MY THIRD QUESTION, WHY DID 
BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN?
WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM?
DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
WE HAVE NOW HEARD TESTIMONY FROM
THE DEMOCRATS' OWN WITNESSES 
THAT DIPLOMATS WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
INVOLVING HUNTER BIDEN.
THAT'S BECAUSE HE HAD SECURED A 
WELL-PAID POSITION DESPITE 
HAVING NO QUALIFICATIONS ON THE 
BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER WAS 
VICE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH 
OVERSEEING UKRAINIAN ISSUES.
AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL 
DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE RECENTLY SETTLED ON 
BRIBERY.
ACCORDING TO WIDESPREAD REPORTS,
THEY REPLACED THEIR QUID PRO QUO
ALLEGATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T 
POLLING WELL.

Spanish: 
DEMÓCRATAS DE LOS MEDIOS 
RÁPIDAMENTE ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS 
POR ALGO QUE TRAERÍAN MÁS 
INTERÉS. BIDEN GANABA 3000 
MMILLONES AL MES.
>> ESTE SER UN EJEMPLO CLARO DE 
SOBORNO. LOS DEMÓCRATAS TIENEN 
SUS TÍTERES Y ESTO SE VE TAMBIÉN
EN LA FARSA RUSA. PERO NO PUEDEN
ESPERAR QUE GENERAR ESTO SIN 
ALIENAR A LA MITAD DEL PAÍS QUE 
VOTÓ POR EL PRESIDENTE. YA SE 
PUEDEN RECONOCER LAS NOTICIAS 
FALSAS APENAS SE VEN  Y ESO LO 

English: 
IF THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA 
ARE SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
BRIBERY, YOU THINK THEY WOULD 
TAKE INTEREST IN BURISMA PAYING 
HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH.
AND THINK THEY WOULD BE 
INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN 
THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. 
LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE 
UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR 
WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BURISMA.
THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE
OF BRIBERY.
THE MEDIA, OF COURSE, ARE FREE 
TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS AND 
FREE TO LURCH FROM THE RUSSIA 
HOAX TO THE UKRAINE HOAX.
THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO REASONABLY
DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF 
THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR THE 
PRESIDENT THEY'RE TRYING TO 
EXPEL.
AMERICANS ARE LEARNED TO 
RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THIS HE
SEE IT.
IF MAINSTREAM PRESS WON'T GIVE 
IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, THEY'LL GO 
ELSEWHERE TO FIND IT, WHICH IS 
EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

English: 
 YIELD BACK.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
>>> HI, EVERYONE.
I'M ALISON MORRIS.
SPECIAL COVERAGE DAY THREE OF 
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE 
TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO 
HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERED IN 
THE AFFIRMATIVE.
AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL 
DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DEMOCRATS HAVE 
RECENTLY SETTLED ON BRIBERY.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION WAS IN 
REFERENCING IT, BUT I NOTED THAT
THE REFERENCE TO BIDEN SOUNDED 
POLITICAL TO ME.
>> YOU HAVE A KANGAROO COURT 
HEADED BY SHIFTY SCHIFF, AND THE
REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING IT.
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION YOU DID NOT KNOW THE 

English: 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
>> RANKING MEMBER, COLONEL, 
PLEASE.
>> COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED 
INFORMATION?
>> I NEVER DID.
NEVER WOULD.
THAT IS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS 
THAT I WOULD DO THAT.
>> HAD YOU EVER HEARD A CALL 
LIKE THIS?
>> AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I 
BELIEVE WHAT I FOUND UNUSUAL OR 
DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CALL WAS 
THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE TO 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS, AND 
THAT STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT THAN
OTHER CALLS I HAD LISTENED TO.
>> IT IS A PIVOTAL WEEK IN THE 
INQUIRY WITH THREE DAYS OF 
HEARINGS FROM NINE WITNESSES.
SO FAR TODAY WE'VE HEARD FROM 
THE NFC'S TOP UKRAINE EXPERT AND
DECORATED ARMY VETERAN, 
ALEXANDER VINMAN, AND JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS, A DIPLOMAT POSTED IN 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
THEY LISTENED TO THE PRESIDENT'S
JULY PHONE CALL WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
>> ON JULY 25TH ALONG WITH 
SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES, I 
LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 

English: 
ZELENSKY.
I FOUND THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL
UNUSUAL, BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO 
OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I 
OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION
OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A 
POLITICAL DOMESTIC MATTER.
>> WHAT I HEARD WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE, AND I REPORTED MY
CONCERNS.
IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN AT A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE 
COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I RECORDED 
MY CONCERNS JULY 10TH RELATING 
TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THEN 
RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID
SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.
I REPORTEDLY CONCERNS IN 
OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER 
AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND.
MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THE 
CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.
>> VINMAN AND WILLIAMS BOTH 
TESTIFIED THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF
ANY NATIONAL SECURITY WHO 
SUPPORTED THE DECISION TO 
WITHHOLD THE NEARLY $400 MILLION

English: 
FROM UKRAINE.
THEY SAID WITHHOLDING THE AGE 
WAS DAMAGING TO THE TWO 
COUNTRY'S RELATIONSHIPS AND TO 
UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO CON FRONT 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
DEMOCRATS HOPED TO BACK UP THE 
BASIS OF THEIR INQUIRY.
WHILE THE HOLDING U.S. MILITARY 
AID MAY BE GROUNDS FOR REMOVING 
HIM TO OFFICE.
REPUBLICANS STARTED THE HEARING 
TRYING TO GET THE WITNESS 
QUESTIONING VINMAN'S AMERICAN 
LOYALTY AND PROFESSIONALISM.
LEE AN CALDWELL IS FOLLOWING THE
TESTIMONY FROM CAPITOL HILL.
WHAT ARE YOUR TAKE AWAYS FROM 
THIS MORNING'S TESTIMONY?
>> WELL, THE BIG TAKE AWAYS ARE 
THE FACTS THAT THESE TWO PEOPLE 
WERE POSITIONED TOGETHER TO 
TALK.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY BOTH WERE
ON THE CALL, THE INFAMOUS 
JULY 25TH CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THEY BOTH HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE 

English: 
CALL AS WELL.
WHAT I NOTICED IS THAT 
REPUBLICANS HAD A BIG DAY.
THEY DOMINATED THE QUESTION.
THOSE ARE THE MOST EXPLOSIVE 
MOMENTS.
DEMOCRATS MEANWHILE TRIED TO LET
THE WITNESSES TELL THE STORY BY 
QUESTIONING.
LETTING THEM LAY OUT WHAT THEY 
KNEW.
GETTING BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS,
E REPUBLICANS REALLY TRIED TO 
POKE HOLES IN ESPECIALLY ALECK 
ZANDER VINMAN'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT 
HAPPENED.
ESPECIALLY SINCE HIS TESTIMONY 
SAID THAT HE INTERPRETED WHAT 
WAS HAPPENING AS EXTREME AS A 
DEMAND FROM THE PRESIDENT UNTO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THEY ALSO REALLY TRIED TO 
DISTRACT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS WELL.
I THINK THAT OVERALL DEMOCRATS 
REALLY WERE ABLE TO LAY OUT SOME
MORE DAMMING EVIDENCE, BUT 
REPUBLICANS WERE REALLY TRYING 
TO UNDERCUT AND SEW DISCORD AND 

English: 
DISBELIEF IN THE DEMOCRAT'S 
ARGUMENT BY POKING HOLES IN THE 
WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
>> LET'S STICK WITH THE 
REPUBLICANS FOR A MOMENT.
LAST WEEK THEY WENT AFTER KENT 
AND TAYLOR FOR NOT HAVING 
FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS TO THE 
JULY 25TH UKRAINE CALL.
VINMAN AND WILLIAMS WERE BOTH ON
THE CALL.
HOW DID THAT AFFECT THEIR LINE 
OF QUESTIONING TODAY?
THEY TRIED TO POKE A LOT OF 
HOLES.
>> THERE WAS NO MORE TALK ABOUT 
HEAR SAY.
LAST WEEK THEY WERE TALKING 
ABOUT WITNESSES WITH SECOND AND 
THIRD HAND KNOWLEDGE.
YOU DIDN'T HEAR THAT TODAY.
INSTEAD WHAT REPUBLICANS TRIED 
TO DO IS SAY THAT THE CALL WAS 
NOT AS PROBLEMATIC AS THESE TWO 
WITNESSES SAID.
BUT THEY ALSO TRIED TO TALK 
ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
USING THE TERM BRIBERY NOW, NOT 
QUID PRO QUO.
ONE CONGRESSMAN FROM TEXAS, A 
REPUBLICAN, SAID NO AND ODDLY IN
THE THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF 
WITNESSES, NOT ONE PERSON 
MENTIONED BRIBERY EXCEPT FOR 
WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT JOE

English: 
BIDEN.
NOW, I DIDN'T FACT CHECK THAT.
I DIDN'T DO A COUNT, BUT THAT 
WAS THE ARGUMENT THEY WERE 
MAKING.
TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT NO ONE 
WAS TALKING ABOUT BRIBERY HERE 
EXCEPT FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
SO REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY TRYING
TO INSIST THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
AREOVER PLAYING THEIR HAND.
THAT WHILE -- THAT THERE'S 
NOTHING IMPEACHABLE HERE, 
ALISON.
>> BEFORE TODAY, REPUBLICANS 
MANY OF THEM, WENT AFTER COLONEL
VINMAN'S CHARACTER.
THEY QUESTIONED HIS POLITICAL 
MOTIVATIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ABOUT 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS LIKE HE DID 
LAST WEEK WITH FORMER AMBASSADOR
MARIE YOVANOVITCH.
IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE OPENING 
STATEMENTS.
>> WE ALL SAW THE PRESIDENT'S 
TWEET ABOUT YOU ON SUNDAY 
AFTERNOON.
AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST 
FRIDAY.
YOU'RE HERE TODAY AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL.
COLONEL VINMAN, WE HAVE SEEN 
MORE SCURRILOUS ATTACKS ON YOUR 

English: 
CHARACTER.
I NOTE YOU'VE SHED BLOOD FOR 
AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU OUR 
GRATITUDE.
I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE 
WILL BE PART OF THE VICIOUS 
ATTACKS.
>> Reporter: HOW WOULD YOU 
CHARACTER RISE HOW THEY TREATED 
THE WITNESSES?
>> WILLIAMS DIDN'T GET TOUGH 
TREATMENT.
THEY DIDN'T REALLY GO THERE.
WITH VINMAN, IT WAS A DIFFERENT 
STORY.
SO IT WASN'T THE MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS WHO TALKED ABOUT THIS 
IDEA OF THE DUAL LOYALTY FOR 
VINMAN.
IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL 
WHO WENT THERE.
HE TALKED ABOUT HOW IN UKRAINE, 
VINMAN WAS GIVEN A JOB OFFER TO 
BE DEFENSE MINISTER IN UKRAINE.
VINMAN SAID IT SEEMED LIKE IT 
WAS MORE OF A JOKE BECAUSE THERE
WERE OTHER STAFFERS THERE, AND 
HE REPORTED IT UP THE CHAIN.
AND WHEN HE WAS PRESSED HE SAID 
LOOK, IN IT WAS A PROBLEM, THEY 
WOULD HAVE REMOVED ME FROM MY 

English: 
POSITION IMMEDIATELY AND TALKED 
TO ME ABOUT IT.
BUT THERE WAS NO FOLLOWUP FROM 
THEM.
SO VINMAN REALLY TRIED TO 
DISMISS THIS.
AND IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE
MADE THE POINT THAT YES, HE IS A
FATHER EMIGRATE -- HIS FATHER 
EMIGRATED FROM THE SOVIET UNION 
WHEN HIS FATHER WAS 47 YEARS 
OLD.
HE SAID I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO
SIT HERE IF I WAS TALKING ABOUT 
GIVING MY OPINION OR WHAT I 
THOUGHT WAS WRONG ABOUT A WORLD 
LEADER, BUT BECAUSE I'M IN THE 
UNITED STATES, I'M ABLE TO DO 
THAT.
>> LEE ANN, WE HEARD DETAILS OF 
HOW THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
JULY 25TH CALL ENDED UP ON A 
HIGHLY SECURED SERVER.
WHAT DID HE LEARN?
>> WE'RE LEARNING A LOT MORE OF 
THE DETAILS NOT ONLY THROUGH THE
TESTIMONIES IN THE PUBLIC, BUT 
ALSO IN DEPOSITIONS THAT ARE -- 
THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT ARE ALSO 
BEING RELEASED.
WE HAVE LEARNED THAT IT WAS AT 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 

English: 
LAWYER WHO WAS THE ONE WHO PUT 
IT IN THOSE -- IN THE SECURE 
SERVER, AND WHAT ALEXANDER 
VINMAN SAID TODAY IS THAT YEAH, 
THERE WAS A COUPLE WORDS THAT 
WEREN'T ACCURATE.
AND SO HE TRIED TO CORRECT THAT.
HE SAID IT WAS HIS JOB TO GIVE 
THE MOST ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT AS 
POSSIBLE.
HE GAVE HIS SUGGESTIONS AND THEY
WEREN'T TAKEN.
NOW, THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THAT 
WAS -- THAT WAS PRETTY 
INCREDIBLE, BECAUSE THE WORDS 
THAT WAS NOT USED WAS BAREESMA.
THIS IS THE ENERGY COMPANY THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO BECAUSE IT'S 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIDENS.
VINMAN DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THAT 
EXTREME OF A SITUATION, AND HE 
SAID GENERALLY THE TRANSCRIPTS 
WERE CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
>> WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE 
REPUBLICANS.
WHAT WAS THE DEMOCRAT'S STRATEGY
TODAY?
WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO GET OUT
OF VINMAN AND WILLIAMS THIS 
AFTERNOON?
>> THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW 
SEVERE THE TWO OF THEM THOUGHT 

English: 
THIS PHONE CALL WAS.
VINMAN CHARACTERIZED IT AS THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
PUTTING A DEMAND ON THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
THEY TRIED TO GET OUT HOW VINMAN
SAID IN THE CLOSED DOOR MEETING 
THAT THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IS SO INTENSE THAT IF 
SOMEONE WITH AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT 
OF POWER ASKS SOMEONE WITHOUT 
THAT MUCH POWER AND NEEDS A 
FAVOR J VINMAN SAYS THAT'S A 
DEMAND.
NOW, REPUBLICANS SAID THAT THAT 
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE 
TAKEN THAT WAY, ESPECIALLY SINCE
BOTH PRESIDENTS SAID THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS NINE, BUT THE 
DEMOCRATS THINK THAT WHAT THE 
TESTIMONY TODAY DID IS GIVE 
FURTHER EVIDENCE TO HOW WRONG 
THE PRESIDENT WAS IN HOW HE WAS 
DEALING WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT.
>> WE KNOW THAT JULY 25TH CALL, 
THE ONE THAT VINMAN AND WILLIAMS
WERE NOT PROMPTED THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD.

English: 
REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF HAD TO 
CAUTION A REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT 
NOT REVEALING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY TODAY.
YOU WERE IN THE ROOM AT THE 
TIME.
DID IT FEEL LIKE HE WAS TRYING 
TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER THERE?
>> YEAH.
>> OKAY.
>> SURE DID.
NOT ONLY THAT TIME, BUT ALSO 
LATER IN THE HEARING WHEN 
CONGRESSMAN JORDAN DID SOMETHING
SIMILAR.
THE REASON IS BECAUSE NUNES AND 
JORDAN WERE ASKING A ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS THAT WERE ABOUT -- 
THEY WERE ASKING VINMAN WHO HE 
TALKED TO, WHO HE TOLD HIS 
CONCERNS TO.
MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN 
NAMED EXCEPT THERE'S ONE PERSON 
WHO HASN'T BEEN NAMED YET, AND 
SO THE REPUBLICANS ARE IMPLYING 
THAT THAT ONE PERSON IS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
HE INTERJECTED STOP TO TWICE THE
LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND THEN 
LATER IN THE HEARING, 
REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN SAID, 
WELL, CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF, YOU 
SAID YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS, SO WHY WOULD 
YOU THINK THAT'S THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER?
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO STOP 
HERE?
SO HE TRIED TO CATCH HIM, DO A 

English: 
QUICK TAKE THERE.
BUT IT WAS VERY APPARENT THAT 
NUNES AND JIM JORDAN WERE TRYING
TO GET THE WHISTLEBLOWER NAMED 
OR AT LEAST GIVE MORE 
DESCRIPTION OF WHO HE WAS.
LEE ANN, IT'S BEEN A BIG DAY SO 
FAR.
A BIG DAY AHEAD.
THANK YOU.
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
>> A LEGAL LOOK AT TODAY'S 
HEARINGS, LEGAL ANALYST BRETT 
BERGER IS HERE.
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE 
DEMOCRATS' OVERALL GOAL WAS WITH
THE WITNESSES?
>> I THINK THE DEMOCRATS' GOAL 
WAS TO REESTABLISH THE CORE 
FACTS.
HE HAD TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE 
LISTENING TO THE CALL COMING 
FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS THAT 
BOTH WERE ALARMED BY THE NATURE 
OF THE JULY 25TH CALL, AND FELT 
THE NEED TO SPEAK ABOUT IT.
>> HOW ABOUT ON THE REPUBLICAN 
SIDE?
>> I THINK IT WAS TO CREATE A 
LOT OF NOISE AND MAKE THE FOCUS 
NOT ON THE CORE ALLEGATION.
TO MAKE IT ON ALMOST ANYTHING 
BUT.
TO MAKE THE FOCUS ON THE 
WITNESSES THEMSELVES.
POSSIBLY TRYING TO DISCREDIT 

English: 
THEM.
TRYING TO PUT THE FOCUS ON THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
PUT THE FOCUS ON THE MEDIA.
I THINK THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY 
WAS TO TAKE THE FOCUS AWAY FROM 
SORT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 
CALL AND PUT IT ELSEWHERE.
>> WE'VE BEEN SAYING OVER THE 
LAST WEEK A BIG STRATEGY FOR THE
REPUBLICANS WAS TO LOOK AT IT 
AND POINT OUT HEAR SAY AND SAY 
THE WITNESSES HERE DID NOT HAVE 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF SEVERAL 
THINGS INCLUDING THE JULY 25TH 
PHONE CALL.
THAT WAS DIFFERENT TODAY, 
BECAUSE THESE TWO WITNESSES DID.
I WANTED YOU TO TALK TO US ON 
BOTH SIDES.
HOW DID REPUBLICANS HANDLE IT 
DIFFERENTLY TODAY WITH THAT IN 
MIND, AND THEN DID THIS PLAY 
INTO THE DEMOCRAT'S STRATEGY 
BECAUSE THE WITNESSES DID HAVE 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE?
>> THAT WAS ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT 
THEY WERE MAKING THAT WAS GOING 
TO HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE.
WE KNEW THERE WERE WITNESSES 
WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT 
WAS COMING.
WE KNEW IT WAS SOMEONE 
HYPOCRITICAL.
I THINK THE REPUBLICANS' 
APPROACH WAS LIKE WE TALKED 
ABOUT BEFORE.
NOT TO GET INTO SOME OF THE 

English: 
SUBSTANCE, BUT TO MAKE THE FOCUS
ON ISSUES OF THE WITNESS ITSELF.
FOR EXAMPLE, ALL THE ATTACKS 
THAT COLONEL VINMAN TOOK BASED 
ON HOW HE WENT ABOUT REPORTING 
IT.
DID HE REPORT IT TO THE RIGHT 
PERSON?
WAS IT PROPER FOR HIM TO GO TO 
THE LAWYER BEFORE?
THAT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO 
WITH ANYTHING.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE 
PROCEEDINGS ARE ABOUT.
THERE WAS A BIT OF A 
DISTRACTION.
>> YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE 
MORE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD 
VINMAN.
THE CONGRESSMAN NUNES WENT AFTER
HIM HARD ASKING HIM IF HE WAS A 
LEAKER.
CAN THAT BACKFIRE WITH A WITNESS
LIKE THIS?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
YOU SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN 
FEDERAL TRIALS.
YOU HAVE TO TOE THE LINE.
IF YOU HAVE A JURY THAT'S 
FEELING SYMPATHETICALLY TO A 
WITNESS OR HERE THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC IS FEELING SYMPATHETIC A 
WITNESS, ATTACKING THAT PERSON 
PERSONALLY AS OPPOSED TO THE 
SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY'RE 
TESTIFYING ABOUT CAN BACKFIRE.
AND TO SOME EXTENT THE 
REPUBLICAN STRATEGY HAS BEEN TO 

English: 
SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS 
PROPER.
HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT 
HAS ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO DO, 
THEN WHY ATTACK THE WITNESS WHO 
IS ARE JUST CAREER PUBLIC 
SERVANTS LISTENING IN ON A CALL 
AND TESTIFYING BECAUSE PROBABLY 
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THERE.
WE CARE ABOUT WHAT THE WITNESSES
SAY AND WE'LL ATTACK THEM 
PERSONALLY, YET, WE'RE SEEING IT
DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE HE HAS 
THE RIGHT TO DO IT.
>> COLONEL VINMAN SAID HE 
PREPARED TALKING POINTS BUT THE 
PRESIDENT DIDN'T STICK TO THEM.
WHY IS THAT LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT 
HERE?
WHY IS THAT AN IMPORTANT POINT 
TO MAKE?
>> LOOK, I THINK THIS PROBABLY 
PLAYS INTO ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN
NARRATIVES THEY'RE TRYING TO 
ESTABLISH THAT THIS WAS JUST HOW
THOSE PRESIDENTS TAKES SOME OF 
THE CALLS.
IT WAS NOT PART OF A PLANNED 
PATTERN OF TRYING TO BRIBE THE 
UKRAINIANS.
THIS WAS JUST THE PRESIDENT SORT
OF FREE WHEELING IN HIS 
CONVERSATION.
THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY 
THE CAREER PERSON SAYING NO, WE 

English: 
CAREFULLY SCRIPT THESE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CAUTIOUS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CAREFUL IN 
YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANOTHER
WORLD LEADER, IT'S SIGNIFICANT.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEPARTURE FROM THAT.
>> IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE WE HAVE 
NINE WITNESSES THIS WEEK.
WE'VE HEARD FROM TWO.
TWO MORE THIS EVENING.
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THIS 
EVENING, AND FROM THE OTHER 
WITNESSES IN THE WEEK AHEAD?
>> WELL, I THINK THE WITNESSES 
THIS AFTERNOON ARE GOING TO BE 
INTERESTING.
THESE ARE THE FIRST TWO 
WITNESSES, VOLKER AND MORRISON, 
THEY -- IT WILL BE INTERESTING 
TO SEE HOW BOTH THE DEMOCRATS 
AND THE REPUBLICANS TREAT THE 
WITNESSES.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER WE 
HAVE GORDON SONDLAND COMING UP 
WHO WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE 
ISSUE OF AMENDING HIS TESTIMONY.
HOW ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO 
WALK HIM THROUGH THE CHANGES AND
WHAT DO THE REPUBLICANS DO WITH 
THAT?
>> SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID WHEN
IS THE BIG DAY WITH SONDLAND?
DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY AS WELL?
>> I DO.
I THINK HE'S A CRUCIAL WITNESS.
HE'S RIGHT IN THE THICK OF ALL 
THIS.

English: 
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE HE'S HAD THIS
CHANGE IN HIS TESTIMONY, HE HAS 
A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO AS TO 
HOW TO RECKEN SIEL HIS 
TESTIMONY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING 
AND TALKING.
GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
>> YES.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REACTING TO 
TODAY'S TESTIMONY DURING A 
CABINET MEETING.
TAKE A LISTEN.
>> RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A KANGAROO
COURT HEADED BY SHIFTY SHIFT 
WHERE WE DON'T HAVE LAWYERS.
WE DON'T HAVE WITNESSES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AND YET I
GOT TO WATCH AND THE REPUBLICANS
ARE KILLING IT.
THEY ARE DOING SO WELL.
IT'S A SCAM.
A BIG SCAM.
>> HANS, YOU HEARD FROM THE 
PRESIDENT SAYING THE REPUBLICANS
ARE CALLING THIS A SCAM ON 
THURSDAY.
>> THE PRESIDENT IS DISTANCES 
HIMSELF FROM THE LIEUTENANT 
SKERNL VINMAN SAYING HE DOESN'T 
KNOW HIM.
HE'S TRYING TO DRAW HIMSELF 
CLOSER TO ASPECTS OF HIS 
TESTIMONY.
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
TESTIMONY ARE TRYING TO SAY IS 
VINMAN CORROBORATES THE CALL LOG

English: 
IS ACCURATE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU 
HEAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE FROM 
THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN THAT THEY 
THINK THEY CAN WIN THIS.
THEY THINK THEY CAN DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT JUST ON THE BASIS OF 
THAT JULY 25TH CALL.
SO THERE'S AN OFFICIAL WHITE 
HOUSE STATEMENT.
THEY'RE SAYING NOTHING TO SEE 
HERE.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY MENTIONING 
WHAT THE REACTION WAS FOR MISS 
WILLIAMS OR LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINMAN ABOUT THE CALL.
THAT'S THAT -- 
>> I GOT TO CUT YOU.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE SPEAKING.
WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN IN.
>> THEY'RE AFRAID TO BUCK TRUMP 
AND BUCK McCONNELL.
THE DREAM AND PROMISE ACT.
168 DAYS AGO WAS PASSED.
THE BIPARTISAN BACKGROUND CHECK,
265 DAYS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHO TO 
BLAME FOR THE INACTION.
LEADER McCONNELL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.

English: 
>> THE SENATE IS A TERRIBLE 
THING TO WASTE.
WE ARE WASTING THE UNITED 
STATES' SENATE NOW.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY AMOUNTS 
HAVE BEEN VOTED ON ON THE FLOOR 
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN 
THE CALENDAR YEAR WE'RE 
CURRENTLY IN?
21.
21 AMENDMENTS IN THE ENTIRE 
YEAR.
LEADER McCONNELL COME OUT AND 
SAYS THE REASON WE'RE NOT DOING 
ANYTHING IS THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FIRST TEN
MONTHS OF THE YEAR MAJORITY 
LEADER?
21 AMENDMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 
OF TIME.
THAT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT 
WE'RE NOT TAKING UP LEGISLATION 
ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED 
STATES SENATE.
OBVIOUSLY LEADER McCONNELL 
THINKS THERE'S NOTHING TO 
ADDRESS.
NOTHING THAT NEEDS DEBATING.
WELL, I THINK HE'S OVERLOOKING 
THE OBVIOUS.
WE HAVE A DESPERATE NEED TO DEAL
WITH THE ESCALATING PRICE OF 
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ACROSS THE 
UNITED STATES.
WHAT BILL IS COMING TO THE 
FLOOR?
NONE.
WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST FROM A REPUBLICAN 
SENATOR TO BRING A MATTER TO THE
FLOOR.

English: 
I'D LIKE TO SEND A NOTE TO THE 
SENATOR FROM TEXAS AND TELL HIM 
YOU SHOULD SPEAK TO YOUR 
MAJORITY LEADER.
HE SETS THE AGENDA ON THE FLOOR 
AND WE OUGHT TO BE BRINGING UP A
BILL THAT BOTH DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS CAN DEBATE ON 
BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF 
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
CHUCK MENTIONED THE PROMISING 
DREAM ACT.
I WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT 
HEARING THE OTHER DAY.
A HEARING THAT WILL DECIDE THE 
FATE OF 790,000 PEOPLE IN THE 
UNITED STATES.
NOW WE'LL WAIT UNTIL NEXT JUNE 
TO SEE IF THE SUPREME COURT 
RULES AND HOW THEY RULE.
IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT IS THE 
SENATE GOING TO DO?
WHAT IF WE CONSIDERED THE BILL 
PASSED BY THE HOUSE?
THE PROMISE AND DREAM ACT WHICH 
WOULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ON A 
LEGISLATIVE BASIS?
AND DO IT QUICKLY.
SO THEIR FATE COULD BE 
DETERMINED AND I HOPE IN A 
POSITIVE WAY.
IT'S AN OBVIOUS INDICATION THAT 
LEADER McCONNELL BECAUSE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR WHATEVER 
REASON HAS NO INTEREST IN 
LEGISLATING.
I SAY THIS TO SENATOR McCONNELL.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO USE THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE, GIVE IT TO
SOMEONE WHO WILL.
PERHAPS MAYBE GIVE IT TO A FEW 

English: 
DEMOCRATS.
WE'VE GOT A FEW IDEAS.
>> SENATOR MURRAY.
>> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
YOU KNOW, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF
THIS CONGRESS IN JANUARY, LEADER
McCONNELL AND THE SENATE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE WORKED 
AGGRESSIVELY TO HALT THE REGULAR
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND TURN 
THIS SENATE INTO A LEGISLATIVE 
GRAVEYARD.
REFUSING TO ALLOW THIS BODY TO 
DO ITS JOB TO VOTE ON LAWS THAT 
PROTECT AND SERVE THE FAMILIES 
AND COMMUNITIES THAT WE 
REPRESENT.
SO AS WE HEAR REPUBLICAN LEADERS
BEGIN TO BLAME THE HOUSE PLEEMT 
INQUIRY FOR HOW LITTLE THE 
SENATE IS GETTING DONE, I HAVE 
TO WONDER WHAT STOPPED LEADER 
McCONNELL FROM CALLING UP 
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TO SECURE
OUR ELECTIONS FROM FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE THAT PASSED THE 
HOUSE IN MARCH.
WHAT STOPPED LEADER McCONNELL 
FROM BRINGING UP BIPARTISAN 
LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE 
IN MAY TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE 
CRISIS AND STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP 
FROM LEAVING THE PARIS CLIMATE 

English: 
AGREEMENT?
WHAT STOPPED LEADER McCONNELL 
THIS FALL FROM ALLOWING THE 
SENATE TO VOTE ON LEGISLATION TO
STOP THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
FROM MAKING IT EASIER FOR 
INSURERS TO THREATEN CRITICAL 
PROTECTIONS FOR PATIENTS WITH 
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS?
AND AFTER DEVASTATING, 
DEVASTATING BACK TO BACK MASS 
SHOOTINGS IN TEXAS AND OHIO IN 
AUGUST, WHAT PREVENTED LEADER 
McCONNELL FROM TAKING UP 
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK 
LEGISLATION, OR ANY COMMON SENSE
GUN SAFETY REFORMS TO FINALLY 
ADDRESS THE GUN VIOLENCE ISSUES 
THAT HAS COST TOO MANY LIVES.
THE FACT IS THE SENATE HAS 
STOPPED LEGISLATING FOR ONE 
REASON, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY 
LEADER WOULD RATHER RUBBER STAMP
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AGENDA THAN 
GET ANYTHING DONE FOR OUR 
FAMILIES AND OUR COMMUNITIES.
SENATE REPUBLICANS CAN TRY TO 
PASS THE BLAME ANYWHERE THEY 
WANT FROM THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES TO THE WEATHER, BUT 
THEIR ARGUMENT DOESN'T PASS 

English: 
MUSTER, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, WHEN 
THEIR INACTION IS POINTED OUT, 
IT'S CLEAR WHAT THEY CAN DO.
THEY CAN JOIN DEMOCRATS AND GET 
TO WORK ON THE LONG, LON LIST OF
CHALLENGES WE CAN AND SHOULD BE 
MAKING PROGRESS ON.
FROM HEALTH CARE TO GUN VIOLENCE
TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND MORE.
WE ARE READY TO GET TO WORK.
WE HAVE BEEN READY TO GET TO 
WORK FROM DAY ONE.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP 
PUSHING SENATE REPUBLICAN 
LEADERS TO START GETTING THINGS 
DONE HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS 
IN THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD, 
NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH REGARD
TO GUN VIOLENCE.
WE WERE TOLD AFTER THE HORRORS 
OF JUST THIS PAST SUMMER THAT 
THERE WOULD BE ACTION.
THE MAJORITY LEADER TALKED ABOUT
CONSIDERING A BACKGROUND CHECK 
IN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER
BILL.
OF COURSE, NEITHER HAS HAPPENED.

English: 
IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL 
BACKGROUND CHECK BILL, 265 DAYS 
IN THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD, WE
KNOW HAS A NATION WE LOSE 100 
PEOPLE EVERY DAY TO GUN 
VIOLENCE.
YOU WOULD THINK IN THE FACE OF 
THAT, WE WOULD AT LEAST SET A 
BARE MINIMUM YOU WOULD GET A 
VOTE ON A UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND 
CHECK.
NO ONE WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT'S 
GOING TO BE ENOUGH.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD START, 
BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THAT.
I CAN JUST RECITE SOME NUMBERS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE NUMBERS ARE 
THE AGES OF PEOPLE JUST IN 
PHILADELPHIA JUST THE LAST 
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
AND I'VE ONLY REFERENCED AN AGE 
OF SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY 
KILLED.
STARTING IN LATE, LATE OCTOBER, 
JUST UNTIL RECENTLY A 
SIX-YEAR-OLD, A 17-YEAR-OLD, 
2
2-YEAR-OLD, A 19-YEAR-OLD.
IT QUOS ON AND ON AND ON.
AND BACK IN PENNSYLVANIA WHEN I 
TRAVEL ACROSS OUR STATE, 
EVERYWHERE YOU GO, PEOPLE ASK US
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON 

English: 
SOME -- AT LEAST ONE MEASURE, 
ONE COMMON SENSE GUN MEASURE.
PEOPLE ASK THAT ALL OVER THE 
STATE.
AND I HAVE TO KEEP TELLING THEM 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT'S UP TO 
ONE PERSON.
ONE PERSON CAN DECIDE AND THAT 
PERSON IS THE MAJORITY LEADER 
WHO HAS CHOSEN NOT TO BRING THE 
BILLS TO THE FLOOR.
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ARE LOSING PATIENCE WITH THAT.
IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITIES LIKE 
PHILADELPHIA WHICH HAVE 
SEEMINGLY DAILY OR AT LEAST 
WEEKLY INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE, WE
HAD THE MOST RECENT IN SANTA 
CLARITA.
A STORY OF NEW JERSEY, A 
FOOTBALL GAME, A TEN-YEAR-OLD 
NOW APPARENTLY IN A COMA FROM 
THAT.
WE HAVE CHILDREN WHO ARE 
REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH ACTIVE 
SHOOTER DRILLS AND EVEN THIS 
YEAR, THE ADVENT OF CHILDREN 
GOING TO SCHOOL WITH BACKPACKS 
THAT ARE ARMORED IN A SENSE 
BECAUSE OF GUN VIOLENCE.
IF WE'RE DEMANDING OR PUSHING 

English: 
FAMILIES TO TAKE THOSE STEPS AND
SCHOOLS TO TAKE THOSE STEPS, THE
LEAST THE UNITED STATES SENATE 
COULD DO IS PULL ONE BILL, AT 
LEAST, OUT OF THE GRAVEYARD AND 
VOTE ON UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND 
CHECKS.
>> OKAY.
QUESTIONS?
>> IT WAS SAID EARLIER YOU 
DON'T -- 
[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ]
>> WELL, WE HAVE TRIED TO PASS 
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT 
MANY TIMES.
PATTY MURRAY HAS HAD UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT ON IT AND THE HOUSE 
PASSED IT OVER 200 DAYS.
SENATOR ERNST IS SIMPLY AFRAID 
OF THE NRA.
ASK SENATOR ERNST IF SHE 
BELIEVES THAT A BOYFRIEND OF A 
WOMAN WHO HAS GOTTEN A 
PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED AGAINST 
HIM SHOULD GET A GUN.
SENATOR ERNST, EVIDENTLY 
BELIEVES YES.
IN THE BILL SHE'S PUTTING 
FORWARD, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT 
PROVISION EVEN THOUGH IT DID IN 
THE HOUSE.

English: 
SO IF SENATOR ERNST WANTS TO 
DEBATE IT, LET HER ASK LEADER 
McCONNELL, MAKE A UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST TO BRING THE 
HOUSE BILL ON THE FLOOR AND 
WE'LL DEBATE IT.
WE CAN DEBATE HER AMENDMENT 
WHICH THE GUN LOBBY WANTS, BUT 
ALMOST NO OTHER AMERICAN WANTS.
BY THE WAY, SHE JUST INTRODUCED 
IT TODAY.
SO SHE'S A BIT, NO PUN INTENDED,
JUMPING THE GUN.
>> LOOK, I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA 
WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IF WE 
LEARNED ANYTHING AT ALL FROM 
THIS ADMINISTRATION, IT TAKES 
THEM SEVERAL TRIES BEFORE THEY 
GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT AND 
THE TRUTH COMES OUT.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE RIGHT TO 
QUESTION THE TRUTHFULNESS OF 
STORIES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
IN THE MEANTIME, I WISH THE 
PRESIDENT WELL.
FROM WHATEVER HE'S RECOVERING 

English: 
FROM, AND WHATEVER CAUSED THEM 
TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL IN THE 
FIRST PLACE.
WE'LL DO BOTH OF YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS 
IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST 
SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THE
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SENATE TO
HAVE A TRIAL AFTER THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT 
SHOULD IT OCCUR IN THE HOUSE.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO LET 
SCHEDULING REQUESTS GET IN THE 
WAY OF THAT SOLEMN 
RESPONSIBILITY, PERIOD.
>> BOTTOM LINE IS WE'D LIKE TO 
HAVE INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON THE 
FLOOR.
THERE SHOULD BE A FULL DEBATE.
SHOULD A BOYFRIEND WITH A 
PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED AGAINST 
HIM BE ABLE TO GET A GUN?
SHOULD A WOMAN ON AN INDIAN 
RESERVATION GET SIMILAR 
PROTECTIONS TO OTHER WOMEN?

English: 
THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE
DEBATED.
IT'S MUCH BETTER TO DEBATE THESE
FULLY ON THE FLOOR UP TO NOW 
McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICAN 
LEADERSHIP HAS NOT LET THAT 
HAPPEN.
LAST ONE.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO DO 
SOMETHING ABOUT SURPRISE BILLING
AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT 
PROPOSALS AND I THINK THE 
LEADERSHIP IS WORKING THAT OUT.
OKAY?
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
>> HANS NICHOLS JOINS US.
I CUT YOU OFF RUDELY BEFORE, BUT
THE DEMOCRATS WERE SPEAKING.
WE HAD TO HEAD OVER THERE.
BEFORE BUT CUT YOU OFF, WE WERE 
TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REACTION.
HE SAID THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
KILLING IT AND CALLING THIS A 
SCAM.
NBC ASKED THE PRESIDENT IF HE 

English: 
BELIEVES LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINMAN IS A CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.
>> THEY'RE REALLY CHERRY PICKING
SOME OF THE TESTIMONY LIKING THE
PARTS THEY THINK ARE 
ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEIR CASE, 
NAMELY THAT THIS TESTIMONY, THIS
IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
AND THAT THAT IS THE FIGHT THE 
WHITE HOUSE WANTS TO HAVE.
IN ALMOST EVERY DISCUSSION I 
HAVE WITH WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS,
EVERY LEVEL, THEY COME BACK TO 
THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT IN 
THEIR MINDS, DIDN'T DO ANYTHING 
WRONG ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE TRANSJIPT IS DEFENSIBLE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ABOUT.
IT'S SO CLEAR THEY WANT TO HAVE 
THIS BE LITIGATED OVER THAT 
INITIAL MEMO TRANSCRIPT CALL 
LOG, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER 
TO IT.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT TWEETED.
HE TWEETED ABOUT JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND HER TESTIMONY.
THE WHITE HOUSE SENDS OUT A 
TWEET QUESTIONING COLONEL 
VINMAN'S JUDGMENT.
WHEN IT HAPPENED LAST WEEK WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED WHEN MA ME

English: 
YOVANOVITCH WAS TESTIFIED, THEY 
CALLED IT WITNESS ENTIMATION.
>> THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP THE 
WHITE HOUSE OR THE PRESIDENT 
FROM TWEETING, OR EXERCISING 
WHAT THEY SAY IS HIS FIRST 
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
THEY REJECT THE MOTION THIS IS 
WITNESS INTIMIDATION.
THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT WILL 
CONTINUE TO COMMENT AND OFFER 
COMMENTARY IN REALTIME.
I WOULD NOTE THAT TODAY WHILE HE
WAS WATCHING, HE WAS LARGELY 
SILENT ON TWITTER.
THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM HIM
WAS IN THE POOL SPRAY WHEN HE 
WAS IN THERE IN THE CABIN ROOM 
SPEAKING WITH OTHER OFFICIALS 
AND HE MADE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND THEN HALLIE JACKSON STARTED 
ASKING SOME QUESTIONS, AND THEN 
WE GOT THE NEWS OF THE DAY.
NOW HE'S ACTIVE ON TWITTER.
HE'S RETWEETING A LOT OF THINGS 
HE THINKS ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO 
HIM.
A LOT OF FAVORABLE COMMENTS FROM
CONGRESSMEN.
MOMENTS THEY WANT TO FRAME THE 
DISCUSSION FROM HERE TO FORE.
>> HANS, IS IT NOTABLE THE 
PRESIDENT WASN'T TWEETING 
EARLIER TODAY?
>> NO.
IT'S A WAY THE WHITE HOUSE DOES 
THE SCHEDULE.
THEY'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC EVENTS 

English: 
ON HIS SCHEDULE AND THEN THERE 
ARE PRIVATE EVENTS.
YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T 
HAVE ANY PUBLIC ON HIS EVENT 
UNTIL 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON IN 
THE OVAL OFFICE.
IN THE MORNING EVEN THOUGH IT 
WASN'T ON THE SCHEDULE, HE HAD A
MEETING WITH THE FED CHAIRMAN.
THAT WAS IN THE RESIDENCE.
SO IN GENERAL IT'S MORE 
DIFFICULT TO GET A SENSE OF WHO 
HE'S MEETING WITH IN THE 
RESIDENCE BECAUSE AIDES, THERE 
AREN'T AS MANY GOING IN AND OUT 
OF THE MEETING.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON WHERE
THE PRESIDENT WATCHED THIS 
MORNING AND WHERE HE WAS, I 
SUSPECT IT WAS THE RESIDENCE 
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A LOT OF 
CONVERSATION OVER HERE ABOUT 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO
BE, AND I TALKED TO ONE OFFICIAL
WHO SAID HE WAS EXPECTED TO BE 

English: 
IN THE RESIDENCE ALL MORNING.
>> HANS NI
>>> KURT VOLKER ARRIVED MOMENTS 
AGO ON CAPITOL HILL.
WE'LL HEAR FROM HIM SON.
HE WILL BE TESTIFYING ALONGSIDE 
TIM MORRISON.
EARLIER TODAY THE FIRST SET OF 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WE HEARD 
FROM AN AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE AND COLONEL WHO SERVES AS 
THE DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
HERE ARE A FEW OF THE MOST 
NOTEWORTHY MOMENTS.
>> ON JULY 25TH ALONG WITH 
SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES, I 
LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
THE CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN 
REPORTED.
PRIOR TO JULY 25TH APARTICIPATED
IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN OTHER PHONE 
CALLS.
DURING MY CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED 
ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND 
WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT
THE JULY 25TH CALL.
AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE
JULY 25TH PHONE CALL UNUSUAL, 
BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER 
PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD 

English: 
OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION
OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.
>> I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE 
COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED 
MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10TH 
RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDSLAND
AND JULY 25TH RELATING TO THE 
PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A 
SENSE OF DUTY.
I PRIVATELY REPORTED MY CONCERNS
IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE 
PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND.
MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THE 
CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY 
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE 
SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY 
ACTIONS.
WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY 
ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY
AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY.
>> ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT 
JULY 10TH MEETING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD
THEIR SECOND CALL, THE JULY 25TH
CALL.
COLONEL VINMAN, WHAT WAS YOUR 
REALTIME REACTION TO HEARING 

English: 
THAT CALL?
>> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION,
I KNEW THAT I HAD TO REPORT THIS
TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL.
I HAD CONCERNS, AND IT WAS MY 
DUTY TO REPORT MY CONCERNS TO 
THE PROPER PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN 
OF COMMAND.
>> AND WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN?
>> WELL, CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN 
MY STATEMENT, IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE, IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO REQUEST -- TO 
COMMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT, ESPECIALLY A
FOREIGN POWER, WHERE THERE IS AT
BEST, DUBIOUS BELIEF THAT THIS 
WOULD BE A COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL 
INVESTIGATION.
AND THAT THIS WOULD HAVE 
SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS IF IT 
BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND IT 
WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN

English: 
PLAY THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR 
UKRAINE POLICY, AND IT WOULD 
UNDERMOOIN OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT 
MEETING?
>> THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON 
BEHIND THE HOLD, BUT HE DID 
REASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
THE STRONGEST U.S. UNWAIVERING 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AND THEY 
TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR 
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO STEP UP 
AND PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AS WELL.
>> AS YOU KNOW, THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY HAS 17 DIFFERENT 
AGENCIES.
WHAT AGENCY WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL 
FROM?
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE, WE
DON'T WANT TO USE -- 
>> IT'S OUR TIME, BUT WE NEED TO
PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
IF -- PLEASE STOP.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
NO EFFORT TO OUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER THROUGHOUT THE 
PROCEEDINGS.

English: 
IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH 
BELIEF THAT THIS MAY REVEAL THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, 
THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT WE 
ARE HERE FOR, AND I WANT TO 
ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY.
>> NOW, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY 
CONCERNS TO ANYONE IN YOUR 
OFFICE ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD ON 
THE CALL?
>> MY SUPERVISOR WAS LISTENING 
IN ON THE CALL AS WELL.
SO BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE SAME
INFORMATION, I DID NOT FEEL THE 
NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT.
>> YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
YOUR JUDGMENT.
YOUR FORMER BOSS AND COLLEAGUES 
HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT
AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FELT THERE 
WERE TIMES WHEN YOU LEAKED 
INFORMATION.
AND COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED 
INFORMATION?
>> I NEVER DID, NEVER WOULD.
THAT IS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS 
THAT I WOULD DO IT.
>> OKAY.
>> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED 
FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CALL YOUD A NEVER TRUMPER.
WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A NEVER 
TRUMPER?
>> I'D CALL MYSELF NEVER 
PARTISAN.
>> IT'S NORMAL FOR A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN, A NON-U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL TO GET INVOLVED IN 

English: 
FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS LIKE MR. GIULIANI?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE 
EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT, BUT 
CERTAINLY IT WASN'T HELPFUL AND 
DIDN'T HELP ADVANCE U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.
>> YOU'RE AWARE HUNTER BIDEN SAT
ON THE BOARD AT THIS TIME?
>> I AM.
>> I KNOW MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN, THE SON OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT SAT ON THE BOARD 
OF A CORRUPT COMPANY.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATE 
DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONCERNED 
AND YET ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO 
LET THIS COMMITTEE CALL HUNTER 
BIDEN DESPITE A REQUEST.
EVERY WITNESS WHO HAS TESTIFIED 
AND HAS BEEN ASKED HAS ANSWERED 
YES.
DO YOU AGREE THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
ON THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY HAS 
THE POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE

English: 
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> CERTAINLY THE POTENTIAL, YES.
AND IF YOU CAN'T REACH AN 
AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO WHAT 
HAPPENED ON THE CALL, HOW CAN 
ANY OF US?
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OVERWHELMING
AND COMPELLING.
AND IF TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL 
DISAGREE HONESTLY ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT THERE WAS A DEMAND, AND 
WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING SHOULD 
BE REPORTED ON A CALL, THAT IS 
NOT A CLEAR AND COMPELLING BASIS
TO UNDUE 63 MILLION VOTES AND 
REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
>> SITTING HERE TALKING TO U.S. 
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO LEAVE THE 
SOVIET UNION AND COME TO THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
H
SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR 
FAMILY, DO NOT WORRY, I'LL BE 
FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. 
>> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME 
FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY, 

English: 
THAT YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF 
IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST
POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR?
>> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT 
OF RISK.
>> AND WHY DO YOU HAVE 
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT 
AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY?
>> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS 
AMERICA.
THIS IS THE COUNTRY I'VE SERVED 
AND DEFENDED, THAT ALL MY 
BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE, 
RIGHT MATTERS. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
YIELD BACK.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING VOTERS
IN SOME OF THE THE PRIMARY 
STATES AND THE COUNTIES THAT 
COULD DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE 
2020 GENERAL ELECTION AS THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS CONSUME 
WASHINGTON AND ALSO CONSUMING 
SOME AMERICANS ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
WE SPOKE TO VOTERS IN KENT 
COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
>> Reporter: HEY, ALISON, HERE 
IN KENT COUNTY PEOPLE ARE REALLY
PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE WERE IN AND OUT OF BUSINESSES

English: 
YESTERDAY.
WE WERE TALKING TO FOLKS ON MAIN
STREET, AT THE FARMERS MARKET.
YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT I MIGHT
HEAR VOTERS SAY THEY'RE MORE SO 
PAYING ATTENTION TO ISSUES 
IMPACTING THEM DIRECTLY, BUT IT 
TURNS OUT THEY CAN DO BOTH.
THEY CAN WORRY ABOUT HEALTH CARE
AND THE ECONOMY BUT ALSO PAY 
ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN
WASHINGTON.
PEOPLE HERE REALLY DO CARE ABOUT
THIS.
AND SOME FOLKS WE TALKED TO SAID
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF 
IT YET.
THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
AND THEY REALLY WANT MORE FACTS,
THEY WANT MORE INFORMATION.
SO, THEY'RE WATCHING THIS TO 
SEE, YOU KNOW, TO REALLY MAKE UP
THEIR MINDS.
SO, THOSE VOTERS THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE 
FIGHTING FOR LIVE HERE IN KENT 
COUNTY AND THEY ARE, IN FACT, 
WATCHING CLOSELY.
TAKE A LISTEN TO SOME OF WHAT WE
HEARD.
HOW MUCH DO YOU CARE ABOUT 
WHAT'S GOING ON?
>> I CARE A LOT ABOUT IT.
I THINK IT'S DIVIDING OUR 
COUNTRY REALLY.
IT'S NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING.
>> Reporter: ARE YOU PAYING ANY 
ATTENTION TO THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I LISTEN TO THE NEWS BACK AND 
FORTH TO WORK EVERY DAY. 
>> Reporter: I'M SURPRISED AT 

English: 
HOW MANY PEOPLE WITH WEAVE 
TALKED TO AROUND HERE WHO ARE 
VERY ENTHUSED WITH THIS PROCESS.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
>> I THINK IT AFFECTS A LOT OF 
PEOPLE, NOT JUST THIS SPECIFIC 
ISSUE BUT A LOT OF ISSUES THAT 
HAVE COME UP IN THE LAST THREE 
YEARS DURING THIS PRESIDENCY ARE
AFFECTING A LOT OF PEOPLE EVERY 
DAY ON THE STREETS.
>>> CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE A 
ESSENTIAL FOCUS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
MATT BRADLEY VISITED THE OUSTED 
UKRAINE PRESIDENT AND TALKED TO 
UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION IN THE NATION.
>> Reporter: THESE DAYS 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ALL 
OVER THE NEWS, BUT FOR 
UKRAINIANS, CORRUPTION ISN'T 
NEW.
IT ISN'T JUST AMONG THE BIGWIG 
BUSINESSMEN, IT'S EVERYWHERE.

English: 
YOUR AVERAGE UKRAINIAN IS 
REMARKABLY OPEN ABOUT IT.
>> Reporter: INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANIZATIONS AND BANKS 
CONSISTENTLY RANK UKRAINE AMONG 
THE CORRUPT COUNTIES IN THE 
WORLD.
UKRAINE WAS PLACED 80 OUT OF 180
ON CORRUPTION INDEX.
ECONOMIC SCARCITY TAPPED DOWN 

English: 
CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY WITH LACK
OF TRANSPARENCY MEANT GETTING 
ANYTHING DONE REQUIRED WHAT SOME
UKRAINIANS CALLED GIVING A 
GRUNT.
IN A WAY, CORRUPTION IS ALMOST 
PART OF THE CULTURE.
>> UKRAINIANS HAVE THIS -- YOU 
CAN CALL IT -- THE WORD 
ATTITUDE, WHERE, OKAY, BUT IF WE
GET SOMETHING IN THE END, IT'S 
OKAY. 
>> Reporter: THEY'RE TOLERANT OF
IT?
>> YES.
THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS TOLERANCE 
AS LONG AS THERE IS SOME 
E
VISIBLE -- FOR THE COUNTRY. 
>> Reporter: THE SOVIET DAY SAYS
ARE OVER BUT NOT THE SOVIET 
MENTALITY.
THIS MAN USED TO WORK FOR THE 
SAME PROSECUTOR WHO'S NOW AT THE
CENTER THE IMPEACHMENT FIGHT, 
SHOKIN, WHO DONALD TRUMP SAYS 
JOE BIDEN IMPROPERLY PRESSURED 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO 
FIRED.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT BUT 
SHOKIN WOULD SAY HE WAS NEVER 
CONVICTED.

English: 
WHEN THIS MAN BLEW THE WHISTLE 
ON THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, HE 
WAS FIRED.
>> IT'S BEEN 35 YEARS IN THE 
SYSTEM OF THE PROSECUTOR'S 
OFFICE.
MOST OF -- MOST -- THE WAY THESE
GUYS DO THEIR WORK AND DID THEIR
JOB WAS DIE METTICLY 
INCONSISTENT WITH UKRAINE. 
>> Reporter: TYPICAL SOVIET 
PROSECUTOR, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN,
EXACTLY?
>> THAT MEANS THAT THE POWER AND
THE WEALTH ARE NOT 
DISTINGUISHED.
>> Reporter: STILL, UKRAINIANS 
ARE MOVING ON FROM THEIR SOVIET 
PAST.
THE COUNTRY REINVENTED ITSELF 
AGAIN IN 2018 WHEN MONTHS OF 
PROTESTS TOPPLED THEN PRESIDENT 
VIKTOR YANUKOVYCH.
FOR UKRAINIANS IT WAS ALSO ABOUT
REJECTING CORRUPTION.
NOW THE OUSTED PRESIDENT'S 
ENORMOUS MANSION AND ESTATE 
OUTSIDE KIEV ARE KIND OF LIKE A 
MONUMENT TO THAT DISTASTEFUL 

English: 
HISTORY.
BEFORE 2014, MOST UKRAINIANS 
DIDN'T KNOW QUITE HOW MASSIVE 
THIS PLACE IS.
PEOPLE COME OUT HERE ON DAY 
TRIPS TO WALK AROUND THIS 
BEAUTIFUL GARDEN, HIS GOLF 
COURSE, HIS VINTAGE CAR 
COLLECTION, TAKE IN THE 
FOUNTAINS AND CHECK OUT THE 
NOVELTY OUT BACK.
THEY EVEN COME HERE TO SNAP 
WEDDING PICTURES.
>> 460,000 EUROS. 
>> Reporter: 460,000 EUROS, 
OKAY.
WHAT DOES THIS SYMBOLIZE FOR THE
UKRAINIAN PEOPLE?
>> Reporter: THEY MIGHT CALL IT 
A MUSEUM OF CORRUPTION, BUT MOST
UKRAINIANS WANT IT TO BE A 
MEMORIAL.
THEY DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THIS 
HISTORY.
THEY'RE WORKING ON IT.
THE GOVERNMENT CREATED A SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION TEAM FOR 
CORRUPTION IN 2014, AND JUST 
LAST MONTH A NEW COURT DEDICATED
JUST TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
STARTED HERE.
BUT FOR SOME UKRAINIANS, THAT 

English: 
PAST WILL ALWAYS HAUNT THEM.
A FEW YEARS AGO NADIA, DIABETIC 
FATHER, REFUSED TO BRIBE DOCTORS
IN A GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL TO 
TREAT A WOUND ON HIS LEG.
THEY REFUSED TO HELP HIM.
EVENTUALLY HE GOT GANGRENE AND 
HIS LEG HAD TO BE AMPUTATED.
HE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY A BRIBE?
>> YES, YES, YES.
ALSO LIKE -- THEY DON'T DO 
NOTHING, SO -- NO MONEY, NO 
HONEY, YES.
>> Reporter: AND NOW NADIA HAS 
BECOME A VOCAL OPPONENT OF 
CORRUPTION ON MEDIA, TAKING HER 
EXAMPLE FROM THE U.S.
YOU KNOW, AS UKRAINIAN, WHEN YOU
SEE THIS TALK ABOUT GIULIANI AND
TRUMP AND CORRUPTION IN AMERICA,
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING 
TO AFFECT UKRAINE, BUT DOES 
IT --
>> I THINK IT'S AFFECT UKRAINE 
BECAUSE I SEE -- ACTUALLY WE 
BELIEVE WESTERN, ESPECIALLY 
AMERICA, KEEP EYE ON OUR 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND SAY TO 

English: 
THEM, YOU SHOULDN'T BE CORRUPT 
AND EVERYTHING, SO IF IN AMERICA

English: 
THERE'S CORRUPTION, HOW CAN WE 
BE SAFE?
NEWS THAN ANY OTHER NEWS 
ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD.
>>> THIS WILL MORNING WE HEARD 
FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.
THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL HEAR FROM 
KURT VOLKER, THE SPECIAL ENVOY 
TO UKRAINE AND TIM MORRISON, THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL UKRAINE AIDE.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL IS ON CAPITOL
HILL.
LET'S START WITH KURT VOLKER, 
ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE SA ME
GOEING.
THEY WERE TASKED BY THE 
PRESIDENT TO TACKLE UKRAINE 
POLICY.
WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO HEAR 
FROM VOLCKER TODAY?
>> Reporter: VOLKER IS ONE OF 

English: 
THE WITNESSES REPUBLICANS 
WANTED.
YOU COULD EXPECT HIM TO BE MORE 
SYMPATHETIC TO THE REPUBLICANS' 
ARGUMENT.
WHAT WE EXPECT HIM TO HEAR, 
BASED ON WHAT HE'S ALREADY SAID 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, THERE WAS 
NO QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE, HE 
SAYS, HE DIDN'T THINK THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS KNEW WHY THE AID WAS 
BEING WITHHELD.
HE ALSO SAID THAT WHILE HE 
THOUGHT THAT IT WAS -- THAT THE 
WITHHOLDING OF THE AID WAS 
UNUSUAL, ALSO THERE WAS NO QUID 
PRO QUO.
HE'S ALSO GOING TO SAY THAT HE 
WASN'T AWARE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT -- THAT THERE WAS ANY 
DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE 
PRESIDENT, THAT THESE WERE 
DIRECTIVES COMING DOWN FROM THE 
OVAL OFFICE, INSTEAD IT WAS JUST
BEING PUSHED BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI.
SO, THIS COULD BE A GOOD 
AFTERNOON FOR REPUBLICANS, BUT 
WE'LL ALSO HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.
>> TIM MORRISON WAS ON THAT JULY
25th PHONE CALL BUT UNLIKE 

English: 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, HE 
DIDN'T VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ACTIONS AS INAPPROPRIATE.
CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT?
>> Reporter: YES.
MORRISON IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER 
REPUBLICAN WITNESS.
WE GOT INSIGHT INTO HOW 
REPUBLICANS MIGHT DEAL WITH 
MORRISON.
FROM THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING.
WHEN REPUBLICANS KEPT ASKING 
VINDMAN HIS -- WHO WORKS FOR 
MORRISON, WHY MORRISON DIDN'T 
COMPLETELY CREDIT -- GIVE 
VINDMAN A LOT OF CREDIT IN THAT 
HE QUESTIONED VINDMAN'S 
JUDGMENT.
SO, VINDMAN WAS REALLY USED -- 
OR MORRISON WAS REALLY USED IN 
TESTIMONY THIS MORNING TO 
TARNISH THE CREDENTIALS OF 
VINDMAN.
WE COULD EXPECT TO SEE THE SAME 
THING THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO DISMISS A 
LOT OF THESE CHARACTERS THAT 
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN BY 
DEMOCRATS.
>> YOU MENTIONED BOTH OF THIS 
AFTERNOON'S WITNESSES WERE 
REQUESTED TO APPEAR BY 
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THINGS?
YOU SAID THEY ARE MORE 

English: 
REPUBLICAN-FRIENDLY WITNESSES, 
BUT HOW DOES THAT ALSO PLAY SPEW
THE DEMOCRATS' STRATEGY THIS 
AFTERNOON?
>> Reporter: WELL, WHAT'S 
INTERESTING ABOUT ALL THESE 
WITNESSES, EVERYONE'S STILL 
CORROBORATED EACH OTHER.
YOU SAW ALL THESE TRANSCRIPTS 
WE'VE SEEN, THESE ARE THE TWO 
WITNESSES THAT HAVE A LITTLE BIT
OF A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF
WHAT HAPPENED.
THEIR CHARACTERIZATION IS THAT 
IT WASN'T AS BAD AS OTHER 
WITNESSES HAVE SAID.
SO, WHAT WE COULD EXPECT FROM 
DEMOCRATS IS STILL TO ASK VERY 
CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE OF 
QUESTIONS OF WHAT THEY KNEW AND 
WHEN.
AND THEY MIGHT QUESTION THE 
CHARACTERISTIC THAT THESE 
WITNESSES DO HAND OVER.
SO, WHILE THESE ARE 
REPUBLICAN-CALLED WITNESSES, 
THESE ARE WITNESSES THAT HAVE 
ALSO SAT BEHIND DEPOSITION DOORS
FOR HOURS TALKING TO THE 
COMMITTEE SO WE HAVE A GOOD 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY'RE 
SAYING.
EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE MORE 
SYMPATHETIC TO THE REPUBLICANS 

English: 
OR MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE 
PRESIDENT IN HIS ROLE HERE IN 
THIS UKRAINE POLICY THAT WAS 
BEING PLAYED OUT FOR THE PAST 
FEW MONTHS, I'M NOT NECESSARILY 
SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO KIND OF 
REALLY JUST DIMINISH THE 
DEMOCRATS' ENTIRE CASE HERE.
>> LEIGH ANN, AS YOU HEAD BACK 
IN THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN 
PARTICULAR YOU'RE GOING TO BE 
LOOKING FOR IN THESE 
TESTIMONIES, SOMETHING YOU SAY, 
IF I HEAR THIS, IT WILL JUMP OUT
AS A MAJOR MOMENT?
>> Reporter: I'M GOING TO BE 
LISTENING FOR ANY OF THESE 
WITNESSES CHANGE OR ALTER WHAT 
THEY SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
WE TALK ABOUT HOW VOLKER SAID 
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO 
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK THE 
UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT.
AND THAT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTING ALL 
OF THIS.
SO, I'M SUPER INTERESTED TO SEE 
IF HE BACKTRACKS AT ALL OR 
SOFTENS THAT A LITTLE BIT 
BECAUSE NOW WE'LL HAVE 
QUESTIONS -- THEY'LL FACE 
QUESTIONS AFTER SEEING ALL THESE
OTHER DEPOSITIONS BEING 
RELEASED, QUESTIONS AFTER OTHER 

English: 
PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED.
SO, IT PUTS THEIR -- WHAT THEY 
SAY IN A MUCH MORE POINTED 
PERSPECTIVE AND SUPER IMPORTANT,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOW 
ABLE TO COMPARE "A" TO "B". 
>> BACKTRACKING COULD BE A BIG 
ISSUE.
TOMORROW WE HAVE GORDON SONDLAND
TESTIFYING.
PEOPLE HAVE SAID WEDNESDAY IS 
THE DAY THEY ARE ALL WAITING 
FOR.
HE'S ANOTHER PERSON WE'RE 
LOOKING TO SEE, WHAT ARE YOU 
GOING TO SAY?
ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE 
ANYTHING. 
>> SONDLAND IS GOING TO BE A 
HUGE TESTIMONY.
I THINK THAT ALL EYES ARE GOING 
TO BE ON SONDLAND.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE -- BECAUSE HE 
WAS SO -- HE BRAGGED ABOUT BEING
ABLE TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT SO
OFTEN, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS 
SUPPOSED TO BE A FRIENDLY 
WITNESS FOR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE 
HE WAS ADAMANT THAT THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO, NO BRIBERY, NO 
EXTORTION, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO 
PUT IT, BUT HE'S HAD TO SINCE 
COME AND REVISE HIS TESTIMONY.

English: 
NEITHER SIDE REALLY TRUSTS HIM.
HE'S NOT -- HE'S NOT A CAREER 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.
HE'S NOT USED TO THIS.
HE'S NOT A SKILLED DIPLOMAT, AND
SO THEY'RE NOT -- HE'S RELEASED 
NO QUANTITY BUT HE'S ALSO IT IS 
QUANTITY THAT IS COMING TO 
TESTIFY THAT IS THE CLOSEST TO 
THE PRESIDENT.
SO, SONDLAND IS GOING TO BE 
EXTREMELY INTERESTING TOMORROW.
COULD GET A LOT OF INSIGHT INTO 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW AND 
WHEN.
>> LEIGH ANN, THAT'S ONLY THE 
MIDWAY POINT FOR THE WEEK.
WE WERE SHOWING A GRAPHIC OF ALL
THE PEOPLE TESTIFYING THIS WEEK.
AFTER SAND LAND, WE HAVE HALE, 
HOLMES.
AFTER SONDLAND IS THERE SOMEONE 
YOU'RE WATCHING OUT FOR, SOMEONE
THAT COULD BRING UP A KEY POINT 
THIS WEEK?
>> DAVID HOLMES WAS A LATE 
ADDITION TO THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
HIS TESTIMONY ON FRIDAY WAS JUST
ADDED LAST NIGHT.
WE JUST LAST NIGHT GOT THE 

English: 
TRANSCRIPT OF HIS INTERVIEW THAT
JUST HAPPENED ON FRIDAY.
THIS IS ALL MOVING EXTREMELY 
QUICKLY.
WHO IS DAVID HOLMES?
HE'S A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL
WHO TALKED ABOUT A PHONE CALL 
THAT HE OVERHEARD BETWEEN 
SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT.
IN THIS PHONE CALL HE SAID THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED SONDLAND IF 
ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO CONDUCT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS.
SONDLAND SAID, YES, HE IS.
ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR 
YOU.
AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS GETTING 
TO THE POINT OF NO LONGER 
HEARSAY WHEN YOU HAVE DAVID 
HOLMES OVERHEARING A 
CONVERSATION DIRECTLY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
SO HOLMES IS ALSO GOING TO BE A 
REALLY BIG WITNESS THIS WEEK. 
>> LAST WEEK WE SAID OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN THAT THAT REVELATION 
OF THAT PHONE CALL FROM BILL 
TAYLOR WAS THE BOMBSHELL OF THE 
WEEK.
WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE 
SINCE THEN.
NOW WE'RE IN THE SECOND WEEK.
IS THAT STILL THE BIGGEST 
BOMBSHELL OF THESE HEARINGS OR 
HAS THERE BEEN ANY OTHER 
REVELATIONS THAT YOU SAY, THIS 
IS JUST AS IMPORTANT?

English: 
>> Reporter: I THINK IT'S -- IT 
WAS A BOMBSHELL BECAUSE IT WAS 
ALSO NEW, RIGHT?
IT'S SOMETHING WE DIDN'T KNOW 
ABOUT.
I THINK AT THAT POINT, THE FACT 
THAT IT IS NEW IS GOING TO BE 
SOMETHING THAT'S QUESTIONED ON 
FRIDAY WHEN DAVID HOLMES COMES 
BECAUSE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID 
THAT HE WASN'T AWARE OF IT UNTIL
JUST RECENTLY.
BUT IN HOLMES' DEPOSITIONS, THE 
TRANSCRIPTS JUST RELEASED 
OVERNIGHT, HE SAID HE ACTUALLY 
TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT IT 
IN EARLY AUGUST WHEN HE RETURNED
FROM VACATION, HE TOLD 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS 
PHONE CALL.
YOU KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY 
GOING TO DIG INTO THAT AND ASK 
WHY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DIDN'T 
DISCLOSE THIS EITHER IN HIS 
DEPOSITION AND HE WAITED UNTIL 
THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
HOLMES' EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS 
CAME OUT SO LATE, THOUGH, IS 
THAT HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS 
RELEVANT.
HE DIDN'T -- HE DIDN'T CONNECT 
IT REALLY. 
>> THAT'S A SURPRISE. 
>> Reporter: YEAH.
UNTIL HE STARTED SEEING ALL 
THESE NEWS REPORTS AND ACTUALLY 
THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT IS 

English: 
SAYING EVERYTHING WAS SECOND AND
THIRDHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THIS.
HE THOUGHT, WAIT A MINUTE, I 
DIRECTLY HEARD THE PRESIDENT 
TALKING ABOUT THIS.
THAT'S NOT SECOND AND THIRDHAND 
KNOWLEDGE.
I KNOW.
I HEARD.
THIS IS FIRSTHAND.
HE DECIDED TO COME FORWARD WITH 
IT.
AND THAT IS WHY THIS WAS SO -- 
THIS HAS BEEN ADDED SO LATE.
>> LEIGH ANN, IT MAKES SENSE 
ONCE YOU PUT THINKS IN CONTEXT.
LAST WEEK AMBASSADOR McFAUL WAS 
SAYING, YOU DON'T JUST MAKE CELL
PHONE CALLS TO THE PRESIDENT.
THAT'S ALMOST UNHEARD OF.
YOU SIT AND LISTEN TO THAT AND 
YOU GO, OKAY, I GET IT NOW.
THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL 
CIRCUMSTANCE. 
>> Reporter: YEAH.
HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS 
UNUSUAL AT THE TIME BUT HE 
DIDN'T THINK OF IT IN THE WHOLE 
PICTURE.
ANOTHER THING DAVID HOLMES 
TALKED ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT 
THE -- THAT SONDLAND TOOK OUT 
HIS PHONE -- HIS CELL PHONE, 
CALLED THE PRESIDENT, CONNECTED 
THE PRESIDENT AND HE WAS ASKED 
ABOUT, DID YOU THINK THAT -- DO 
YOU THINK THERE WERE RUSSIANS 

English: 
LISTENING TO THIS PHONE CALL?
AND HOLMES SAID, WE OPERATE 
UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE 
RUSSIANS ARE ALWAYS LISTENING.
THEY OWN AT LEAST TWO OF THE 
THREE CELL PHONE COMPANIES IN 
UKRAINE.
AND SO THAT IS JUST COMMON 
PRACTICE THAT THEY ALWAYS 
OPERATE UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION. 
>> LEIGH ANN, I SEE ADAM SCHIFF 
SITTING DOWN RIGHT NOW.
I KNOW YOU NEED TO GET BACK INTO
THAT HEARING ROOM.

English: 
WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK.
THANK YOU 
>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL 
REPORT.
THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
HERE'S LESTER HOLT.
>> GOOD DAY, EVERYONE, WE'RE 
COMING BACK ON THE AIR AS THE 
HEARINGS INTO THE IMPEACHMENT OF
DONALD TRUMP CONTINUE.
THE COMMITTEE HEARD THIS MORNING
FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN, BOTH OF WHOM WERE ON 
THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THEY BOTH
RECOUNTED THE CONCERN THEY FELT 
ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP INJECTING 
DOMESTIC AMERICAN POLITICS INTO 
THAT CONVERSATION.
THE COMMITTEE IS NOW ABOUT READY
TO HEAR FROM TWO MORE WITNESSES,
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL
ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND TIM 
MORRISON WHO WAS THE TOP RUSSIA 
STAFFER ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
THAT HEARING IS RESUMING.
>> THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO 
DECLARE A RECESS OF THE 
COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME.
THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.
WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE 
SAME FASHION AS OUR OTHER 
HEARINGS.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT

English: 
AND THE RANKING MEMBER WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS 
OPENING STATEMENT AND WE WILL 
TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR 
OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN TO 
QUESTIONS.
WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE 
MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING 
STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY INTO DONALD J. TRUMP, 
THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL HEAR 
FROM TWO WITNESSES REQUESTED BY 
THE MINORITY, AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER, THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AND TIM 
MORRISON, THE SENIOR -- FORMER 
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL.
I APPRECIATE THE MINORITY'S 
REQUEST FOR THESE TWO IMPORTANT 
WITNESSES AS WELL AS 
UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DAVID 
HALE, FROM WHOM WE WILL HEAR 
TOMORROW.
AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM OTHER 
WITNESSES, WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS 
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO ENTER THE
RACE FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020,
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER,
RUDY GIULIANI, BEGAN A CAMPAIGN 
TO WEAKEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S
CANDIDACY BY PUSHING UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE HIM AND HIS SON.
TO CLEAR AWAY ANY OBSTACLE TO 

English: 
THE SCHEME, DAYS AFTER THE NEW 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED,
TRUMP ORDERED THE RECALL OF 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THE AMERICAN 
AMBASSADOR IN KIEV, WHO WAS 
KNOWN FOR PUSHING 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS.
TRUMP ALSO CANCELLED VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE'S 
PARTICIPATION IN THE 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON MAY 20th AND INSTEAD
SENT A DELEGATION HEADED BY 
ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY, 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EU GORDON 
SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER.
THESE THREE RETURNED FROM KIEV 
AND BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON 
THEIR ENCOURAGING INTERACTIONS 
WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
ADMINISTRATION.
HOPES THAT TRUMP WOULD AGREE TO 
AN EARLY MEETING WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WERE SOON 
DIMINISHED, HOWEVER, WHEN TRUMP 
PUSHED BACK.
ACCORDING TO VOLKER, HE JUST 
DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
HE WAS SKEPTICAL.
AND HE ALSO SAID, THAT'S NOT 
WHAT I HEAR.
I HEAR, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOT SOME 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO TOLD THEM 
HE BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE TRIED 
TO TAKE HIM DOWN.
HE TOLD THE THREE AMIGOS, TALK 

English: 
TO RUDY.
AND THEY DID.
ONE OF THOSE INTERACTIONS TOOK 
PLACE A WEEK BEFORE THE JULY 
25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN TRUMP 
AND ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI AT THE TRUMP HOTEL.
VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT HE PUSHED 
BACK ON GIULIANI'S ACCUSATION 
AGAINST JOE BIDEN.
ON JULY 22nd, JUST DAYS BEFORE 
TRUMP WOULD TALK TO ZELENSKY, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A 
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH 
GIULIANI AND ANDRE, A TOP 
ADVISOR TO THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT SO THAT GIULIANI COULD
BE INTRODUCED TO HIM.
ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY AS 
THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND ZELENSKY, BUT BEFORE IT TOOK
PLACE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT A 
TEXT MESSAGE.
QUOTE, HEARD FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z 
CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL 
INVESTIGATE/GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.
WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR A 
VISIT TO WASHINGTON.
GOOD LUCK.
EXCLAMATION POINT.
LATER THAT DAY, DONALD TRUMP 

English: 
WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS 
PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY IN 
WHICH HE RESPONDED TO UKRAINE'S 
APPRECIATION FOR U.S. DEFENSE 
SUPPORT AND A REQUEST BY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BUY MORE 
JAVELIN MISSILE BY SAYING, I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH.
AND THE FAVOR INVOLVED THE TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT GIULIANI HAS
BEEN PUSHING FOR INTO THE BIDENS
IN 2016.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS NOT ON THE
CALL BUT WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT 
IT REFLECTED, HE TESTIFIED, NO 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO 
HELP INTERFERE IN A U.S. 
ELECTION.
AMONG THOSE LISTENING IN ON THE 
JULY 25th CALL WAS TIM MORRISON,
WHO HAD TAKEN OVER AS THE NSC 
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE NSC ONLY DAYS 
BEFORE BUT HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY 
HIS PRED PREDECESSOR FIONA HILL 
ABOUT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT
WAS OPERATING IN PARALLEL TO THE
OFFICIAL ONE.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND 

English: 
MS. WILLIAMS, LIKE THEM, 
MORRISON EMERGED FROM THE CALL 
TROUBLED.
HE WAS CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT 
WHAT HE HEARD ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL THAT HE WENT TO SEE THE NSC
LEGAL ADVISOR SOON AFTER IT HAD 
ENDED.
COLONEL VINDMAN'S FEAR WAS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAD BROKEN THE 
LAW, POTENTIALLY, BUT MORRISON 
SAID OF HIS CONCERN THAT THE -- 
HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE CALL 
COULD BE DAMAGING IF IT WERE 
LEAKED.
SOON AFTER THIS DISCUSSION WITH 
LAWYERS AT THE NSC, THE CALL 
RECORD WAS HIDDEN AWAY ON A 
SECURE SERVER USED TO STORE 
HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE 
WHERE IT REMAINED UNTIL LATE 
SEPTEMBER WHEN THE CALL RECORD 
WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED.
FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORKED WITH 
SONDLAND AND THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT'S CLOSE ADVISOR.
WHEN HE SENT A DRAFT THAT 
REFUSED TO INCLUDE THE WORDS, 
GIULIANI SAID THE STATEMENT 
WOULD LACK CREDIBILITY.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER ADDED BARISMA 
AND 2016 TO THE DRAFT STATEMENT.

English: 
BOTH VOLKER AND MORRISON WERE, 
BY LATE JULY, AWARE THAT THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN CUT
OFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND ACTING WHITE HOUSE
CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY.
AS THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE 
OF THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND THE NEGOTIATIONS 
OVER THE SCHEDULING OF A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN TRUMP AND 
ZELENSKY DRAGGED ON, THE 
PRESSURE INCREASED AND ANY 
PRETENSE THAT THERE WAS NO 
LINKAGE SOON DROPPED AWAY.
MORRISON ACCOMPANIED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE TO WARSAW WHERE 
PENCE AND ZELENSKY MET AND 
ZELENSKY RAISED THE SUSPENDED 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, SONDLAND
APPROACHED HIM TO TELL HIM THAT 
HE BELIEVE ED WHAT COULD HELP 
MOVE THE AID WAS IF THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL 
WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE
THAT HE WAS OPENING THE 
INVESTIGATION.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A 
TELEPHONE CALL WITH TRUMP AND 
ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED FROM 
UKRAINE.
ACCORDING TO MORRISON, WHO SPOKE

English: 
WITH SONDLAND AFTER THE CALL, 
TRUMP INASSISTED THERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MUST PERSONALLY 
ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND HE SHOULD 
WANT TO DO IT.
SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT IF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T AGREE 
TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT
THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE U.S. AND
UKRAINE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE,
MEANING IT WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE
MUCH NEEDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
MORRISON HAD A SINKING FEELING 
AFTER THE CALL AS HE REALIZED 
THAT THE ASK WAS NOW BEING 
DIRECT AT ZELENSKY HIMSELF AND 
NOT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL AS 
SONDLAND HAD RELAYED TO HIS 
SENIOR UKRAINIAN AIDE IN WARSAW 
ON SEPTEMBER 1st.
WHILE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THERE 
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, HIS INSIS 
TANS THAT ZELENSKY HIMSELF MUST 
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OR THEY WOULD BE 
AT A STALEMATE MADE CLEAR AT 
LEAST TWO OFFICIAL ACTS, WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND $400 MILLION 
IN MILITARY AID WERE CONDITIONED
ON RECEIPT OF WHAT TRUMP WANTED,
INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS 

English: 
CAMPAIGN.
THE EFFORTS TO SECURE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONTINUE 
FOR SEVERAL MORE DAYS BUT APPEAR
TO HAVE ABRUPTLY ENDED SOON 
AFTER THE THREE COMMITTEES OF 
CONGRESS ANNOUNCED AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
TRUMP-GIULIANI UKRAINE SCHEME.
ONLY THEN WOULD THE AID BE 
RELEASED.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO MAKE.
>> WELCOME BACK TO ACT II OF 
TODAY'S CIRCUS, LADIES AND 
GENTLEMEN.
WE ARE HERE TO CONTINUE WHAT THE
DEMOCRATS TELL US IS A SERIOUS, 
SOMBER, AND EVEN PRAYERFUL 
PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO 
OVERTHROW A DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT.
IF THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL, THE END 
RESULT WOULD BE TO 
DISENFRANCHISE TENS OF MILLIONS 
OF AMERICANS WHO THOUGHT THE 
PRESIDENT IS CHOSEN BY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT BY 13 
DEMOCRAT PARTISANS ON A 
COMMITTEE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 
OVERSEEING THE GOVERNMENT'S 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.
AND ISN'T IT STRANGE HOW WE'VE 
MORPHED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT 

English: 
COMMITTEE, PRESIDING OVER A 
MATTER THAT HAS NO INTELLIGENCE 
COMPONENT WHATSOEVER.
IMPEACHMENT, OF COURSE, IS THE 
JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, NOT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
BUT PUTTING THIS FARCE IN OUR 
COURT PROVIDES TWO MAIN 
ADVANTAGES FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO 
SHROUD THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN 
SECRECY AND IT ALLOWED THEM TO 
AVOID GIVING TOO BIG OF A ROLE 
IN THIS SPECTACLE TO ANOTHER 
DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN IN 
WHOM THE DEMOCRAT LEADERS 
OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO CONFIDENCE.
WHO CAN POSSIBLY VIEW THESE 
PROCEEDINGS AS FAIR AND 
IMPARTIAL.
THEY ARE BEING CONDUCTED BY 
DEMOCRATS WHO SPENT THREE YEARS 
SATURATING THE AIR WAVES WITH 
DIRE WARNINGS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT.
AND THESE OUTLANDISH ATTACKS 
CONTINUE TO THIS VERY DAY.
JUST THIS WEEKEND, IN FRONT OF A
CROWD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
ACTIVISTS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS 
COMMITTEE DENOUNCED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AS A PROFOUND THREAT TO 

English: 
OUR DEMOCRACY AND VOWED THAT WE 
WILL SEND THAT CHARLATAN IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE BACK TO THE GOLDEN 
THRONE HE CAME FROM.
HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT 
PEOPLE WHO WOULD UTTER SUCH 
DRAMATIC ABSURDITIES ARE 
CONDUCTING A FAIR IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS AND ARE ONLY TRYING TO 
DISCOVER THE TRUTH?
IT'S OBVIOUS THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
TRYING TO TOPPLE THE PRESIDENT 
SOLELY BECAUSE THEY DESPISE HIM.
BECAUSE THEY PROMISED SINCE 
ELECTION DAY TO IMPEACH HIM AND 
BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID HE WILL 
WIN RE-ELECTION NEXT YEAR.
NO WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY
CREAM OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT BUT 
THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
LAST WEEK, THE DEMOCRATS TOLD US
HIS INFRACTION WAS ASKING FOR A 
QUID PRO QUO.
THIS WEEK, IT'S BRIBERY.
WHO KNOWS WHAT RIDICULOUS CRIME 
THEY'LL BE ACCUSING HIM OF NEXT 
WEEK?
AS WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE

English: 
CALLED A PARADE OF GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS WHO DON'T LIKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE 
POLICY, EVEN THOUGH THEY 
ACKNOWLEDGE HE PROVIDED UKRAINE 
WITH LETHAL MILITARY AID AFTER 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSED
TO DO SO.
THEY ALSO RESENT HIS CONDUCT OF 
POLICY THROUGH CHANNELS OUTSIDE 
THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND CONTROL.
THESE ACTIONS, THEY ARGUE, 
CONTRADICT THE SO-CALLED 
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS.
THEY DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ALONE IS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO SET THE POLICY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECT THE 
PRESIDENT, NOT AN INTERAGENCY 
CONSENSUS.
AND OF COURSE OUR PREVIOUS 
WITNESSES HAD VERY NEW -- VERY 
LITTLE NEW INFORMATION TO SHARE 
IN THESE HEARINGS.
THAT'S BECAUSE THESE HEARINGS 
ARE NOT DESIGNED TO UNCOVER NEW 
INFORMATION.
THEY'RE MEANT TO SHOWCASE A 
HAND-PICKED GROUP OF WITNESSES 
WHO THE DEMOCRATS DETERMINED 
THROUGH THEIR SECRET AUDITION 

English: 
PROCESS WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY 
MOST CONDUCTIVE AND CONDUCIVE TO
THEIR ACCUSATIONS.
IN FACT, BY THE TIME ANY WITNESS
SAYS ANYTHING HERE, PEOPLE ARE 
ACTUALLY HEARING IT FOR THE 
THIRD TIME.
THEY HEARD IT FIRST THROUGH THE 
DEMOCRATS' CHERRY-PICKED LEAKS 
TO THEIR MEDIA SYMPATHIZERS 
DURING THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS 
AND SECOND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS 
PUBLISHED THOSE DEPOSITION 
TRANSCRIPTS IN A HIGHLY STAGED 
MANNER.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE NO 
TRANSCRIPTS FROM CRUCIAL 
WITNESSES LIKE HUNTER BIDEN, WHO
COULD TESTIFY ABOUT HIS 
WELL-PAYING JOB ON THE BOARD OF 
A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY OR 
ALEXANDER CHALUPA WHO WORKED ON 
AN ELECTION MEDDLING SCHEME ON 
BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS 
REFUSED TO LET US HEAR FROM 
THEM.
AS FOR EVIDENCE, WE'RE LEFT 
WITH -- WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH IS 
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
TRUMP/ZELENSKY PHONE CALL WHICH 
THE PRESIDENT MADE PUBLIC.

English: 
THAT MEANS AMERICANS CAN READ 
FOR THEMSELVES AN UNREMARKABLE 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WHO REPEATEDLY 
EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE 
CALL AFTERWARDS.
THE DEMOCRATS, HOWEVER, CLAIM 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS BEING 
BRIBED AND THEREFORE HE MUST BE 
LYING WHEN HE SAYS THE CALL WAS 
FRIENDLY AND POSED NO PROBLEMS.
THERE'S SOME IRONY HERE.
FOR WEEKS WE HAVE HEARD THE 
DEMOCRATS BEMOAN THE DAMAGE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY 
CAUSED TO THE U.S./UKRAINIAN 
RELATIONS.
BUT WHEN THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT
CONTRADICTS THEIR ACCUSATIONS, 
THEY PUBLICLY DISMISS HIM AS A 
LIAR.
I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I'M FAIRLY 
SURE CALLING A FRIENDLY FOREIGN 
PRESIDENT, NEWLY ELECTED, A LIAR
VIOLATES THEIR SO-CALLED 
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS.
SO, OVERALL, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD
HAVE YOU BELIEVE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS BEING BLACKMAILED 
WITH A PAUSE ON LETHAL MILITARY 
AID THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW 
ABOUT.
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 

English: 
MENTION TO HIM.
AND THAT DIPLOMATS HAVE 
TESTIFIED THEY ALWAYS ASSUMED 
WOULD BE LIFTED.
WHICH IT WAS.
WITHOUT THE UKRANIANS 
UNDERTAKING ANY OF THE ACTIONS 
THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING 
COERCED INTO DOING.
THIS PROCESS IS NOT SERIOUS.
IT'S NOT SOBER.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT 
PRAYERFUL.
IT'S AN AMBITIOUS ATTACK TO 
DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF 
THEIR RIGHT TO ELECT A PRESIDENT
THE DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE.
AS I MENTIONED, CHAIRMAN OF THIS
COMMITTEE CLAIMS THAT DEMOCRACY 
IS UNDER THREAT.
IF THAT'S TRUE, IT'S NOT THE 
PRESIDENT WHO POSES THE DANGER.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
WE ARE JOINED THIS AFTERNOON BY 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER AND 
MR. TIMOTHY MORRISON.
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER SERVED IN
THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE FOR 
NEARLY 30 YEARS, WORKING ON 

English: 
SECURITY ISSUES UNDER FIVE 
DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL 
ADMINISTRATIONS.
DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH 
ADMINISTRATION, HE SERVED AS THE
ACTING DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND
EURASIAN AFFAIRS AND THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
LATER AS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN 
AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS.
IN 2008, PRESIDENT BUSH 
APPOINTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO 
THE UNITED STATES PERMANENT 
REPRESENTATIVE TO NATO WHERE HE 
SERVED UNTIL MAY 2009.
IN JULY 2017, AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
WAS APPOINTED TO BE THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE SERVING IN
THAT POSITION UNTIL HE RESIGNED 
IN SEPTEMBER.
IT IS A PLEASURE TO WELCOME 
MR. MORRISON BACK TO THE 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHERE HE 
SERVED FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES AS
A REPUBLICAN STAFFER.
HE WAS A PROFESSIONAL STAFF 
MEMBER FOR REPRESENTATIVE MARK 
KENNEDY OF MINNESOTA AND SENATOR
JOHN KYLE OF ARIZONA.
LATER, MR. MORRISON SERVED AS 
THE LONG-TIME POLICY DIRECTOR 
FOR THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE 
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.
IN JULY 2018, MR. MORRISON 
JOINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL AS SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR 

English: 
COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS 
DESTRUCTION FOLLOWING THE 
DEPARTURE OF DR. FIONA HILL, HE 
ASSUMED THE POSITION OF SENIOR 
DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA AND EUROPE.
ON TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE THE 
WITNESSES ARE SWORN, FIRST 
WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF 
THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED 
IN NATURE.
AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO 
BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED 
LEVEL.
AND THE INFORMATION THEY TOUCH 
ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL 
BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.
SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT 
TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF
REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE
AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL TESTIFYING BEFORE 
CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY 
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.
IF YOU WOULD BOTH PLEASE RISE 
AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I 
WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE 
TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO 
HELP YOU GOD.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 

English: 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.
MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, SO 
PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENTS WILL ALSO BE MADE 
PART OF THE RECORD.
WITH THAT, MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT AND IMMEDIATELY 
THEREAFTER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT.
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RANKING 
MEMBER NUNES, AND MEMBERS OF THE
I APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY UNDER 
SUBPOENA TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS ABOUT MY TIME AS 
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
AS RELATED TO UKRAINE AND U.S. 
SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE TO 
THAT COUNTRY.
I WILL PROVIDE YOU THE MOST 
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE 
INFORMATION I CAN CONSISTENT 
WITH MY OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT 
CLASSIFIED AND PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION.
WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT IS THE 
SUBJECT OF THIS INQUIRY MERITS 
IMPEACHMENT IS A QUESTION FOR 
THE U.S. HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.
I APPEAR HERE TODAY ONLY TO 
PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION 
BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE AND 
RECOLLECTION OF EVENTS.
I WILL NOT WASTE TIME RESTATING 

English: 
THE DETAILS OF MY OPENING 
STATEMENT FROM MY DEPOSITION ON 
OCTOBER 31, 2019, WHICH HAS 
RECENTLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
HOWEVER, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE 
FOLLOWING KEY POINTS.
FIRST, AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I
DO NOT KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS, NOR DO I 
INTEND TO SPECULATE AS TO WHO 
THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE.
SECOND, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR
MY FORMER COLLEAGUES FROM THE 
NSC AND THE REST OF THE 
INTERAGENCY.
I AM NOT HERE TODAY TO QUESTION 
THEIR CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY.
MY RECOLLECTIONS AND JUDGMENTS 
ARE MY OWN.
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES' 
RECOLLECTIONS OF CONVERSATIONS 
AND INTERACTIONS MAY DIFFER FROM
MINE BUT I DO NOT VIEW THOSE 
DIFFERENCES AS THE RESULT OF AN 
UNTOWARD PURPOSE.
THIRD, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE 
UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINES OF
A STRATEGIC COMPETITION BETWEEN 
THE WEST AND VLADIMIR PUTIN'S 
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA IS A FAILING POWER, BUT 
IT IS STILL A DANGEROUS ONE.
THE UNITED STATES AIDS UKRAINE 
AND HER PEOPLE SO THEY CAN FIGHT
RUSSIA OVER THERE AND WE DON'T 
HAVE TO FIGHT RUSSIA HERE.

English: 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY AND SOVEREIGNTY HAS 
BEEN A BIPARTISAN OBJECTIVE 
SINCE RUSSIA'S MILITARY INVASION
IN 2014.
IT MUST CONTINUE TO BE.
AS I STATED DURING MY 
DEPOSITION, I FEARED AT THE TIME
OF THE CALL ON JULY 25th HOW ITS
DISCLOSURE WOULD PLAY IN 
WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL CLIMATE.
MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED.
I UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF 
THESE PROCEEDINGS BUT I BEG YOU 
NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE 
MILITARY CONFLICT UNDER WAY IN 
EASTERN UKRAINE TODAY.
THE ONGOING ILLEGAL OCCUPATION 
OF CRIMEA AND THE IMPORTANCE OF 
REFORM OF UKRAINE'S POLITICS AND
ECONOMY.
EVERY DAY THAT THE FOCUS OF 
DISCUSSION INVOLVING UKRAINE IS 
CENTERED ON THESE PROCEEDINGS, 
INSTEAD OF THOSE MATTERS IS A 
DAY WHEN WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON 
THE INTERESTS OF UKRAINE, THE 
UNITED STATES, AND WESTERN STYLE
LIP LIBERALISM SHARE.
FINALLY, I CONCLUDED MY ACT OF 
SERVICE AS THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL THE DAY AFTER I LAST 
APPEARED BEFORE YOU.
I LEFT THE NSC COMPLETELY OF MY 
OWN VOLITION.
I FELT NO PRESSURE TO RESIGN, 
NOR HAVE I FEARED ANY 
RETALIATION FOR MY M THE.
I MADE THIS CAREER SOMETIME 

English: 
BEFORE I DECIDED TO TESTIFY ON 
OCTOBER 31st.
I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY 
ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION.
>> THANK YOU.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS 
TESTIMONY TODAY.
AS YOU KNOW, I WAS THE FIRST 
PERSON TO COME FORWARD TO 
TESTIFY AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY.
I DID SO VOLUNTARILY AND 
LIKEWISE VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IN MY 
POSSESSION IN ORDER TO BE AS 
COOPERATIVE, CLEAR, AND COMPLETE
AS POSSIBLE.
I AM HERE TODAY, VOLUNTARILY, 
AND I REMAIN COMMITTED TO 
COOPERATING FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY
WITH THIS COMMITTEE.
ALL I CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE 
FACTS AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM AT 
THE TIME.
I DID THIS ON OCTOBER 3rd, IN 
PRIVATE, AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN 
TODAY.
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE 

English: 
TESTIFIED IN THIS INQUIRY, I'M A
CAREER FOREIGN POLICY 
PROFESSIONAL.
I BEGAN MY CAREER AS AN 
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST FOR 
NORTHERN EUROPE FOR THE CENTRAL 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN 1986.
BEFORE JOINING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN 1988.
I SERVED IN DIPLOMATIC POSTINGS,
PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN 
POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES 
FOR OVER 20 YEARS UNDER 
PRESIDENTS RONALD REAGAN, GEORGE
H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE 
W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA.
MY LAST THREE POSITIONS BEFORE 
LEAVING THE SENIOR FOREIGN 
SERVICE IN 2009 WERE AS DIRECTOR
FOR NATO AND WEST EUROPEAN 
AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND FINALLY AS U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO NATO.
IN THE SPRING OF 2017, THEN 
SECRETARY OF STATE TILLERSON 
ASKED IF I WOULD COME BACK TO 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE AS U.S. 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS.
I DID THIS ON A PART-TIME, 

English: 
VOLUNTARY BASIS WITH NO SALARY 
PAID BY THE U.S. TAXPAYER, 
SIMPLY BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY 
IN THIS WAY.
I BELIEVED I COULD STEER U.S. 
POLICY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
FOR OVER TWO YEARS, AS U.S. 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, MY 
SINGULAR FOCUS WAS ADVANCING THE
FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
IN PARTICULAR, THAT MEANT 
PUSHING BACK ON RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION AND SUPPORTING THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG, 
RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND 
PROSPEROUS UKRAINE, ONE THAT 
OVERCOMES A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION
AND BECOMES INTEGRATED INTO A 
WIDER TRANSATLANTIC COMMUNITY.
THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.
IF WE CAN STOP AND REVERSE 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE, 
WE CAN PREVENT IT ELSEWHERE.
IF UKRAINE, THE CRADLE OF SLAVIC
CIVILIZATION, PREDATING MOSCOW, 
SUCCEEDS AS A FREEDOM-LOVING, 

English: 
PROSPEROUS AND SECURE DEMOCRACY,
IT GIVES US ENORMOUS HOPE THAT 
RUSSIA MAY ONE DAY CHANGE, 
PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR 
RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND OVERCOMING 
ITS CURRENT PLAGUE OF 
AUTHORITARIANISM, CORRUPTION, 
AGGRESSION TOWARD NEIGHBORS, AND
THREATS TO NATO AND THE UNITED 
STATES.
THE STAKES FOR THE UNITED STATES
IN A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE COULD 
NOT BE HIGHER.
AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE OF OR 
KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT
TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
AS YOU KNOW FROM THE EXTENSIVE 
REALTIME DOCUMENTATION I HAVE 
PROVIDED, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WAS NOT A TOPIC OF OUR 
DISCUSSIONS.
I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25th PHONE
CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF ANY 
REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN OR HIS SON BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THAT CALL WAS RELEASED ON 
SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019.
FROM JULY 7, 2017, UNTIL 

English: 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019, I WAS THE 
LEAD U.S. DIPLOMAT DEALING WITH 
RUSSIA'S WAR ON UKRAINE.
MY ROLE WAS NOT SOME IRREGULAR 
CHANNEL BUT THE OFFICIAL 
CHANNEL.
I REPORTED DIRECTLY TO 
SECRETARIES OF STATE TILLERSON 
AND POMPEO, KEPT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR AND SECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE WELL INFORMED OF MY 
EFFORTS, AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, NSA 
SENIOR DIRECTOR HILL AND HER 
SUCCESSOR, TIM MORRISON, THEN 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WES MITCHELL
AND PHIL REEKER, DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE, LAURA COOPER, NSC 
DIRECTOR ALEX VINDMAN AND MANY, 
MANY OTHERS.
I HAVE KNOWN MANY OF THEM FOR 
SEVERAL YEARS.
IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT.
WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LEFT
KYIV, I IDENTIFIED AND 
RECOMMENDED BILL TAYLOR TO 
SECRETARY POMPEO SO WE WOULD 
STILL HAVE A STRONG, SEASONED 
PROFESSIONAL ON THE GROUND.

English: 
FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THE EVENTS 
AT THE HEART OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE I WAS 
THE MOST SENIOR DIPLOMAT 
VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE, 
MEETING WITH VICTIMS OF RUSSIA'S
AGGRESSION, URGING INCREASED 
U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
INCLUDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE 
WEAPONS, WORKING WITH UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT AND THEN HIS 
SUCCESSOR, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
AND THEIR TEAMS.
WORKING WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY 
IN THE SO-CALLED NORMANDY 
PROCESS, PRESSING FOR SUPPORT 
FROM NATO, THE EU AND OSCE, 
SUPPORTING THE OSCE'S SPECIAL 
MONITORING MISSION, AND ENGAGING
IN NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER 
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS.
AT THE TIME I TOOK THE POSITION 
IN THE SUMMER OF 2017, THERE 
WERE MAJOR COMPLICATED QUESTIONS
SWIRLING IN PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT 
THE DIRECTION OF U.S. POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE.
WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION LIFT 
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA?
WOULD IT MAKE SOME KIND OF GRAND
BARGAIN WITH RUSSIA IN WHICH IT 
WOULD TRADE RECOGNITION OF 
RUSSIA'S SEIZURE OF UKRAINIAN 
TERRITORY FOR SOME OTHER DAILY 

English: 
IN SYRIA OR ELSEWHERE?
WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION 
RECOGNIZE RUSSIA'S CLAIMED 
ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA?
WILL THIS JUST BECOME ANOTHER 
FROZEN CONFLICT?
THERE WERE ALSO A VAST NUMBER OF
VACANCIES IN KEY DIPLOMATIC 
POSITIONS SO NO ONE WAS REALLY 
REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES 
IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS ABOUT
ENDING THE WAR IN EASTERN 
UKRAINE.
DURING OVER TWO YEARS OF MY 
TENURE AS U.S. SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE, WE FUNDAMENTALLY
TURNED U.S. POLICY AROUND.
U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE WAS 
STRONG, CONSISTENT, AND ENJOYED 
SUPPORT ACROSS THE 
ADMINISTRATION, BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT IN CONGRESS, AND SUPPORT
AMONG OUR ALLIES AND UKRAINE.
WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE COMMONLY
USED TO DESCRIBE RUSSIA'S 
AGGRESSION.
I WAS THE ADMINISTRATI'S MOST 
OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE, 
HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA'S INVASION 
AND OCCUPATION OF PARTS OF 
UKRAINE, CALLING OUTS RUSSIA'S 
RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE WAR.
I VISITED THE WAR ZONE THREE 
TIMES, MEETING WITH SOLDIERS AND
CIVILIANS ALIKE, ALWAYS BRINGING
MEDIA WITH ME TO TRY TO RAISE 

English: 
THE PUBLIC VISIBILITY OF 
RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION AND THE 
HUMANITARIAN IMPACT ON THE LIVES
OF THE CITIZENS.
WE COORDINATED CLOSELY WITH OUR 
EUROPEAN ALLIES IN CANADA TO 
MAINTAIN A UNITED FRONT AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND FOR 
UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY REFORM, 
SOVEREIGNTY, AND TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY.
UKRAINE POLICY IS PERHAPS THE 
ONE AREA WHERE THE U.S. AND ITS 
EUROPEAN ALLIES HAD BEEN IN LOCK
STEP.
THIS COORDINATION HELPED TO 
STRENGTHEN U.S. SANCTIONS 
AGAINST RUSSIA AND TO MAINTAIN 
EU SANCTIONS AS WELL.
ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION, I STRONGLY 
ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING THE BAN ON
THE SALE OF LETHAL DEFENSIVE 
WEAPONS -- LETHAL DEFENSIVE ARMS
TO UKRAINE, ADVOCATED FOR 
INCREASING U.S. ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AND URGED OTHER 
COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT.
MY TEAM AND I DRAFTED THE POMPEO
DECLARATION OF JULY 25, 2018, IN
WHICH THE SECRETARY CLEARLY AND 

English: 
DEFINITIVELY LAID OUT THE U.S. 
POLICY OF NONRECOGNITION OF 
RUSSIA'S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF 
CRIMEA.
I ENGAGED WITH OUR ALLIES, WITH 
UKRAINE, AND WITH RUSSIA IN 
NEGOTIATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE 
MINSK AGREEMENTS, HOLDING A FIRM
LINE ON INSISTING OF THE 
WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIAN FORCES, 
DISMANTLING OF THE SO-CALLED 
PEOPLE'S REPUBLICS AND RESTORING
UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND 
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.
TOGETHER WITH OTHERS IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION WE KEPT U.S. 
POLICY STEADY THROUGH 
PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE AND WORKED 
HARD TO STRENGTHEN THE 
U.S.-UKRAINE BILATERAL 
RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE NEW 
PRESIDENT AND GOVERNMENT HELPING
SHEPHERD IN A PEACEFUL 
TRANSITION OF POWER IN UKRAINE.
SO IN SHORT, WHEREAS TWO YEARS 
AGO MOST OBSERVERS WOULD HAVE 
SAID THAT TIME IS ON RUSSIA'S 
SIDE, BY 2019, WHEN I DEPARTED, 
WE HAD TURNED THE TABLES AND 
TIME WAS NOW ON UKRAINE'S SIDE.
IT'S A TRAGEDY FOR THE UNITED 
STATES AND FOR UKRAINE THAT OUR 
EFFORTS IN THIS AREA, WHICH WERE
BEARING FRUIT, HAVE NOW BEEN 
THROWN INTO DISARRAY.

English: 
ONE OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF 
MY ROLE AS U.S. SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT AS THE 
MOST SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL 
APPOINTED TO WORK SOLELY ON THE 
UKRAINE PORTFOLIO, I NEEDED TO 
STEP FORWARD TO PROVIDE 
LEADERSHIP.
IF WE NEEDED TO ADOPT A POLICY 
POSITION, I MADE THE CASE FOR 
IT.
IF ANYONE -- IF ANYONE NEEDED TO
SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY, I WOULD DO 
IT.
WHEN WE FAILED TO GET A TIMELY 
STATEMENT ABOUT RUSSIA'S ILLEGAL
ATTACK ON UKRAINE'S NAVY AND 
SEIZURE OF UKRAINE'S SAILORS, I 
TWEETED ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO 
CONDEMN THE ACT.
IF A PROBLEM AROSE, I KNEW IT 
WAS MY JOB TO TRY TO FIX IT.
THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE WHEN I 
LEARNED IN MAY 2019 THAT WE HAD 
A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM THAT WAS 
IMPEDING OUR ABILITY TO 
STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE'S NEW PRESIDENT IN HIS 
EFFORT TO RAMP UP UKRAINE'S 
FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND 
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED 
REFORMS.
I FOUND MYSELF FACED WITH A 
CHOICE.
TO BE AWARE OF A PROBLEM AND TO 
IGNORE IT OR TO ACCEPT THAT IT 
WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO 
FIX IT.

English: 
I TRIED TO FIX IT.
THE PROBLEM WAS THAT DESPITE THE
UNANIMOUS POSITIVE ASSESSMENT 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE OF 
US WHO WERE PART OF THE U.S. 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION THAT 
ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS RECEIVING A DIFFERENT 
NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THAT NARRATIVE WAS FUELED BY 
ACCUSATIONS FROM UKRAINE'S 
THEN-PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND 
CONVEYED TO THE PRESIDENT BY 
FORMER MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI.
AS I PREVIOUSLY TOLD THIS 
COMMITTEE, I BECAME AWARE OF THE
NEGATIVE IMPACT THIS WAS HAVING 
ON OUR POLICY EFFORTS WHEN FOUR 
OF US WHO WERE A PART OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE 
INAUGURATION MET AS A GROUP WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd.
WE STRESSED OUR FINDING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPRESENTED 
THE BEST CHANCE FOR GETTING 
UKRAINE OUT OF THE MIRE OF 
CORRUPTION IT HAD BEEN IN FOR 
OVER 20 YEARS.
WE URGED HIM TO INVITE PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY 
SKEPTICAL.

English: 
GIVEN UKRAINE'S HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION, THAT'S 
UNDERSTANDABLE.
HE SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS A 
CORRUPT COUNTRY, FULL OF 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE.
HE SAID THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME 
DOWN.
IN THE COURSE OF THAT 
CONVERSATION, HE REFERENCED 
CONVERSATIONS WITH MAYOR 
GIULIANI.
IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT DESPITE 
THE POSITIVE NEWS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS BEING CONVEYED 
BY THIS OFFICIAL DELEGATION 
ABOUT THE NEW PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A DEEPLY 
ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEW ON UKRAINE 
ROOTED IN THE PAST.
HE WAS RECEIVING OTHER 
INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES, 
INCLUDING MAYOR GIULIANI, THAT 
WAS MORE NEGATIVE, CAUSING HIM 
TO RETAIN THIS NEGATIVE VIEW.
WITHIN A FEW DAYS, ON MAY 29th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP INDEED SIGNED 
THE CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHICH 
INCLUDED AN INVITATION TO THE 
PRESIDENT TO VISIT HIM AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE.
HOWEVER, MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS 
PASSED AND WE COULD NOT NAIL 
DOWN A DATE FOR THE MEETING.
I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S LONG-HELD NEGATIVE 

English: 
VIEW TOWARD UKRAINE WAS CAUSING 
HESITATION IN ACTUALLY 
SCHEDULING THE MEETING, MUCH AS 
WE HAD SEEN IN OUR OVAL OFFICE 
DISCUSSION.
AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT IT WAS JUST A 
SCHEDULING ISSUE, I DECIDED TO 
TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE 
HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE 
INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FROM MAYOR GIULIANI.
I DID SO IN A BILATERAL MEETING 
AT A CONFERENCE ON UKRAINIAN 
ECONOMIC REFORM IN TORONTO ON 
JULY 2, 2019, WHERE I LED THE 
U.S. DELEGATION.
I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY IN 
ORDER TO RENEW THEIR PERSONAL 
RELATIONSHIP AND TO ASSURE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS 
COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATING AND 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION, THINGS ON 
WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD 
BASED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
I WAS CONVINCED THAT GETTING THE
TWO PRESIDENTS TO TALK WITH EACH
OTHER WOULD OVERCOME THE 
NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF UKRAINE 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL 
HARBORED.

English: 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR 
AIDE, ANDRE YERMAK APPROACHED ME
SEVERAL DAYS LATER TO BE 
CONNECTED TO MAYOR RUDY 
GIULIANI.
I AGREED TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION
BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 
NEW UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP WANTED 
TO CONVINCE THOSE LIKE MAYOR 
GIULIANI WHO BELIEVED SUCH A 
NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE
THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND 
THAT, UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
UKRAINE IS WORTHY OF U.S. 
SUPPORT.
UKRAINIANS BELIEVE THAT IF THEY 
COULD GET THEIR OWN NARRATIVE 
ACROSS IN A WAY THAT CONVINCED 
MAYOR GIULIANI THAT THEY WERE 
SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION AND ADVANCING REFORM,
MAYOR GIULIANI WOULD CONVEY THAT
ASSESSMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
THUS CORRECTING THE PREVIOUS 
NEGATIVE NARRATIVE.
THAT MADE SENSE TO ME AND I 
TRIED TO BE HELPFUL.
I MADE CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIANS 
THAT MAYOR GIULIANI WAS A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN, THE PRESIDENT'S
PERSONAL LAWYER, AND NOT 
REPRESENTING THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT.
LIKEWISE, IN MY CONVERSATIONS 
WITH MAYOR GIULIANI, I NEVER 
CONSIDERED HIM TO BE SPEAKING ON
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF OR GIVING
INSTRUCTIONS.
RATHER, THE INFORMATION FLOW WAS

English: 
THE OTHER WAY.
FROM UKRAINE TO MAYOR GIULIANI 
IN THE HOPES THAT THIS WOULD 
CLEAR UP THE INFORMATION 
REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ON JULY 10th, AFTER HEARING FROM
MR. YERMAK, I WROTE TO MAYOR 
GIULIANI TO SEEK TO GET TOGETHER
AND FINALLY ON JULY 19th, WE MET
FOR BREAKFAST FOR A LONGER 
DISCUSSION.
AT THAT MEETING, I TOLD 
MR. GIULIANI THAT IN MY VIEW, 
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WITH WHOM
HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING, 
MR. LUTSENKO, WAS NOT CREDIBLE 
AND WAS ACTING IN A SELF-SERVING
CAPACITY.
TO MY SURPRISE, MAYOR GIULIANI 
SAID THAT HE HAD ALREADY COME TO
THAT SAME CONCLUSION.
MR. GIULIANI ALSO MENTIONED BOTH
THE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ABOUT 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION AND STRESSED THAT ALL 
HE WANTED TO SEE WAS FOR UKRAINE
TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED IN 
THE PAST AND APPLY ITS OWN LAWS.
CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS, I 
STRESSED THAT NO ONE IN THE NEW 
TEAM GOVERNING UKRAINE HAD 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING 
THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016.
THEY WERE MAKING TELEVISION 

English: 
SHOWS AT THE TIME.
I ALSO SAID THAT IT'S NOT 
CREDIBLE TO ME THAT FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN 
INFLUENCED IN ANY WAY BY 
FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL MOTIVE IN 
CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES AS VICE 
PRESIDENT. 
A DIFFERENT ISSUE IS WHETHER 
SOME INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS MAY 
HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE THE 
2016 ELECTION OR THOUGHT THEY 
COULD BUY INFLUENCE. 
THAT IS AT LEAST PLAUSIBLE GIVEN
UKRAINE'S REPUTATION FOR 
CORRUPTION, BUT THE ACCUSATION 
THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED 
INAPPROPRIATELY DID NOT SEEM AT 
ALL CREDIBLE TO ME.
AFTER THAT MEETING I CONNECTED 
MAYOR GIULIANI AND MR. YERMAK BY
TEXT AND LATER BY PHONE.
THEY MET IN PERSON ON AUGUST 
2nd, 2019.
CONVERSATIONS WITH ME FOLLOWING 
THAT MEETING WHICH I DID NOT 
ATTEND, MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT 
HE HAD STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE 
OF UKRAINE CONDUCTSING 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO WHAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PART AND MR. 
YERMAK STRESSED HE TOLD MR. 
GIULIANI IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S 

English: 
PROGRAM TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION 
AND IMPLEMENT REFORM AND THEY 
WOULD BE CONDUCTING 
INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THIS 
PROCESS ANYWAY. 
MR. GIULIANI SAID HE BELIEVES 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT NEEDED TO 
MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION AND HE DISCUSSED THIS
WITH MR. YERMAK.
I SAID I DID NOT THINK THIS 
WOULD BE A PROBLEM SINCE THAT IS
THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION 
ANYWAY. 
I FOLLOWED UM WITH MR. YERMAK 
AND HE SAID THAT THEY WOULD 
INDEED BE PREPARED TO MAKE A 
STATEMENT.
HE SAID IT WOULD REFERENCE 
BARISMA AND 2016 IN A WIDER 
CONTEXT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 
AND ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION 
ANYWAY.
THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
RATHER, IN REFERENCING BARISMA 
IN 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, 
IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT HE, MR. 
YERMAK, WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT 
WHETHER ANY UKRAINIANS HAD ACTED
INAPPROPRIATELY. 
AT THIS TIME I WAS FOCUSED ON 
OUR GOAL OF GETTING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
MEET WITH EACH OTHER, AND I 
BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE DOING SO 

English: 
WOULD OVERCOME THE CHRONICALLY 
NEGATIVE VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD TOWARDS UKRAINE.
I WAS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE 
PROBLEM I SAW WHEN WE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE ON MAY 23rd.
AS A PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMAT I WAS
COMFORTABLE EXPLORING WHETHER 
THERE WAS A STATEMENT UKRAINE 
COULD MAKE ABOUT ITS OWN 
INTENTIONS TO INVESTIGATE 
POSSIBLE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD 
BE HELPFUL IN CONVINCING MR. 
GIULIANI TO CONVEY TO MR. TRUMP 
A MORE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF 
THE NEW LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE.
AUGUST 16th MR. YERMAK SHARED A 
DRAFT WITH ME I THOUGHT LOOKED 
PERFECTLY REASONABLE.
IT DID NOT MENTION BARISMA OR 
2016 ELECTIONS BUT WAS GENERIC.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A 
FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. 
GIULIANI WHO SAYS IN HIS VIEW IN
ORDER TO BE CONVINCING THAT THIS
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED REAL 
CHANGE IN UKRAINE, THE STATEMENT
SHOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
REFERENCE TO BARISMA AND 2016. 
AGAIN, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THESE 
CONVERSATIONS. 

English: 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I 
DISCUSSED THESE POINTS, AND I 
EDITED THE STATEMENT DRAFTED BY 
IN YERMAK TO INCLUDE THESE 
POINTS TO SEE HOW IT LOOKED.
I THEN DISCUSSED IT FURTHER WITH
MR. YERMAK.
HE SAID THAT FOR A NUMBER OF 
REASONS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT 
MR. LUTSENKO WAS STILL 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL HE DIDN'T 
WANT TO MENTION BARISMA OR 2016.
I AGREE AND THE IDEA FOR PUTTING
OUT A STATEMENT WAS SHELVED.
THESER THE LAST CONVERSATIONS I 
HAD ABOUT THIS STATEMENT WHICH 
WERE ON OR AUB AUGUST 17th TO 
18th.
MY LAST CONTACT WITH MR. 
GIULIANI ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS
WAS AUGUST 13th UNTIL HE TRIED 
TO REACH ME ON SEPTEMBER 20th 
AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
WAS LAUNCHED.
AT THIS TIME THAT IS TO SAY IN 
THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST, I THOUGHT 
THE IDEA OF ISSUING THIS 
STATEMENT WAS DEFINITIVELY 
SCRAPPED.
IN SEPTEMBER I WAS SURPRISED TO 
LEARN THAT THERE HAD BEEN 
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH 
UKRAINIANS AR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
POSSIBLY MAKES A STATEMENT IN AN

English: 
INTERVIEW WITH U.S. MEDIA 
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN 
AUGUST. 
SINCE THESE EVENTS AND SIGNS 
GAVE MY TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 3rd
A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVES 
HAVE COME TO LIGHT.
I'VE LEARNED MANY THINGS I DID 
NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE 
EVENTS IN QUESTION.
FIRST, AT THE TIME I WAS 
CONNECTING MR. YERMAK AND MR. 
GIULIANI AND DISCUSSING WITH MR.
YERMAK AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A
POSSIBLE STATEMENT THAT COULD BE
MADE BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
I DID NOT KNOW OF ANY LINKAGE 
BETWEEN THE HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND UKRAINE PURSUING 
INVESTIGATIONS.
NO ONE HAD EVER SAID THAT TO ME 
AND I NEVER CONVEYED SUCH A 
LINKAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS.
I OPPOSED THE HOLD OF U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS SOON AS I
LEARNED ABOUT IT ON JULY 18BLE 
AND THOUGHT WE WERE TURN IT 
AROUND BEFORE THE UKRAINIAN EVER
KNEW AND BECOME ALARMED ABOUT 
IT.
I KNEW IT WAS A PROBLEM WE 
NEEDED TO FIX INTERNALLY AND WAS
CONFIDENT WE 0 WOULD DO SO.

English: 
I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME 
AWARE OF THE HOLD AUGUST 29th 
AND NOT BEFORE.
THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY 
OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUTED HOLD BY
FORWARDING AN ARTICLE PUBLICED 
IN POLITICO.
I SPOKE TO THE UKRAINIANS AFTER 
THE HOLD AUGUST 29th INSTEAD OF 
TELLING THEM TO DO SOMETHING TO 
GET IT RELEASED I TOLD THEM THE 
OPPOSITE.
IT SHOULD NOT BE ALARMED.
IT WAS AN INTERNAL U.S. PROBLEM 
AND WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT 
FIXED.
I DID NOT OTHERS WERE CONVEYING 
A DIFFERENT MESSAGE TO THEM 
AROUND THE SAME TIME.
SECOND, I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE
STRONG CONCERNS EXPRESSEDS BY 
THEN NATIONAL SECURITY AS VIDOR 
JOHN BOLTON TO MEMBERS OF HIS 
NSC STAFF REGARDING THE 
DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS. 
I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th 
MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON AND THEN
UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL 
DANYLUK.
THE MEETING WAS OVER AND THE 
AMBASSADOR MADE A COMMENT ABOUT 

English: 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE I THOUGHT.
THE CONVERSATION DID NOT COPT 
AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED.
LATER ON IN THE WAR ROOM I MAY 
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A SIDE 
CONVERSATION OR HAD ALREADY LEFT
THE COMPLEX BECAUSE I DO NOT 
RECALL FURTHER DISCUSSION 
REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF 
BARISMA.
THIRD, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT
OTHERS BELIEVED THAT ANY 
INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY BARISMA HAD A HISTORY OF
ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION, WAS 
TANTAMOUNT TO INVESTIGATING VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
I DREW A SHARP DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN THE TWO.
IT HAS LONG BEEN U.S. POLICY 
UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS 
TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE 
AND FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION.
I WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH 
UKRAINE MAKING ITS OWN 
STATEMENTS ABOUT ITS OWN POLICY 
OF INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION AT HOME.
AT THE ONE IN-PERSON MEETING 
WITH MAYOR GIULIANI JULY 19th 
MAYOR GIULIANI RAISED AND I 
REJECTED THE CONSPIRACY THEORY 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE 
BEEN INTERFERING WITH MONEY PAID

English: 
TO HIS SON.
I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED I HAVE 
KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 24 
YEARS, AN HONORABLE MAN AND I 
HOLD HIM IN HIGHEST REGARD.
AT IN TIME WAS AWARE OF 
KNOWINGLY TAKING PART IN AN 
EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND YOU 
KNOW FROM EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT 
PROVISION VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WAS NOT A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.
I WAS NOT ON THE PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NOT MADE 
AWARE OF ANY CONVERSATION UNTIL 
THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THAT CALL WAS
RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2019.
THROUGHOUT THIS TIME I 
UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS AN 
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
BARISMA AND BIDEN AND URGED 
UKRAINIANS TO MAINTAIN SUCH A 
DISTINCTION AND DID NOT KNOW 
PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THIS WITH
UKRAINIANS OR POSSIBLE UKRAINIAN
CORRUPTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION
OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.
IN RETROSPECT, FOR THE 
UKRAINIANS IT WOULD CLEARLY BE 
CONFUSING'S IN HINDSIGHT I NOW 

English: 
UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA 
OF THIS AS POSSIBLE CORRUPTION 
INVESTIGATING BARISMA AS WELL AS
INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN.
SAW THAW THOSE AT DIFFERENT AND 
THE LATTER UNACCEPTABLE.
IN RETROSPECT I SHOULD HAVE 
RECOGNIZED THAT AND HAD I DONE 
SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN 
OBJECTIONS.
MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF THE TERM 
THREE AMIGOS AND I CRINGE.
THAT REFERS TO SENATOR McCAIN, 
SENATOR LIEBERMAN AND SENATOR 
GRAHAM IN HIS EFFORT TO SUPPORT 
THE SURGE IN IRAQ.
MOREOVER I WAS NEVER AWARE OF 
ANY DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR THE THREE
OF US AS GROUP IN CHARGE OF 
UKRAINE POLICY.
RATHER, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT EACH 
OF US IN OUR OWN RESPECTIVE 
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES CONTINUED TO
WORK TOGETHER AFTER OUR 
ATTENDANCE OF SPREAD ZELENSKY 
INAUGURATION TO PUSH FOR GREATER

English: 
U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.
LEADING THE DIPLOMACY AROUND 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS HAD LONG 
BEEN MY OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY 
AND I WELCOMED THE ADDED SUPPORT
AND INFLUENCE OF A CABINET 
MEMBER AND OUR EU AMBASSADOR. 
SINCE I WAS NOT AWARE AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP JULY 26th, AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR AND I WERE VISITING THE 
CONFLICT ZONE.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE ALLOW ME TO THANK YOU 
AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
PROVIDE THIS TESTIMONY.
I BELIEVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS 
IN UKRAINE ARE OF CRITICAL 
IMPORTANCE AND I'M PLEASED TO 
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH FIRST ROUND
OF QUESTIONS AS DETAILED IN THE 
MEMO PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE 
MEMBERS.
45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS 
CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND 45
MINUTES BY THE RANK ARE OR 
MINORITY COUNSEL.

English: 
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR COUNSEL 
FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS. 
I WAS GOING TO YIELD TO THE 
MINORITY COUNSEL BUT THERE WERE 
A COUPLE A STATEMENTS IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT.
FIRST YOU SAID ATTORNEY GENERAL 
UTE SIENKO WAS NOT CREDIBLE.
 LUTSENKO IS WITH A NUMBER OF 
ALLEGATIONS REPEATEDLY BROUGHT 
UP BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. 
WHY IS IT YOU FOUND MR. LUTSENKO
NOT CREDIBLE AND TOLD MR. 
GIULIANI SO?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, THE ALLEGATIONS 
THEMSELVES INCLUDING THOSE 
AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
DID NOT APPEAR TO MEET TO BE 

English: 
CREDIBLE AT ALL.
I KNOW HER TO BE AN INCREDIBLY 
COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL, SOMEONE 
I WORKED WITH MANY, MANY YEARS.
THE SUGGESTION HE WAS ACTING IN 
SOME INAPPROPRIATE MANNER WERE 
NOT KNOWN TO ME.
I'VE NOTE VICE PRESIDENTED BY AN
LONG TIME, THOSE ACCUSATIONS 
WERE NOT CREDIBLE AND I WAS ALSO
AWARE OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION
IN UKRAINE.
WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE 
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO APPEARED TO
NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE POSITION 
GOING INTO ELECTIONS IT WAS 
INCREASINGLY APPARENT THEN 
CANDIDATE SILENCE WAS GOING TO 
WIN.
AS OFTEN IS THE CASE IN UKRAINE 
A CHANGE IN POWER WOULD MEAN 
CHANGE IN PROSECUTORIAL POWERS 
AS WELL AND THERE HAVE BEEN 
EFFORTS IN THE PAST AS 
PROSECUTING THE PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENT.
I THINK MR. LUTSENKO, IN MY 
ESTIMATION AND I SAID IT TO 
MAYOR GIULIANI WHEN I MET WITH 
HIM, WAS INTERESTED IN 
PRESERVING HIS OWN POSITION.

English: 
HE WANTED TO AVOID BEING FIRED 
BY A NEW GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO 
PREVENT PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF, 
POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF,
POSSIBLY ALSO THIS IS SOMETHING 
THAT PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WOULD 
HAVE WELCOMED AS WELL, AVOIDING 
EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO AS WELL.
BY MAKING ALLEGATIONS LIKE THIS,
AND MAKING SURE THEY WERE 
REACHING U.S. MEDIA, I THINK MR.
LUTSENKO WAS TRYING TO MAKE 
HIMSELF APPEAR TO BEFLUENTIAL PR
IN THE UNITED STATES. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT JOE 
BIDEN BECAUSE IT'S A CONTINUING 
REFRAIN FROM SOME OF ME 
COLLEAGUES AS WELL.
WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN 
RELATED TO HIS SON OF BARISMA 
NOT TO BE BELIEVED?
>> SIMPLY BECAUSE I'VE KNOWN 
VICE PRESIDENT, FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME.
I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS 
DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE AND IT'S
JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT A 
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

English: 
STATES IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING 
OTHER THAN ACT AS HOW HE SEES 
BEST FOR THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.
>> FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, BEFORE I
TURN IT OVER, I WAS STRUCK BY 
SOMETHING YOU SAID ON PAGE 8 OF 
YOUR STATEMENT.
WHICH READS, IN HINDSIGHT I 
UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA 
INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING COMPANY 
BARISMA KWIV LEND TO 
INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
AWE SAW THEM AS DIFFER AND BEING
UNREMARKABLE THE LATTER BEING 
UNACCEPTABLE.
IN RETROSPECT YOU SAID I SHOULD 
HAVE SEEN THAT DIFFERENTLY AND 
HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE 
RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS. 
WHAT IS IT NOW, AMBASSADOR, IN 
RETROSPECT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE 
THAT YOU DIDN'T AT THIS TIME 
THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT 
YOU WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE RAISED 
THESE OBJECTIONS?
>> YES.
THAT OTHERS DID NOT SEE THE 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE THINGS

English: 
AS I SAW IT. 
AS I SAID, THERE IS A HISTORY OF
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
THERE'S A HISTORY WITH THE 
COMPANY OF BARISMA.
IT'S BEEN INVESTIGATED.
THAT IS WELL KNOWN.
THERE IS A SEPARATE ALLEGATION 
ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ACTING 
INAPPROPRIATELY.
HIS SON WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF 
THIS COMPANY.
BUT THOSE THINGS I SAW AS 
COMPLETELY DISTINCT.
AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN 
WORKING WITH THE UKRAINIANS WAS 
TO THREAD A NEEDLE.
SEE WHERE THINGS THEY COULD DO 
APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE AS 
PART OF UKRAINE'S ONLY POLICY OF
FIGHTING CORRUPTION TO HELP 
CLARIFY FOR OUR PRESIDENT THAT 
THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THAT VERY,
THAT VERY EFFORT.
THERE'S A WAY TO THREAD THAT 
NEEDLE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH THE 
EFFORT TO TRY TO SOLVE THAT 
PROBLEM. 
AS IT TURNS OUT I NOW UNDERSTAND
THAT MOST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE 
DIDN'T SEE OR DIDN'T CONSIDER 
THIS DISTINCTION THAT FOR THEM 
IT WAS IS A NOM MOUSE. 
>> ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE TURNSOUS 
TO THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED 

English: 
STATES.
I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL 
THE CALL RECORD WAS RELEASED 
THAT HAD PRET IN THAT CALL 
DOESN'T RAISE BARISMA.
HE ASKS FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE
BIDENS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> I TAKE IT SINCE YOU SAY THAT 
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ASKING FOR 
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS 
WOULD HAVE BEEN UNACCEPTABLE AND
OBJECTIONABLE THAT HAD THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO GET 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM 
SO?
>> I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO 
THAT, YES, SIR. 
>> MR. GOLDMAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
JUST ONE FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER.
WHEN YOU SAY THREAD THE NEEDLE, 
YOU MEAN THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON AND 
BARISMA, BUT YOU WERE TRYING TO 
SEPARATE THE TWO OF THEM IN YOUR
MIND?
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE 
SEPARATE.
AND THAT -- THIS REFERENCE TO 
THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. 

English: 
GIULIANI AS WELL WHERE I THINK 
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE SELF-SERVING
AND NOT CREDIBLE. 
SEPARATE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT 
IS APPROPRIATE FOR UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION 
OF UKRAINIANS THAT MAY HAVE 
TRIED TO CORRUPT THINGS OR BUY 
INFLUENCE FOP ME THEY ARE VERY 
DIFFERENT THINGS.
AS I SAID, I THINK THE FORMER IS
UNACCEPTABLE AND THE LATTER IN 
THIS CASE IS -- 
>> UNDERSTOOD.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUNTER 
BIDEN AND BARISMA?
>> I KNEW HE BEEN A BOARD MEMBER
OF THE COMPANY AND WHY IT WAS SO
IMPORTANT TO NAME A DISTINCTION.
FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th CALL A 
MOMENT.
MR. MORRISON, JUST 25th WAS DAY 
NUMBER, WHAT, FOR YOU AS THE 
SENIOR DIRECTOR OVERSEEING 
UKRAINE?
>> I -- ARRIVED THE 15th.
PROBABLY TEN DAYS.
VR FEW DAYS IN OFFICE. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 

English: 
DEPOSITION YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL
THE MORNING OF JULY 25th FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SHORTLY 
BEFORE THE CALL.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> AND I BELIEVE IN THAT EMAIL, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU 
THAT HE HAD BRIEFED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ABOUT THE, IN ADVANCE OF 
THE CALL.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU ON 
ANOTHER OCCASION THAT HE COULD 
CALL THE PRESIDENT WHENEVER HE 
WANTED.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> AND ON JULY 25th, DID YOU, IN
FACT, MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONFIRM 
WHETHER OR NOT THE PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY 
OCCURRED?
>> I DID. 
>> AND DID IT HAPPEN?
>> YES.
>> ON OTHER OCCASIONS WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU 
THAT HE SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, DID YOU, OB SOME OTHER 
OCCASIONS DID YOU ALSO SEEK 
CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT?
>> ON SOME, YES. 
>> AND ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN 
YOU DID SEEK TO CONFIRM THAT 

English: 
THEY HAD SPOKEN, WHAT DID YOU 
FIND?
>> HE HAD. 
>> I WANT TO PULL UP A TEXT 
MESSAGE ON THE MORNING OF JULY 
25th.
BETWEEN -- WELL, IT'S -- SHOULD 
BE ANOTHER ONE.
OH, YEAH.
SORRY. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WITH YOU, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND AT 7:54, 
AMBASSADOR -- IN THE MORNING, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, CALL 
ASAP.
THEN AT 9:35, AMBASSADOR VOLKER.
YOU RESPOND.
THE SCREEN WORKING IN FRONT YOU 
YOU?
>> YES. 
>> READ WHAT YOU SAID AT 9:35. 
>> YES.
I SAID, HI GORDON PT GOT YOUR 
MESSAGE.
HAD A GREAT LUNCH WITH YERMAK 
AND PASSED YOUR MESSAGE TO HIM.
HE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW.
I THINK EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE. 
>> AND WHO IS YERMAK?
>> ANDREI YERMAK IS SENIOR 

English: 
ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF
UKRAINE. 
>> NOW, WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE 
THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED?
>> THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SHOULD BE CLEAR, CONVINCING, 
FORTHRIGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING
CORRUPTION, INVESTIGATING WHAT 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, GET TO THE
BOTTOM OF THINGS, WHATEVER THERE
IS AND THAT IF HE DOES THAT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PREPARED TO 
BE REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY, 
YES, COME ON LET'S GET THIS FOR 
THIS VISIT SCHEDULED. 
>> DID YOU UNDERSTAND FROM THAT 
MESSAGE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
SPOKE TON PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> I WASN'T SURE IF HE HAD OR 
NOT.
HE DOES SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
I KNEW HE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN 
GENERAL.
I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
ONE LEADING UP TO THIS.
>> NOW, ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT 
OF YOU IS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE 
FROM YOU THAT SAME MORNING. 

English: 
>> YES. 
>> AT 8:36 IN THE MORNING TO 
ANDRE YERMAK. 
>> YES.
I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE TIME 
DIFFERENCE, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN 
THE AFTERNOON. 
IN UKRAINE. 
>> IN UKRAINE.
SO THIS IS EAST COAST TIME.
RIGHT.
SO THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN A 
HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE 
THERE?
>> AND JUST AFTER THE LUNCH WITH
AN CREIGH YERMAK.
GOOD LUNCH, THANKS.
GO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.
GET TO BOTTOM WHAT HAPPENED 2016
WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT 
WITH WASHINGTON.
GOOD LUCK.
SEE YOU TOMORROW, KURT. 
>> DOES THIS ACCURATELY RELAY 
THE MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?
>> YES.
>> NOW, MR. MORRISON, DID THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ALSO 
PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THIS CALL?
>> THE EMBASSY STAFF DID, YES. 
>> AND PER USUAL CUSTOM, WERE 
THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE 
OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY 
OBJECTIVES?
>> THEY WERE. 

English: 
>> AND SINCE THERE'S BEEN A 
LITTLE DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THAT 
MEANS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IS 
DETERMINED WITH, THROUGH THE 
INNER AGENCY PROCESS?
>> WE APPROPRIATE UNDER WHAT'S 
KNOWN AS NFPM-4.
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENT'S 
REFERENDUM FOUR THAT LAYS OUT 
HOW THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO BE 
E
PROVIDED FOR HIS DECISION. 
>> AND AN EXTENSIVE FUNCTION TO 
FINALIZE ANY POLICY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SOMETIMES.
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED TO
THIS CALL ON THE 25th.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DID. 
>> WHERE DID YOU LISTEN FROM?
THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM. 
>> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT THE CALL WAS NOT 
WHAT YOU WERE HOPING TO HEAR.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> I WAS HOPING FOR A MORE 
FULL-THROATED STATEMENT OF 
SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT 

English: 
CONCERNING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
REFORM AGENDA.
GIVEN WHERE WE AT THE TIME WITH 
RESPECT TO THE OVERWHELMING 
MANDATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
SERVING TO THE PARTY HAD 
RECEIVED IN THE ELECTION. 
>> AND THAT RADDA, UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT, THAT ELECTION 
OCCURRED FOUR DAYS EARLIER. 
>> THAT'S RIGHTS. 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY 
WON IN A LANDSLIDE?
>> RECEIVEDALS MORE THAN A 
MAJORITY IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. 
>> IN UKRAINE TREMENDOUS SUPPORT
FOR ZELENSKY'S ANTI-CORRUPTION 
AGENDA.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> AT THE TIME. 
>> AND WITHIN THE INNER AGENCY, 
WITHIN THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
AGENCIES HERE IN THE UNITED 
STATES, WAS THERE BROAD SUPPORT 
FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
>> THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR 
GETTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A 
CHANCE. 
>> AND TO THAT POINT, HE HAD 
SHOWN THAT HE WAS, HE HAD AT 
LEAST PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS 
MOUTH WAS FOR THE THREE MONTHS 
HE HAD BEEN IN OFFICE.

English: 
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, 
YES. 
>> NOW, I WANT TO SHOW A COUPLE 
EXCERPTS F THIS CALL RECORD TO 
EACH OF YOU.
THE FIRST IS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RESPONDING TO A COMMENT BY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELATED TO 
DEFENSE SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED 
STATES AND THE PURCHASE OF 
JAVELINS.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS, I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS 
BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT 
IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAY
CROWDSTRIKE.
YOU HAVE ONE ARE YOUR WEALTHY 
PEOPLE, THE SERVER.
THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.
IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT 
EXCERPT. 
WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, THE 
OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF 
TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT 
BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT
ABOUT THAT.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO 
IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT 

English: 
SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. 
NOW, MR. MORRISON, WERE THESE 
REFERENCES TO CROWDSTRIKE, THE 
SERVER IN 2016 ELECTION, AND TO 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS 
SON?
WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S TALKING POINTS?
>> THEY WERE NOT. 
>> WAND THEY CONSISTENT WITH 
WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD AS THAT TIME
TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY MUCH 
OF THIS AT THE TIME. 
>> IN FACT, SUBSEQUENT TO THIS 
CALL YOU DID NOTHING TO 
IMPLEMENT THE INVESTIGATION THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPLEMENTED, THE
REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATION 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANY 
INSTRUCTION TO DO SO. 
>> AND YOU DIDN'T, YOU WERE NOT 
AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE WITHIN 
YOUR, YOU COORDINATE THE INNER 
AGENCY PROCESS AND WERE NOT 
AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE DOING THAT 
EITHER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> RIGHT. 
>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT HEARING THIS 
CALL CONFIRMS WHAT YOU CALLED 

English: 
THE PARALLEL PROCESS THAT YOUR 
PREDECESSOR FIONA HILL HAD 
WARNED YOU ABOUT.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH 
DR. HILL AND I WERE CONDUCTING 
HANDOFF OF MEETINGS SO THAT I 
COULD BE UP TO SPEED ON THE 
VARIOUS THINGS THAT WERE 
OCCURRING IN THE PORTFOLIO AT 
THE TIME, SHE MENTIONED THE 
ADDITIONAL NSPM FORM PROCESS AND
THE PARALLEL PROCESS AND IN THE 
CON TEXAS OF DISCUSSING THE 
PARALLEL PROCESS SHE MENTIONED 
ISSUES LIKE BARISMA WHICH WERE 
NOTEWORTHY TO ME AT THE TIME 
BECAUSE I HAD NEVER HEARD OF 
THEM BEFORE, AND UPON HEARING 
THEM IN THE CALL, IT WOUND UP 
CONFIRMING HEY, THERE'S 
SOMETHING HERE. 
>> WHO DID SHE INFORM YOU WAS 
INVOLVED IN THIS PARALLEL 
PROCESS?
>> AS I RECALL, DEFINITELY 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I 
BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI. 
>> AND AFTER SHE INFORMEDAL YOU 
OF THIS COMPANY BARISMA, WHAT, 

English: 
IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO TO 
DETERMINE WHAT THAT WAS?
>> AFTER THAT PARTICULAR HANDOFF
MEETING I PROCEEDED TO LOOK IT 
UP ON THE INTERNET.
I GOOGLED IT. 
>> DID YOU FIND THAT IT HAD SOME
ASSOCIATION WITH HUNTER BIDEN?
>> YES. 
>> NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
DID NOT LISTEN TO THIS CALL, BUT
YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE 
SURPRISED AND TROUBLED WHEN YOU 
READ THE CALL RECORD AFTER IT 
WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25th.
AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT AFTER 
READING THE CALL RECORD IT WAS 
CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE BIDEN, 
BARISMA AND 20916 ELECTION 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE CALL WERE
DESIGNED TO SERVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTERESTS,
NOT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID 
THAT?
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT LANGUAGE 
FROM MY TEM FROM MY OCTOBER 3rd 
TESTIMONY?
>> YES, IT WAS. 
>> THANK YOU.
WELL WHAT I DO MEAN BY THAT AND 

English: 
I'D LIKE TO PHRASE IT IN MY OWN 
WORDS NOW IS, I DON'T THINK THAT
RAISING 2016 ELECTIONS OR VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN OR THESE THINGS 
I CONSIDER TO BE CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN 
CIRCULATED BY THE UKRAINIANS, 
PARTICULARLY THE FORMER 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL, ARE -- 
THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT WE 
SHOULD BE PURSUING AS PART OF 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY 
WITH UKRAINE. 
WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING 
UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY, FORMS, 
FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION 
DOMESTICALLY.
STRUGGLE AGAINST RUSSIA.
ITS DEFENSE CAPABILITIES.
THESE ARE THE HEART OF WHAT WE 
SHOULD BE DOING, AND I DON'T 
THINK PURSUING THESE THINGS 
SERVES A NATIONAL INTEREST. 
>> MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER 
YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, 
YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ALERTED 
THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER JOHN 
EISENBERG PRETTY MUCH RIGHT 
AWAY.
IS THAT RIGHT?

English: 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU INDICATED IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT, AT LEAST YOUR
DEPOSITION, THAT YOU WENT TO MR.
EISENBERG OUT OF CONCERN OVER 
THE POTENTIALOLITICAL FALLOUT 
IF THE CALL RECORD BECAME PUBLIC
AND NOT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT 
WAS ILLEGAL.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, 
THAT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL RIVAL IS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
WOULD YOU NOT?
>> IT'S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND, 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED. 
>> NOW IN A SECOND MEETING WITH 
MR. EISENBERG WHAT DID YOU 
 
RECOMMEND HE DO TO PREVENT THE 
CALL FROM LEAKING?
>> I RECOMMENDED RESTRICT ACCESS
TO THE PACKAGE. 
>> HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THE NSC 
LEGAL ADVISER TO RESTRICT ACCESS
BEFORE?
>> NO.
>> DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR 
SUPERVISOR DR. KUPERMAN BEFORE 
YOU DID THAT?

English: 
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU RECOMMEND IT BE PUT 
IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?
>> I DID. 
>> WHAT REASON DID MR. EISENBERG
GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE CALL RECORD
WAS PUT INTO THE HIGHLY 
CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. 
>> IT WAS A MISTAKE. 
>>> SAID HAD WAS JUST A MISTAKE.
>> JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.
>> NOW, ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE, 
THOUGH, THAT YOU HAD AUTHORITY 
TO RESTRICT AX ON THE REGULAR 
SYSTEM, IF YOU WANTED TO?
>> I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE 
INSTRUCTED THE APPROPRIATE STAFF
TO DO SO, YES. 
>> SO WHY DID YOU GO TO THE NSC 
LEGAL ADVISER TO RECOMMEND THAT?
>> I WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT 
BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
LISTENING ROM THAT DAY I DID NOT
THEN AND I DO NOT NOW RECALL ANY
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NSC 
LEGAL ADVISOR'S OFFICE AS THEY 
WERE OFTEN ON HEAD OF STATE 
CALLS BUT NOT ALWAYS AND I 
WANTED TO MAKE SURE DON 
EISENBERG AND HIS LEGAL ADVISER 
AND DEPUTY WERE AWARE TO REVIEWS
THIS PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT. 

English: 
>> YOU WANTED THEM TO REVIEW IT 
BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL 
CONSEQUENCES?
NOT BECAUSE ANYTHING WAS WRONG?
>> CORRECT.
POLITICAL CONVENTIONS WAS AN 
UMBRELLA TERM I USED IN MY 
STATEMENT TO DESCRIBE SERIES OF 
EFFECTS I FEARED WHAT WOULD 
HAPPEN IF AND WHEN THE CONTENT 
OF THE TRANSCRIPT OR OF THE MEMO
LEAKED. 
>> TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND 
THIS CORRECTLY, MR. MORRISON.
YOU HEARD THE CALL.
YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE 
TALKING POINTS THAT THE NSC 
PREPARED BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY, AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
FIONA HILL HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT,
AND THEN YOU REPORTED IT 
IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL 
ADVISER.
IS THAT THE CORRECT CHAIN OF 
EVENTS HERE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN 
THE JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY VOLUNTEERS TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD 

English: 
ALREADY SPOKEN WITH ONE OF HIS 
ASSOCIATES, AND THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HOPES GIULIANI WILL 
COME TO UKRAINE.
AND IN RESPONSE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PROCEEDS TO MENTION MR. GIULIANI
ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS 
DURING THIS CALL. 
YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A MAY 23rd 
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHERE
THE PRESIDENT SPOKE QUITE 
NEGATIVELY ABOUT UKRAINE, AND 
HOW IT WOULD TRY TO TAKE HIM 
DOWN.
AND THEN HE ALSO REPEATED SOME 
OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. 
GIULIANI WAS MAKING'S IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE IN
THE MEDIA.
WERE THEY NOT?
>> YES. 
>> AND DURING THAT MEETING, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
SECRETARY PERRY TO TALK TO 
GIULIANI.
SHIP IN THAT CORRECT?
>> HE -- I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN 
INSTRUCTION.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
HE SAID,S THAT NOT WHAT I HEAR.
WHEN WE WERE GIVING HIM OUR 
ASSESSMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND WHERE UKRAINE IS 
HEADED, THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEAR.
I HEAR TERRIBLE THINGS.
HE'S GOT TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND 

English: 
HIM.
TALK TO RUDY, AND I UNDERSTOOD, 
IN THAT CONTEXT, HIM JUST 
SAYING, THAT'S WHERE HE HERE'S 
IT FROM.
I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN 
INSTRUCTION. 
>> SO WHEN HE SAID "TALK TO 
RUDY" YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT FOR HIM
TO MEAN TALK TO RUDY?
NO.
I DIDN'T TAKE IT THAT WAY.
I TOOK IT AT JUST PART OF THE 
DIALOGUE NAP I HEAR OTHER 
THINGS.
I HEAR THEM FROM RUDY GIULIANI 
OR OTHER PEOPLE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING ON.
HE'S SURROUNDED BY CORRUPT 
PEOPLE.
TALK TO RUDY.
IT SEEMED LIKE PART OF THE 
DIALOGUE. 
>> AFTER THAT MEETING DID YOU IN
FACT TALK TO RUDY?
>> AFTER THAT MEETING, NOT MEASE
IMMEDIATELY, NO.
REMEMBER, THIS WAS MAY 23rd AND 
WE CONTINUED TO PROCEED WITH OUR
EFFORT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SCHEDULED AND TO KEEP RAMPING UP
OUR SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT.
HOPEFULLY THE NEW UKRAINE 
GOVERNMENT.

English: 
I DID, HOWEVER, ON JULY 2nd, AS 
I WAS BECOMING CONCERNED THAT WE
WERE NOT SUCCEEDING AT THIS, 
TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I THINK
WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND THAT 
PROBLEM BEING THAT NEGATIVE FEED
OF INFORMATION FROM MR. 
GIULIANI.
>> AND ULTIMATELY I THINK AS YOU
TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT, YOU INTRODUCED MR. 
YERMAK TO MR. GIULIANI AND THEY 
EVENTUALLY MET.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DURING THIS WHOLE TIME IN 
JULY INTO EARLY AUGUST WHEN THEY
MET, UKRAINE STILL WANTED THAT 
MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU ALSO WANTED THAT MEETING 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WHY WAS THAT SO IMPORTANT TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> I THINK HE FELT NOT WELL 
UNDERSTOOD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
SHE A CHARISMATIC LEADER WHO RAN
A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE
AGAINST THE LEGACY OF POLITICAL 
CORRUPTION AND GOVERNMENT 

English: 
MALAISE, HE BELIEVED HE WAS 
LEADING A MOVEMENT OF MAJOR 
CHANGE IN UKRAINE AND THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SEE THAT
OR DIDN'T APPRECIATE THAT. 
BUT IF HE HAD A CHANCE TO SIT 
DOWN AND SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FACE-TO-FACE, HE BELIEVED 
THAT HE COULD BE VERY CONVINCING
ABOUT THAT, AND I AGREE WITH 
HIM. 
>> THAT WAS CERTAINLY YOUR 
ASSESSMENT.
RIGHT?
>> IT WAS MY ASSESSMENT AND I 
BELIEVE ALSO WHAT SPREAD 
ZELENSKY BELIEVED. 
>> CERTAINLY YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM
YOUR EXPERIENCE IN UKRAINE THERE
WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT BOOST IN 
LEGITIMACY AT HOME FOR PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IF THERE WERE PHOTOS OF
HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE, ET 
CETERA?
>> THAT IS CORRECTED. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT THAT MR. GIULIANI AND 
MR. YERMAK, ZELENSKY'S AIDE, MET
AUGUST 2ndWHERE'S DP THEY MEET?
>> THEY NET MADRID.
DID YOU LEARN THAT MR. GIULIANI 
REQUESTED ANYTHING OF THE 
UKRAINIANS AT THAT MEETING?
>> ONLY WHEN I SPOKE WITH MR. 
GIULIANI AFTERWARDS, HE SAID HE 
THOUGHT UKRAINE SHOULD ISSUE A 

English: 
STATEMENT, AND THEN I SPOKE WITH
MR. YERMAK AFTER THIS AND HE 
SAID, YES, AND WE ARE PREPARED 
TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THAT 
THEN KICKED OFF THE SERIES OF 
DISCUSSIONS THAT I SAID IN MY 
TESTIMONY. 
>> WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A 
SECOND, BUT MR. GIULIANI DID NOT
EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT NEEDED TO BE
INCLUDED IN THAT STATEMENT?
IN THAT CALL HAD YOU?
HE SAID SOMETHING MORE GENERAL, 
AS I RECALL. 
I RECALL HIM SAYING, FIGHT 
CORRUPTION, THEIR COMMITMENT TO 
BEING DIFFERENT.
MR. YERMAK TOLD ME WHEN I SPOKE 
TO HIM AS I RECALL, THAT THE 
STATEMENT WOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC
MENTION OF BARISMA AND 2016. 
>> RIGHT.
LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE 
TEXT MESSAGES SO WE KNOW EXACTLY
WHO SAID WHAT.
AND FIRST LET'S START ON AUGUST 
9th.
THIS IS A TEXT EXCHANGE BETWEEN 
YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WRITES
AT THE TOP, MORRISON READY TO 
GET DATES AS SOON AS YERMAK 
CONFIRMS.

English: 
WHAT DID YOU RESPOND?
>> I SAID, EXCELLENT WITH TWO 
EXCLAMATION POINTS.
HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM WITH 
EXCLAMATION POINTS AFTER IT. 
>> RESPONSE, I'M NOT SURE I DID.
I THIS POTUS REALLY WANTS THE 
DELIVERABLE. 
>> BUT HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT?
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, 
YEP.
CLEARLY LOTS OF CON VOS GOING 
ON.
MR. MORRISON YOU'RE REFERENCED 
IN THIS TEXT MESSAGE.
HAD YOU DISCUSSED CONFIRMING A 
DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AROUND THIS 
TIME?
>> I LIKELY WOULD HAVE. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT A 
STATEMENT FOR, THAT UKRAINE WAS,
THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET 
UKRAINE TO MAKE?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT -- DO YOU
YOURSELF KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MEANT BY THE 
DELIVERABLE?
>> I DID NOT AT THE TIME.
I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING 
NOW. 
>> AND WHAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING

English: 
NOW?
>> THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A STATEMENT OF
VARIOUS DRAFTS HAVE BEEN 
DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS 
PROCEEDINGS. 
>> BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THIS 
WAS PART OF THAT PARALLEL 
PROCESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YES. 
>> WE CAN NOW GO TO THE NEXT 
EXHIBIT, WHICH IS ANOTHER TEXT 
EX-CHANG'E JUST A FEW MINUTES 
LATER BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND YOU, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, WHERE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAYS TO AVOID 
MISUNDERSTANDINGS, MIGHT BE 
HELPFUL TO ASK ANDREI FOR A 
DRAFT STATEMENT EMBARGOED SO WE 
CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT IS PROSED 
TO COVER EVEN THOUGH HE, 
ZELENSKY, DOES A LIVE PRESSER 
THEY CAN STILL SUMMARIZE IN A 
BRIEF STATEMENT.
HOW DID YOU RESPOND?
>> AGREE. 
>> THIS RELATES TO THE STATEMENT
THAT MR. GIULIANI WANTED, THERE 
THAT RIGHT, MR. VOLKER?
>> RELATES TO THE STATEMENT HE 
DISCUSSED. 

English: 
>> AND THE NEXT TEXT, ANOTHER 
EXCHANGE BETWEEN YOU AND MR. 
YERMAK.
THE SAME AIDE MR. GIULIANI HAD 
MET IN MADRID AND IF YOU COULD 
READ WHAT YOU WROTE AT THE TOP 
AT 5:02 P.M. 
>> RIGHT.
I WROTE, I AGREE WITH YOUR 
APPROACH.
LET'S IRON OUT STATEMENT AND USE
THAT TO GET DATE AND THEN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CAN GO 
FORWARD WITH IT. 
>> AND MR. YERMAK RESPONDS, ONCE
WE HAVE A DATE WE WILL CALL FOR 
A PRESS BRIEFING, ANNOUNCING 
UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING 
VISION FOR THE REBOOT OF 
U.S./UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP 
INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS 
BARISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING 
AND INVESTIGATIONS.
WHAT DID YOU RESPOND?
>> SOUNDS GREAT. 
>> NOW, THE DATE THAT HE'S 
REFERRING TO THAT IS THE DATE 
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, TWO DAYS LATER ON AUGUST
12th, YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER TEXT 
MESSAGE FROM MR. YERMAK, WHICH 
READS, SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD 

English: 
BE PAID TO THE PROBLEM OF 
INTERFERENCE IN THE POLITICAL 
PROCESSES OF THE UNITED STATES.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE ALLEGED 
INVOLVEMENT OF SOME UKRAINIAN 
POLITICIANS.
I WANTED TO DECLARE THIS IS 
UNACCEPTABLE'S WE INTEND TO TO 
INITIATE AND HAVE A TRANSPARENT 
AND UNBIASED INVESTIGATION OF 
ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES
WHICH IN TURN WILL PREVENT 
RECURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM IN 
THE FUTURE. 
NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THIS WAS
A DRAFT, WAS IT NOT, OF THE 
STATEMENT THAT YOU AND MR. 
GIULIANI AND MR. YERMAK AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD BEEN 
DISCUSSING?
>> THE FIRST DRAFT FROM MR. 
YERMAK, AFTER THE CONVERSATION 
THAT WE HAD. 
>> IT DOES NOT MENTION BARISMA 
OR 20916 ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
CORRECT?
>> IT DOES NOT. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION YOU AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND MAYOR GIULIANI HAD 
A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS DRAFT 
AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.

English: 
>> AND MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT IF
THE STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE 
BARISMA AND 2016 ELECTION, IT 
WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, THIS WAS THE -- THE SAME
RUDY GIULIANI THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS DISCUSSING IN THAT MAY
23rd MEETING, AND ASKED YOU, YOU
AND THE OTHERS TO TALK TO.
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS THE SAME MR. 
GIULIANI. 
>> AND EVEN AT THAT POINT, MAY 
23rd YOU WERE AWARE OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS 
PUBLICLY PROMOTING, CORRECT?
>> I KNEW THAT HE HAD ADOPTED OR
WAS INTERESTED IN ALL OF THOSE 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT HAD 
COME FROM LUTSENKO. 
>> BACK IN MAY?
>> BACK IN MAY. 
>> NOW, HE WASSISTING ON A
PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO DO THESE -- 
>> WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ME?
>> BARISMA AND 2016 ELECTIONS. 
>> BARISMA AND -- YES. 

English: 
>> AT THE TIME YOU WERE ENGAGED 
AND COORDINATING FOR THIS 
STATEMENT DID YOU FIND IT 
UNUSUAL THERE WAS SUCH AN 
EMPHASIS ON A PUBLIC STATEMENT 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CARRY
OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING?
>> I DIDN'T FIND IT THAT 
UNUSUAL.
I THINK WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
A SITUATION WHERE I BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS HIGHLY SKEPTICAL 
ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEING 
COMMITTED TO REALLY CHANGING 
UKRAINE AFTER HIS ENTIRELY 
NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE COUNTRY, HE
WOULD WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING 
MORE FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
BE CONVINCED THAT, OKAY, I'LL 
GISH THIS GUY A CHANCE. 
>> AND PERHAPS HE ALSO WANTED A 
PUBLIC STATEMENT, BECAUSE IT 
WOULD LOCK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN
TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
HE THOUGHT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM?
>> WELL, AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS WHAT I 
UNDERSTOOD US TO BE TALKING 
ABOUT WAS UKRAINE CORRUPTION.
>> WELL WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS BARISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTION.
WE CAN AGREE ON THAT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> TALKING ABOUT THESE 

English: 
INVESTIGATIONS, ISN'T IT CLEAR 
THAT A PUBLIC STATEMENT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO MR. GIULIANI, 
BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY 
USEFUL TO THE PRESIDENT?
>> THE WAY I SAW IT, IS THAT IT 
WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> IT WOULD BE A WAY OF BEING 
CONVINCING TO MAYOR GIULIANI AND
ALSO THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS 
TEAM IN UKRAINE IS SERIOUS ABOUT
FIGHTING CORRUPTION, REFORM, 
THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND IF 
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING
IT, A MORE POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
SCHEDULED THEN THAT WOULD BE 
USEFUL.
>> AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO 
GET THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING?
>> CORRECT. 
>>ING IN, A NECESSARY CONDITION 
AS YOU UNDERSTOOD AT THAT POINT?
>> I WOULDN'T HAVE CALLED IT A 
NECESSARY CONDITION AND, IN FACT
WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR LATER WE 
NOT ABLE TO AGREE ON AN 
AGREEMENT THAT THE UKRAINIANS 
WERE COMFORTABLE WITH I AGREED 
WITH UKRAINIANS JUST TO DROP IT.
IT'S NOT WORTH IT. 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IS IT 
YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BASED ON THE
TEXT THAT YOU WROTE LINKING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND THE 2016 
ELECTION ON JULY 25th, TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING YOU'RE 

English: 
SAYING THAT BY THIS POINT IN 
AUGUST WITH THIS BACK AND FORTH 
THAT YOU WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS 
PUBLIC STATEMENT WAS A CONDITION
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING?
>> I WOULDN'T HAVE CALLED IT A 
CONDITION.
IT'S A -- IT'S A NUANCE, I 
GUESS.
BUT I VIEWED IT AS VERY HELPFUL 
IF WE COULD GET THIS DONE.
IT WOULD HELP PROVE THE 
PERCEPTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND OTHERS HAD AND THEN WE WOULD
GET THE DATE FOR A MEETING.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A STATEMENT, I
WASN'T GIVING UP IN THINKING, 
OH, WE'LL NEVER GET A MEETING. 
>> GO TO THE NEXT DAY WHERE 
THERE IS OTHER TEXT EXCHANGE.
AND AT THE TOP COULD YOU READ 
THE FIRST TEXT THERE?
>> YES.
IT SAYS, HI, ANDREI.
GOOD TALKING.
FOLLOWING IS TEXT WITH INSERT AT
END FOR TWO KEY ITEMS.
WILL WORK ON OFFICIAL REQUEST. 
>> AND THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL TO
THE PREVIOUS ONE AND ADDS 
INCLUDING THESE INVOLVING 
BARISMA AND THE 2019 ELECTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, THAT'S WHAT 
MR. GIULIANI INSITED ADDING TO 

English: 
THE STATEMENT?
>> WHAT HE SAID WOULD BE 
NECESSARY FOR THEM TO BE 
CREDIBLE. 
>> AND THE UKRAINIANS ULTIMATELY
DID NOT ISSUE THIS STATEMENT, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID 
NOT GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING 
EITHER.
DID HE?
>> NOT YET. 
>> NOW, I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD 
TO SEPTEMBER.
EARLY SEPTEMBER, WHEN THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEGINS TO 
MORE OVERTLY BE USED AS LEVERAGE
TO PRESSURE UKRAINIANS TO 
CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.
MR. MORRISON, YOU ACCOMPANIED 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO WARSAW 
WHEN HE MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I WAS IN WARSAW WHEN VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
I WAS ACCOMPANIES AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON. 
>> UNDERSTOOD.
BUT AT THE BILATERAL MEETING 
WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT?

English: 
>> I WAS N. THAT MEETING WERE 
THE UKRAINIANS CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE HOLD ON SECURITY CLEARANCE?
SECURITY CLEARANCE.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, RATHER?
>> YES.
>> WHAT DID THEY SAY?
>> IT WAS THE FIRST ISSUE ISSUE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. 
THEY WERE INTERESTED AND TALKED 
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE TO UKRAINE,
AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THE 
RELATIONSHIP. 
>> WHAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE'S RESPONSE?
>> HE REPRESENTED THAT IT IS A 
PRIORITY FOR HIM. 
AND THATS, WE WERE WORKING TO 
ADDRESS, AND HE CHARACTERIZED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT
THE STATE OF CORRUPTION IN THE 
UKRAINE, AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIORITIZATION OF GETTING THE 
EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO 

English: 
SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. 
>> DID HE DIRECTLY EXPLAIN TO 
THE UKRAINIANS THAT THOSE WERE 
THE W ACTUAL REASONS FOR THE HO 
OR JUST COMMENTING ON GENERAL 
CONCERNS  OF THE PRESIDENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT HE 
NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED A HOLD.
HE MENTIONED THAT WE WERE 
REVIEWING THE ASSISTANCE AND 
THAT IS THE WAY I HEARD IT. 
THAT IS THE WAY I WOULD 
CHARACTERIZE IT. 
AND THOSE WERE THE POINTS THAT 
HE RAISED TO HELP PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE 
WERE IN THE PROCESS. 
>>ND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THOUGH O 
SORT OF THE S STAFF LEVEL, AS T 
COORDINATOR OF ALL OF THE 
INTERAGENCY PROCESS, YOU WERE 
NOT AWARE OF ANY REVIEW OF THE 
UKRAINENE ASSISTANCE MONEY, WER 
YOU?
>> WELL, WE HAD BEEN RUNNING A 
REVIEW AND INTRAAGENCY PROCESS 
TO PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT THE 
INFORMATION THAT I HAD BEEN 

English: 
DIRECTED TO GENERATE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONSIDERATION AS TO 
THEKR SECURITY AID FOR UKRAINE. 
>>ST AND SO THAT IS SUPPORTED O 
THE UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE?
>> YES. 
NOW, AFTER THIS MEETING 
WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU SAW MR. 
SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY GO PULL 
ANDREIY YERMAK TO THE SIDE TO 
HAVE A CONVERSATION?
>> YES, IN AN ANTE ROOM, THE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD THIS 
DISCUSSION, YES -- MR. YERMAK 
AND MR. SONDLAND HAD THIS 
CONVERSATION. 
>> YES. 
>> AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU?
>> THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 
A CONVERSATION AS A CONDITION OF
HAVING THE AID LIFTED. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE 
NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT 

English: 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU, 
AND WHY OLNOT?
>> WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
WHAT I SAW AS ESSENTIALLY AN 
ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO WHAT I HAD 
BEEN DIRECTED
 TO HELP ACCOMPLISH
BY GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE 
INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDED TO 
DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY 
SECTOR COULD GO FORWARD. 
>> BUT NOW THERE IS A NEW 
WRINKLE TO IT?
>> THERE APPEARED TO BE ONE 
BASED ON WHAT MR. SONDLAND 
PRESENTED. 
>> AND WHAT ABOUTRO AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR?
>> I REACHED FOURTH A SECURE 
PHONE CALL. 
>> YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION 
THAT HIS TESTIMONY OTHER THAN 
ONE SMALL DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE 
AMBASSADOR WAS CORRECT WITH 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?
>> CORRECT. 

English: 
>> AND YOU SAID THAT IT WAS TRUE
EXCEPT FOR ONE MINISTERIAL 
MATTER ABOUT THE MEETING 
LOCATION?
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU REACHED OUT?
>> YES, I REACHED OUT FOR 
AVAILABILITY OF A PHONE CALL. 
>> AND WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN YOU 
SAID WHAT MR. SONDLAND HAD SAID.
>> TELL THE LAWYERS. 
>> DID L YOU?
>> YES. 
>> DID
 HEEL THE YOU WHAT TO TELL
THE LAWYERS?
>> NO, HE DID NOT. 
>> AND THEN ON THE 10th, YOU 
SPOKE AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WHO SAIDOT THAT HE HAD 
GOTTEN OFF OF THE PHONE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. 
YES. 
>> WHAT DID MR. SONDLAND TELL 
YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO
HIM?
>> IF I RECALL THIS CONVERSATION
CORRECTLY, THIS IS WHERE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RERELATED TT
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO 
MAKE THE STATEMENT AND THAT HE 
HAD TO WANT TO DO IT. 
>> BY THAT POINT, DID YOU 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT 
RELATED TO THE BIDEN AND 2016 

English: 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I THINK THAT I  DID, YES.
>> AND THAT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A
CONDITION FOR THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED?
 UNDERSTOOD THAT IS WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED. 
>> AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP?
>> THAT IS WHAT HE REPRESENTED. 
>> AND YOUOU TESTIFIED THAT 
HEARING THIS INFORMATION GAVE 
YOU A SINKING FEELING, AND WHY?
>> WELL, IF THIS IS SEPTEMBER 
7tBEh, AND THE END OF THE FISCA 
YEAR IS SEPTEMBER 30th, AND 
THESE ARE ONE-YEAR DOLLARS OF 
THE  3DOD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE FUNDS. 
SO, WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME, 
AND IN FACT, BECAUSE CONGRESS 
IMPOSED A 15-DAY NOTIFICATION 
REQUIREMENT ON THE STATEIC 
DEPARTMENT FUNDS SEPTEMBER 7th, 
AND SEPTEMBER 30th, AND THAT 
MEANS THE SEPTEMBER 15th IN 
ORDER TO SECURE A DECISION FROM 
THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE FUNDS
TO GO FORWARD. 
>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON ABOUT THAT?
>> YES. 
 HE TELL YOU?
>> HE SAID TO TELL THE LAWYERS. 

English: 
>> WHY?
>> HE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE 
DIRECTION. 
>> AND HE DOES NOTSA TELL YOU HE
TO GO TELL THE LAWYER, BECAUSE 
YOU ARE RUNNING UP ON THE 
EIGHT-DAY DEADLINE THERE, RIGHT?
>> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE 
DIRECTED IT, BUT IT IS 
REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT FOR 
WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY. 
>> AND YOU WERE NOT GOING TO 
TELL THEM THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT 
YOU WEREYO CONCERNED, BUT ABOUT 
WHAT YOUNG HEARD AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND RELAY TO YOU, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND SO JUST THAT YOU ARE 
CLEAR THATRE YOU HAVE TWO 
REPORTING CONVERSATIONS OF 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO THE 
LAWYERS INEP EARLY SEPTEMBER IN 
WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM HIM 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE ASAG ADDITIONAL 
LEVERAGE TO GET UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HADSS DISCUSSED ON THE JU 
25th CALL, IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> I WAS  CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT 
MR. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
SAYING WERE REQUIREMENTS, YES. 
>> AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT IT 

English: 
WAS THE TWO THATSO PRESIDENT TRP
REFERENCED ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL. 
>> BY THIS POINT, YES. 
 AND IN THIS TIME PERIOD, DID 
YOU IS ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT THIS?
>> I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE 
CONVERSATION. 
>> WHAT DO YOU RECALL ABOUT THAT
CONVERSATION?
>> I BELIEVE ON OR ABOUT 
SEPTEMBER 6th, AMBASSADOR VOLKER
WAS IN TOWN TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE
ABOUT SOME OF HIS ACTIVITIES, 
AND THAT HE PROVIDED THAT UPDATE
AND WE HAD A ONE-ON-ONE 
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS TRACT, 
THIS SEPARATE PROCESS. 
>> WHAT DOPR YOU RECALL ASKING M
ABOUT?
>> I WAS INTERESTED IN KNOWING 
HIS UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS. 
>> DID YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT 
YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS
WAS?
>> I WAS PRIMARILY ON THE 
RECEIVE MODE. 
>> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DO YOU
RECALL THIS CONVERSATION?
>> I DO REMEMBER A CONVERSATION 

English: 
WITH TIM, BUT I AM NOT SURE 
ABOUT THE TIMING. 
I LEFT AROUND THAT TIME TO GO ON
A TRIP, AND SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN 
EARLIER, BUT I AM NOT SURE ABOUT
THE TIMING. 
WHAT I DO REMEMBER IS THAT THE 
DISCUSSION BEING TIM ASKING ME 
WHAT ISY MY IMPRESSION OF THE 
ROLEN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
PLAYS, AND I MY RESPONSE TO THAT
IS THAT IT IS HELPFUL THAT HE 
HAS POLITICAL CONTACTS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
I H DON'T HAVE THOSE, BECAUSE IM
WORKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND THE DIPLOMATIC FRONT, BUT I 
DON'T HAVE THE POLITICAL 
CONTACTS, AND SO HE IS ABLE TO 
USE THOSE TO SUPPORT THE SAME 
GOALS THAT WE ARESU WORKING 
TOWARDS AND I VIEW THAT AS 
HELPFUL. 
>> AND THAT IS A GOOD SEGUE TO 
THE NEXT EXHIBIT WHICH IS THE 
SEPTEMBERS  8th, TEXT EXCHANGE 
WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AT 
THE TOP HE SAYS, MULTIPLE 

English: 
CONVOES WITH Z, AND THAT IS 
ZELENSKY, AND POTUS AND LET'S 
TALK, AND THEN HE SAYS GORDON 
AND II JUST SPOKE, AND I CAN 
BRIEF YOUAM MEANING YOU AND GORN
DON'T CONNECT. 
TONIGHT IS THEY GIVE THE 
INTERVIEW, AND THEY DON'T GET 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT. 
AND I QUIT. 
>> I'M NOT THE LOOP. 
TALK MONDAY. 
>> SO YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP 
OF THE CONVERSATIONS OF MR. 
MORRISON, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND TAYLOR WERE HAVING.
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND WERE YOU AWARE AT THE 
 THERE WAS A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE 
HOUSE?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. 

English: 
>> YOU WERE AWARE OF THE RIGHT 
TO A PRESERVE RECORDS?
>> I RECEIVE THOSE ALL OF THE 
TIME, AND SO I DO RECALL ONE 
RELATED TO  TUKRAINE. 
>> AND WHEN IS THE HOLD LIFTED?
>> SEPTEMBER 11th. 
>> TWO  DAYS AFTER CONGRESS 
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION. 
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I WAS AWARE OF THE LETTER 
FROM THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN. 
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE 45 
MINUTES, AND BEFORE I TURN TO 
THE MINORITY, ARE YOU AND 
COUNSEL OKAY OR DO YOU NEED A 
BREAK?
OKAY. 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES, YOU ARE 
RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES. 
>> WELL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND 
MR.. MORRISON, THE TV RATINGS AE
WAY DOWN AND DON'T HOLD IT 
PERSONALLY. 
BUT WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE COOKING UP,, YOU 
ARE ON THE DIAS, AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING 
IT. DE

English: 
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BOTH 
ANSWERED THIS IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO BRING 
SOME MORE CLARITY TO IT.
MR. MORRISON, I WILL START WITH 
YOU. 
DID ANYONE EVER ASK YOU BRIBE OR
EXTORT ANYONE AT ANY TIME IN 
YOUR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> NO, SIR. 
>> AND YOU WERE THE TOP PERSON 
R UKRAINE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
CORRECT?
AT THE NCS LEVEL. 
>>SE I WOULD ARGUE THAT AMBASSAR
BOLTON WAS. 
>> AND OTHER THAN. 
>> YES. 
>> AND MR. VOLKER, YOU HAVE A 
STORIED CAREER, AND WE THANK YOU
FOR THE SERVICE. 
AND YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> YES. 
DID ANYONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE 
ASK YOU H THE BRIBE OR EXTORT 
ANYTHING OUT OF ANYBODY AT ANY 
TIME?
>> NO, SIR. 
 YOU. NK
I WANTHA TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR 
 I WILL YIELD TO 
MR. CASTOR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES, AND 

English: 
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND 
PARTICIPATING IN
 THE LENGTHY 
DEPOSITIONS. 
YOU WERE HERE WITH US ON THE 
23rd, MR. VOLKER, AND YOU WERE 
HERE WITH US ON HALLOWEEN. 
I WANT TO THANK MR. MORRISON FOR
A LONG TIME HILL STAFFER, AND I 
HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR THAT 
AND NEARLY 20 YEARS, AND I THANK
YOU. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, A 
PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT, AND THAT 
IS AN INCREDIBLE PART OF THE 
COUNTRY,T AND VERY PROUD OF IT. 
>> YES. 
I AM FROM NEARBY. 
>> SO I WANTED TO WALK YOU 
THROUGH SOME POSITION, AND YOU 
ARE A SENATEED CONFIRMED 
AMBASSADOR TO NATO FOR A STINT?
>> YES. 
>> AND THEN TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, AND THE PORTFOLIO IS
MUCH OF WHAT I BELIEVE GEORGE 
KENT HAS NOW?
>> I WAS THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY 
SECRETARY AND WORKING FOR THE 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND I  HAD 
ALL OF PAN EURASIA AND NATO AND 
THE WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION. 
>> AND YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 

English: 
AND YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR FOR 
NATO IN THE WESTERN EUROPE?
>> YES. 
>> AND THEEN SENIOR DIRECTOR FO 
EUROPEAN AND EURASIA AFFAIRS?
>> SIX MONTHS OR SO ACTING. 
>> AND MUCH LIKE MR. MORRISON 
HAD. 
AND WE, WILL NOTE THAT ALL OF TE
WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE 
INTERACTED WITH HAVE JUST HEAPED
PRAISE P ON YOU. 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID THAT
YOU WERE A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT, 
AND HIGH PRAISE. 
AND SO YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU 
WERE THERE SPECIAL REPRESENTATI 
FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS?
>> YES. 
>> YOU SERVED FOR FREE?
>> YES. 
>> ON
 A VOLUNTARY BASIS?
>> YES. 
>> YOU PUTDI A LOT OF TIME AND 
EFFORT THERE?
>> YES. 
>> AND THE TAXPAYERS GOT THEIR 
MONEY'S WORTH?
>> NOT FOR ME TO SAY. 
>> AND YOU BELIEVE IN AMERICA'S 
POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE HAS BEEN 
STRENGTHENED IN YOUR TENURE AS A

English: 
REPRESENTATIVE?
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
WHEN I LOOK BACK, WE DID AN 
AWFUL LOT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. 
>> IS THAT FAIR TO SAY IN PART 
OF PRESIDENT P TRUMP?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH
OF THE DECISION MADE ALONG THE 
WAY, AND PROVIDING LETHAL 
EQUIPMENT, AND THE 
NONRECOGNITION STATEMENT OF 
CRIMEA BEING TWO OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT ONES. 
>> AND FOR YEAR, THERE HAD BEEN 
ADVOCATING FOR THE USE OF LETHAL
AID?
>> YES. 
>> AND NOT UNTIL THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DIDT THAT AID GO THROUGH?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND SO, THE DELEGATION TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION IN MAY, AND I 
BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED IT IS ONE 
OF THE LARGEST DELEGATIONS?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS. 
IUR BELIEVE IT WAS. 
>>> THIS IS LESTER HOLT IN NEW 
YORK, AND WE WILL PAUSE TO ALLOW

English: 
SOME OF THE STATIONS TO RETURN 
TO LOCAL PROGRAMMING AND FOR 
OTHERS, WE RETURN TO NBC. 
>>> AND THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES 
JOE PENNINGTON. 
>>
>> WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT THIS 
 ORNING, BUT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION CAME 
TOGETHER RATHER QUICKLY?
>> IT DID.
I BELIEVE WE HAD ABOUT THREE 
DAYS' NOTICE IN WHICH TO PUT THE
DELEGATION TOGETHER.
>> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION 
ABOUT WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT
WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEAD 
THAT EFFORT.
AND AS ITIO TURNED OUT, HE WAS T
ABLE TO LEAD IT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS 
TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS 
UNABLE TO JOIN?
>> I DON'T.
>> AND MR. MORRISON, DO YOU HAVE
ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS UNABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE INLE THE DELEGATION?
>> NO.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
TESTIFIED DURING YOUR DEPOSITION
THAT AID DOES IN FACT GET HELD 
UP FROM TIME TO TIME FOR A WHOLE
ASSORTMENT OF REASONS.

English: 
IS THAT -- 
>> THAT IS TRUE.
>> SOMETIMES THE HOLD-UP IS 
ROOTED IN SOMETHING AT OMB, 
SOMETIMES IT'S THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT.
SOMETIMES AT THEOM STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
SOMETIMES IT'S ON THES HILL, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND SOY WHEN THE AID WAS HELD
UP FOR 55 DAYS WITH UKRAINE, 
THAT DIDN'T IN AND OF ITSELF 
STRIKE YOU AS UNCOMMON.
>> NO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS 
HAPPENED IN MY CAREER IN THE 
PAST.
I HAVE SEEN HOLD-UP OF 
ASSISTANCE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS PART OF THE 
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND WE 
HAD TO OVERCOME IT.
>> IN FACT, THERE WERE CONCERNS 
THAT PERHAPS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WASN'T GOING TO BE THE REFORMER 
THAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON?
>> THAT WAS THE SUPPOSITION THAT
I MADE BECAUSE OF THE MEETING 
WITH THE PRESIDENT ON MAY 23rd.
I THOUGHT THAT COULD BE WHAT'S 
BEHIND IT.
>> IN FACT, THE AID WAS LIFTED 
SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO 

English: 
CONVENE A HARLIMENT?
>> I BELIEVE HE -- LET ME GET 
THEET DATE STRAIGHT.
Y HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE THE 
PARLIAMENT AROUND THE 1st OF 
SEPTEMBER, AND I BELIEVE THE AID
WAS RELEASED ON THE 11th OF 
SEPTEMBER.
>> WHEN HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE A
PARLIAMENT, HE WAS ABLE TO PUSH 
THROUGH A NUMBER OF 
ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES?
>> THAT BEGAN WITH THE 
PARLIAMENT SEATED ON T THAT DAY 
WITH THE  24-HOUR SESSION BUT 
THAT ITR CONTINUED FOR SOME TIM.
>> THAT WAS AN ENCOURAGING SIGN?
>> IT? STARTED OFF VERY 
ENCOURAGING WAY, YES.
>> AND OTHER THAN THESE THINGS 
GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, WITH
THE PAUSE IN THE AID, THE U.S. 
RELATIONS WITH T UKRAINE YOU 
TESTIFIED ARE -- YOU STATED IT 
WAS ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU'D WANT 
THEM TO BE?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.
I'M SORRY. C
>> YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT ONCE THE AID WAS
LIFTED, DESPITE ALL THE THINGS 
GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, THAT
U.S./UKRAINIAN RELATIONS WERE 
STRONG.
>> YES.

English: 
>> AND YOU REFERENCED THAT THE 
SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE WAS 
LIFTED.
ANY HOLD ON THAT, THAT THERE WAS
A POSITIVE MEETING IN NEW YORK.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND THERE WAS MOMENTUM IN 
PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE 
RUSSIANS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU MADE 
IT CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD  PDEEP-ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEWN
UKRAINE AND THEIR CORRUPTION 
ENVIRONMENT?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE OF
HIS VIEWS BACK IN SEPTEMBER 
2017?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT 
ABOUT THAT?
>> IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017, I WAS 
INVITED BY SECRETARYEC TILLERSO 
TO DO A PREBRIEF WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BEFORE HISH MEET WITH 
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO ON THE 
MARGINS OF THE U.N. GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY.
I DID THE PREBRIEF AND THEN TOOK
PART IN THE BILATERAL MEETING.
>> AND LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW OF 
UKRAINE?
>> HE HAD A VERY STRONGLY 
NEGATIVE VIEW.

English: 
>> IN 2017, DO YOU REMEMBER 
ANYTHING HE SAIDN OR DID THAT 
GAVE YOU A FEELING THAT HE HAD 
THESE NEGATIVE VIEWS?
>> YES, I WANT TO BE VERY 
CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE THIS WAS A 
BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN THE 
TWO PRESIDENTS.
I DON'TEN WANT TO STRAY INTO 
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL BUT MY 
IMPRESSION WAS HE HAD A STRONGLY
NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE AT THE 
TIME.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
>> AND YOU DESCRIBED THE 
PRESIDENT'S CENT SIMP AT YOUR 
DEPOSITION.
IS THATSK A REASONABLE POSITION?
>> YES.
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOST 
PEOPLE WHO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
UKRAINE WOULD POSSIBLY A THINK 
THAT?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU VIEWED IT AS PART OF 
YOURS ROLE TO HELP CHANGE HIS 
MIND, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WAS A GENUINE REFORMER, THAT HE 
WAS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR 
SELF-ENRICHMENT, THAT HE WAS, 

English: 
INDEED, A GOOD PERSON?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> DURING THE MAY 23rd MEETING 
WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE, COULD YOU JUST RELATE TO
US THE CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT 
ARTICULATED ABOUT
 UKRAINE?
>> YES.
THE PRESIDENT CAME INTO THE 
MEETING AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED 
SPEAKING.
HE HAD A STRING OF COMMENTS THAT
UKRAINE IS A TERRIBLE PLACE.
THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT.
THEY'RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE.
THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN.
I TRIED TO EXPLAIN, ALONG WITH 
THE. OTHERS THAT WERE THERE, EAH
OF US TOOK TURNS SPEAKING.
TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGREES  WITH YOU.
THAT HEID WAS ELECTED BECAUSE O 
THAT SITUATION IN UKRAINE AND HE
HAS A STRONG MANDATE FROM THE 
PEOPLE OF UKRAINE TO CHANGE IT.
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT 
THAT WE ACTUALLY SHOW HIM VERY 
STRONG SUPPORT NOW.
BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
CONVINCED, AND HE SAID THAT 
ZELENSKY IS NO DIFFERENT.
THAT HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE 

English: 
AROUND H HIM.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT I HEAR 
ABOUT UKRAINE.
WHAT WE'RE TELLING HIM.
YOU KNOW, I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW,
NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
TALK TO RUDY.
THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE AS I 
DESCRIBED.
>> AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS TRIED TO 
TAKE HIM DOWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY 
IDEA WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO?
>> I DID.
I BELIEVED HE WAS REFERRING TO 
THE RUMORS OF EFFORTS TO 
INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
BY PROVIDING DAMAGING 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
OR ABOUT PAUL MANAFORT TO THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE RUMORS THAT 
HAD BEEN OUT THERE AND THAT HAD 
GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT FROM THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL.
>> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES 
THE PRESIDENT GENUINELY BELIEVE 
THAT?
>> I BELIEVEVE HE WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY 
BELIEVES, BUT HE BROUGHT IT UP.
>> OKAY.
>> AND MR. MORRISON, YOU WERE 
ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
SKEPTICAL VIEW OF FOREIGN AID 
GENERALLY?

English: 
>> YES.
>> AND THAT THERE WAS AN 
INITIATIVE THAT HE WAS LOOKING 
AT FOREIGN AID PRETTY BROADRY?
>> YES.
>> TRYING TO SCRUTINIZE TO MAKE 
SURE THE TAXPAYERS WERE GETTING 
 WORTH?ONEY'S
>> YES.
>> AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO 
INTERESTED, WAS HEO NOT, IN 
BETTER UNDERSTANDING 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED 
BURDEN SHARING AMONG THE 
EUROPEANS?
>> YES.
>> AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US 
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 
SECURITYTR ASSISTANCE.
>> AND WAS THERE ANY INNER 
AGENCY ACTIVITY, WHETHER IT BE 
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IN 
COORDINATION BYT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNSEL TO LOOK INTO 
THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO

English: 
UNDERSTAND WHO WAS CONTRIBUTING 
WHAT AND SORT OF IN WHAT 
CATEGORIES.
>> AND SO THE PRESIDENT 
EXPRESSED CONCERNS THE INNER 
AGENCY TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM?
>> YES.
>> AND BY LATE AUGUST, WE JUST 
DISCUSSED WITH AMBASSADORUS 
VOLKER, THAT A NEW ROTA WAS 
SEATED.
DID THAT GIVE HOPE THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE
TO PUSH THROUGH SOME OF THESE 
REFORMS?
>> YES.
>> AND DID YOU HOPE DURING THIS 
TIME PERIOD, DURING THIS 55 DAYS
WHERE THE AIDS? WAS PAUSED THAT 
POTENTIALLY ZELENSKY WOULD BE 
ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HIS BONA 
FIDE AND WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE 
ABLE TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO 
LIFT THE AID?
>> YES.
>> IN FACT, YOU TRAVELED WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO THE UKRAINE
RIGHT AROUND LABOR DAY WEEKEND, 
CORRECT?
>> YES.

English: 
>> AND MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON, I BELIEVE IT WAS 
AUGUST 29th?
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT>> ZELENS 
AND I STAFFED THAT MEETING.
>> THAT'S AROUND THE TIME THE 
ROTA MET AND THEY STARTED TO 
PRESS THROUGH THEIR REFORMS?
>> AS I RECALL, THE DATE OF THE 
MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON AND ZELENSKY WAS THE 
FIRST DAY OF THE NEW ROTA.
>> AND SOME OF THESE REFORMS 
INCLUDED NAMING A NEW PROSECUTOR
GENERAL?
>> NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL, 
BRAND-NEW CABINET, YES. 
>> NVD THEY PUSHED THROUGH SOME 
LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATED 
IMMUNITY FOR ROTA MEMBERS?
>> I BELIEVE YOU PROVIDED SOME 
COLOR INTO THIS MEETING AND  SAD
THE UKRAINIANS HAVE BEEN UP ALL 
NIGHT WORKING ON SOME OF THESE 
LIFTING INITIATIVES.
>> YES, THEY WERE BY ALL 
APPEARANCES EXHAUSTED FROM THE 
PACE OF ACTIVITY.
>> AND WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
ENCOURAGED BY THE ACTIVITY?

English: 
>> Y HE WAS.
>> WAS THE MEETING ALTOGETHER 
FAVORABLE?
>> QUITE.
>> AT THAT POINT IN TIME, 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DID HE HEAD 
 WARSAW WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OR DID HE JUST -- I 
KNOW YOU WENT TO WARSAW.
>> WE HAD A FEW STOPS BETWEEN 
UKRAINE AND EWPOLAND, BUT, YES, 
AMBASSADOR  BOLTON PROCEEDED TO 
WARSAW WHERE WE WERE EXPECTING 
TOWE ENSURE EVERYTHING WAS STAG 
PROPERLY FOR THE DPRESIDENT'S 
ARRIVAL.
>> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO BRIEF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
ON -- 
>> I DID NOT.
>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON?
>> HE  DDID.
>> AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM
WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON SHARED 
WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT 
THE ZELENSKY MEETING?
>> SO I WAS NOT THERE.
THE ISSUE I REMEMBER MOST 
STARKLY WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS QUITE ANNOYED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CRASHED THE 
PREBRIEF.
BUT THE AMBASSADOR HAD 

English: 
EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ENSURE 
THAT I WASHI -- THE PRESIDENT O 
THE VICE PRESIDENT WERE WELL 
PREPARED.
>> BUT DID YOU BRIEF AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON BEFORE HE HAD AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE 
VICE PRESIDENT?
>> I DIDN'T NEED TO.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE.
>> OKAY.
BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON COMMUNICATED 
TO THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE 
GOINGS ON IN UKRAINE WERE 
POSITIVE?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND AT THIS TIME AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WAS ADVOCATING FOR THE 
LIFTING OF THE AID?
>> HE HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME, 
YES.
>> AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN 
THE WARSAW MEETINGS?
>> WE HAD A REDUCED SCHEDULE 
FROM WHAT HAD BEEN ARRANGED FOR 
THE PRESIDENT, FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH 
PRESIDENT DUDA OF POLAND AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND I 
PARTICIPATED IN BOTH MEETINGS.
>> WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM THE
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
>> IT SEEMED VERY POSITIVE.
>> WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE -- 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE 

English: 
ISSUE OF THE AID, CORRECT?
>>E 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 EXPLAINS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, BECAUSE THIS IS
AFTER THE POLITICO ARTICLE HAD 
COME OUT THATLI MADE CLEAR THER 
WATHS A HOLD, HE EXPLAINED THAT 
WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE 
INNER AGENCY WAS EXAMINING WHAT 
MORE EUROPE COULD DO IN THE 
SECURITY SPACE AND TAKING A LOOK
AT HOW UKRAINE WAS REFORMING 
WHAT HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION.
>> AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION 
DURING THE MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PART 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT ANY 
OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WE'VE 
COME TO TALK ABOUT?
>> NO.
>> BURISMA WASN'T RAISED?
>> NO.
>> 2016 ELECTION WASN'T RAISED?
>> NO.

English: 
>> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
MENTION ANY INVESTIGATIONS AT 
ALL, DID HE?
>> NO.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUGUST 28th
POLITICO ARTICLE.
WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU
BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE 
HAD A REAL SENSE THAT THE AID 
WAS ON HOLD?
>> YES.
>> SO FROM THE 55-DAY PERIOD 
SPANNING JULY 18th THROUGH 
SEPTEMBER 11th, IT DIDN'T REALLY
BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL AUGUST 28th?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I HAD A 
NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS WHERE WE, 
IN FACT, TALKED ABOUT, DO THE 
UKRAINIANS KNOW YET BECAUSE WE 
FELT  STRONGLY IT WAS IMPORTANT 
TO KNOW THAT WE ENSURE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO MAKE THE 
DECISION AND TO RELEASE THE AID 
BEFORE THE UKRAINIANS EVER FOUND
OUT ABOUT IT.
>> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS THAT
ALSO YOUR RECOLLECTION?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> THAT IT WASN'T UNTIL THE 
POLITICO ARTICLE THAT -- 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM 
ONE OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS

English: 
ON AUGUST 29th, FORWARDING THAT 
ARTICLE AND THAT'S THE FIRST 
THEY RAISED IT WITH ME.
>> COULD YOU SHARE A LITTLE 
ABOUT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS DURING
THAT TIME PERIOD ABOUT THE HOLD 
IN THE AID?
>> YES, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID
UNTIL AFTER THEY RAISED IT WITH 
ME FOR THE SAME REASON THAT TIM 
JUST GAVE.
THE HOPE THAT WE COULD GET IT 
TAKEN H CARE OF OURSELVES BEFOR 
IT BECAME SOMETHING THAT THEY 
BECAME AWARE OF.
INSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, I 
WAS. AWARE THAT THE HOLD WAS 
PLACED.
I WAS AWARE ON JULY 18th IT WAS 
REFERENCED AT AN INNER AGENCY 
MEETING AND GOT A READ OUT FROM 
THAT MEETING FROM ONE OF MY 
ASSISTANTS.
I THEN IMMEDIATELY SPOKE WITH 
SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO OBJECT.
I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A BAD 
DECISION OR A BAD HOLD.
MAYBE NOT A DECISION BUT A 
PROCESS.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT 
ALL THE ARGUMENTS WERE 
MARSHALLED TO GET IT LIFTED.
SO I SPOKE WITH THE PENTAGON, 

English: 
LAURA COOPER, I SPOKE WITH 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AFFAIRS 
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS 
GOING TO REPRESENT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AT THE NEXT  HIGHER 
LEVEL MEETING.
I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH OFFICIALS
IN THE EUROPEAN BUREAU, NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF.
SO I WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO 
CONVEY THIS NEEDED TO BE LIFTED.
AND I WANTED THEM TO BE ABLE TO 
USE MY NAME IN DOING SO BECAUSE 
I FELT THAT THE BEST PROSPECT 
FOR POSITIONING OURSELVES FOR 
NEGOTIATIONS WITHTI RUSSIA IS T 
STRONGEST DEFENSE CAPABILITY FOR
UKRAINE.
>> AND DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, 
DIDE YOU COME TO BELIEVE THAT AY
OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
PART OF THE HOLD-UP IN THE AID?
>> NO, I DID NOT.
>> BACKTRACKING JUST A LITTLE 
BIT, YOU MET IN TORONTO WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME -- 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT 
PROVIDED SOME TESTIMONY THAT 
THEY HAD SOME APPREHENSION THAT 

English: 
PART OF THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL 
THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
REFERENCED WOULD RARE ITS HEAD 
IN TORONTO.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN 
TELL US WHETHER THAT HAPPENED.
>> I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I 
KNOW, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN 
OTHER H CONVERSATIONS OR OTHER 
THINGS, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAD A
CONVERSATION, BILL TAYLOR AND I 
BELIEVE
 GORDON SONDLAND AND I 
AROUND THE 28th OF JUNE THAT 
LATER CONNECTED TO A 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT 
HAVE BEEN PART OF THE LATTER.
THAT BEING SAID, I WAS CONVINCED
AFTER THAT CONVERSATION WE HAD 
GOTTEN NOWHERE.
WE HAD OUR WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 
23rd.
HE SIGNED A LETTER INVITING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE ON MAY 29th, AND FOR 
SEVERAL WEEKS, WE WERE 
CONTEMPORIZE WITH THE UKRAINIANS
SAYING WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
IT'S A SCHEDULING ISSUE.
WE'LL GET THERE.
DON'T WORRY.
AND I TOLD BILL AND GORDON THAT 

English: 
I WAS GOING TO SEE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN TORONTO, AND I FEEL 
AN OBLIGATION TO TELL HIM THE 
TRUTH.
THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE.
WE'RE NOT GETTING A DATE 
SCHEDULED.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK THE PROBLEM 
IS.
IT'S NEGATIVE INFORMATION FLOW 
FROM MAYOR GIULIANI.
AND THAT HE WOULD -- ALSO THAT I
WOULD ADVISE HIM THAT HE SHOULD 
CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY 
BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO RENEW THAT 
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND BE 
ABLE TORS CONVEY TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION, 
INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN THEIN PAST AND SO 
FORTH.
SO I DID ALL OF THAT WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AFTER OUR 
FORMAL BILATERAL MEETING.
>> AND DURING THAT MEETING IN 
TORONTO OR THE D SERIES OF 
MEETINGS, THERE WAS NO 
DISCUSSION OF PRECONDITIONS, 
INVESTIGATIONS OR ANYTHING OF 
THAT SORT?
>> NO.
>> AND YOU WERE THERE WITH MR. 
KENT?
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO.
AND DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITHE HIM ABOUT 
PRECONDITIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS?
>> NOT AT THAT TIME.
I THINK LATER ON THESE THINGS 

English: 
CAME UP ABOUT WHEN WE WERE 
TALKING ABOUT STATEMENTS, 
WHETHER THERE WERE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME IN 
TORONTO, IT WAS REALLY MORE 
REFERRING TO INVESTIGATIONS 
GENERICALLY THAT THAT ISVE HOW U
GO ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD 
REAFFIRM HIS COMMITMENT TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A DIRECT 
PHONE MPCALL.
>> AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME HAD 
MR. KENT RAISED ANY CONCERNS TO 
YOU ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
>> NOT AT THAT TIME.
>> NEXT EVENT IS THE JULY 10th 
MEETING.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE.
TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT 
THIS MORNING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT THE 
COVERAGE, BUT THERE WAS 
TESTIMONY THAT AT SOME POINT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTEDLY 
THAT THE MEETING ENDED ABRUPTLY.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT 
FACT?
>> THANK YOU.
AND LET ME A ANSWER THAT QUESTI 
FIRST.

English: 
I'D LIKE TO COME BACK TO YOUR 
PRIOR QUESTION FIRST, IF I MAY.
ON THE JULY 10th MEETING, THIS 
WAS A MEETING THAT WE HAD 
ARRANGED BETWEEN ALEX AND THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER 
BOLTON.
ATTENDING THE MEETING WAS ALSO 
SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, MYSELF, I BELIEVE 
FIONA HILL AND ALSO 
ANDRIY YERMAK.
THE PURPOSE US WAS A KOURPT PART
VISIT.
I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY, THE FIRST 
HIGH-LEVEL MEETING WE'RE HAVING 
IN WASHINGTON WITH A SENIOR U.S.
OFFICIAL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, 
AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UKRAINIANS 
TO MAKE THEIR CASE.
THAT THEY ARE THE NEW TEAM IN 
TOWN.
REAL DEAL ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION.
I WAS RATHER DISAPPOINTED WITH 
THE MEETING AS IT TRANSPIRED.
IT STRUCK ME AS DOWN IN THE 
WEEDS.

English: 
TALKING ABOUT REFORM OF NATIONAL
SECURITY STRUCTURES IN UKRAINE.
LEGISLATION THAT THEY WERE 
WORKING ON AND NOT THE BIG 
PICTURE AND NOT THE BILATERAL 
RELATIONSHIP.
SO A BIT DISAPPOINTED BY THAT.
AT THE END OF THE MEETING, I DO 
RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THE 
OTHER TESTIMONY.
I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
DID RAISE THE POINT OF 
INVESTIGATIONS IN A GENERIC WAY.
THIS WAS AFTER THE MEETING WAS 
ALREADY WRAPPING UP, AND I THINK
ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE, AND THE 
CONVERSATION DID NOT PICK UP 
FROM THERE.
THE MEETING WAS OVER.
WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE AND WE HAD A
PICTURE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE.
AND THEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WENT 
DOWN TO THE WARD ROOM TO TALK 
ABOUT FOLLOW UP.
HOW DO WE FOLLOW UP ON THIS 
MEETING TO KEEP THE MOMENTUM IN 
THE RELATIONSHIP.
I THINK WE BROKE UP INTO SEVERAL
SMALL GROUPS.
I REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION
WITH SECRETARY PERRY AND ONE OF 
HISER ASSISTANTS ABOUT ENERGY 

English: 
REFORM AS PART OF THAT.
I DON'T RECALL OTHER 
CONVERSATIONS FOLLOWING UP ON 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR BURISMA.
>> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO 
PRECONDITIONS DISCUSSED, RIGHT?
>> NO, NO.
AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE WAS ONE WHERE I 
THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS REALLY 
RELATED TO A GENERAL NEGATIVE 
VIEW ABOUT UKRAINE.
THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFIC EVER 
COMMUNICATED TO ME ABOUT IT OR 
THE REASONS WHY IT WAS HELD.
AND WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS.
WE WANTED TO FIX IT.
>> THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS 
LATER, THE JULY 25th CALL 
HAPPENED.
AND YOU WERE HEADED TO UKRAINE 
DURING THAT TIME PERIOD?
>> YES.
I WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY ON MY WAY
TO UKRAINE.
I THINK TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THAT.
>> AND YOU RECEIVED READOUTS 
FROM THE U.S. SIDE AND THE 

English: 
UKRAINIAN SIDE.
CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
>> YES, SO I WAS NOT ON THE 
PHONE CALL.
I HAD ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, AND 
I'VE HAD THAT LUNCH ON THE DAY 
OF THE PHONE CALL.
I HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR THE PHONE
CALL BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS 
IMPORTANT TO RENEW THE PERSONAL 
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO 
LEADERS AND TO CONGRATULATE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.
THE READOUT THAT I RECEIVED FROM
MR. YERMAK AND FROM THE U.S. 
SIDE, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT EXACTLY 
SURE WHO IT WAS FROM ON THE U.S.
SIDE, BUT THERE WAS A U.S. AND 
UKRAINIAN READOUT, WERE LARGELY 
THE SAME.
THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL.
IT WAS AME, CONGRATULATORY PHON 
CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WIN IN 
THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID REITERATE
HIS COMMITMENT TO REFORM AND 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
REITERATE HIS INVITATION TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME VISIT
HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT THE PHONE
CALL WOULD BE, SO I WAS NOT 
SURPRISED AT GETTING THAT IN THE

English: 
READOUT.
>> AND DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR ABOUT THIS?
>> AT THAT TIME, WE WERE 
TOGETHER IN UKRAINE AT THAT 
TIME.
WE WENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO 
VISIT THE CONFLICT ZONE.
I'M SURE HE HEARD THE SAME READ 
DLOUT I DID.
>> YOU HAD
 A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 26 
SNT. 
>> YES, WE HAD A MEETING THE DAY
AFTER THE PHONE CALL.
THE 26th IN THE MORNING BEFORE 
HEADING TO THE CONFLICT ZONE.
>> WERE ANY OF THESE CONCERNING 
ELEMENTS SOME HAVE RAISED ABOUT 
THE CALL?
>> NO, ONLY THE BARE BONES 
READOUT THAT I RECEIVED, THAT 
WAS ALSO HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN
THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
>> SO TO THE EXTENT THERE'S BEEN
ASSERTIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
DEMANDS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
MADE -- 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT.
>> YOU DON'T RECALL THAT?
>> I DON'T RECALL -- WELL, LET 
ME TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY, HE 
WAS VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THE 
PHONE CALL.
I DON'T RECALL HIM SAYING 
ANYTHING ABOUT DEMANDS, BUT HE 
WAS VERY  UPBEAT ABOUT THE CALL.
>> THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON 
THE PART OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 

English: 
ON HOW TO NAVIGATE THE 
VARIOUS -- 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT.
>> -- CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE 
ARTICULATED ABOUT THE CALL?
>> IAT DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
>> AND MR. ZELDEN ASKED YOU THAT
IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, ANY OF
THE READ DLOUTS FROM THE UNITED 
STATES OR UKRAINE DID YOU 
RECEIVE ANY INDICATION FOR 
ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A QUID 
PRO QUO.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND THE SAME WAS -- WOULD GO 
FOR THIS NEW ALLEGATION OF 
BRIBERY?
>>EW I HAVE ONLY SEEN AN 
ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY IN THE 
LAST WEEK.
>> IT'S THE SAME COMMON SET OF 
FACTS.
INSTEAD OF QUID PRO QUO IT'S 
BRIBERY.
>> I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN 
ANYTHING THAT I CONSIDERED TO BE
BRIBERY AT ALL.
>> OR EXTORTION.
>> OR EXTORTION.
>> OKAY.
MR. CASTOR, MAY I ADDRESS TWO 
SPECIFIC POINTS?

English: 
>> OF COURSE.
>> ONE IS I'M REMINDED THAT THE 
MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
TOOK PLACE ON JULY 10th AND I 
DID NOT BECOME AWARE ON THE HOLD
OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE GIULIANI 
18th SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON 
THAT DID NOT A COME UP.
ANGETS THAT POINT IN TIME YOU 
DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE POTENTIAL 
PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WAS BREWING?
>> NO, I HEARD ABOUT ITNO FOR T 
FIRST TIME ON THE 18th.
THE SECOND OBSERVATION, I DO 
REMEMBER HAVING SEEN SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY OF MR. KENT.
A CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE HAD 
ASKED ME ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES THAT WERE OUT THERE IN 
UKRAINE.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE DATE 
OF THISIN CONVERSATION WAS, ANDY
VIEW WAS, WELL, IF THERE ARE 
THINGS LIKEHE THAT, THEN WHY NO 
INVESTIGATE THEM?
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S 
ANYTHING TO IETHEM.
IF THERE IS, 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE IS WHAT I20 WAS 
THINKING OF, WE WOULD WANT TO 
KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I DIDN'T 
REALIZE THERE WASAN ANYTHING THE
TO BEGIN WITH.
>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION THAT YOU SAID THE 

English: 
UKRAINIANS WERE GOING TO 
INVESTIGATE OTHER UKRAINIANS FOR
WRONGDOING.
THAT WAS PERFECTLY  APPROPRIATE 
IN YOUR MIND?
>> THAT HAS BEEN U.S. POLICY FOR
YEARS.
>> CERTAIN UKRAINIANS INVOLVED 
WITH BURISMA COMPANY -- 
>> THAT I
 THINK IS THE ONLY 
PLAUSIBLE THING TO LOOK AT 
THERE.
AS I SAID, I DON'T FIND IT 
PLAUSIBLE OR CREDIBLE THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN 
INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES BUT 
WHETHER INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS IN
THE SOCIETY THAT WE KNOW UKRAINE
HAS BEEN FOR DECADES WERE TRYING
TO ACT IN A CORRUPT WAY OR TO 
BUY INFLUENCE, IT COULD BE 
POSSIBLE.
>> AMBASSADOR KENT TOLD US ABOUT
AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA 
TRYING TO RECOUP MILLIONS OF 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND UKRAINIANS 
WERERA PURSUING AN INVESTIGATIO.
THERE WAS A BRIBE PAID.
WERE YOURI TRACKING THAT?
>> I WAS AWARE OF THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS.
I COULDN'TS GIVE YOU THOSE KIND 
OF DETAILS.

English: 
I JUST KNOW THERE WAS A 
REPUTATION AROUND THE COMPANY.
>> AND SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE FACTS
AND THE BRIBES BEING PAID, THE 
BURISMA COMPANY WANTED TO 
IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE AND ADDED 
SOME FOLKS TO THEIR BOARD, 
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF 
POLAND ANDIN HUNTER BIDEN.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
>> AND TO THE EXTENT THE 
UKRAINIANS, THE FOLKS AFLTSD 
WITH KSBURISMA WANTED TO HIRE 
THOSE PEOPLE FOR THEIR BOARD FOR
PROTECTION PURPOSES SO THEY 
COULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN 
MISDEEDS, IS THAT -- IF THAT WAS
A FACT WORTH INVESTIGATING, YOU 
CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF
UKRAINIANS TRYING TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OFIN THAT, CORRECT?
>> WELL, I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO
ANY OF THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WAS
MOTIVATING BURISMA OR NOT.
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES
INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION BY UKRAINIAN CITIZENS
IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE THING
FOR THEM TO DO.

English: 
>> MR. MORRISON, I WANT TO TURN 
OUR ATTENTION BACKTO TO THE JUL 
25th CALL.
YOU WERE IN THE ROOM.
DID ANYTHING CONCERN YOU ON THE 
CALL?
>> NO.
>> AFTER THE CALL ENDED, YOU, 
LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, WERE -- 
ONE OF YOUR NEXT STEPS WAS TO 
ENGAGE THE NSC LAWYERS.
AND YOUR REASONS FOR DOING THAT 
WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN 
COLONEL VINDMAN.
AND YOU ARTICULATED THREE 
CONCERNS.
DO YOU WANT TO SHARE THEM WITH 
US OR WOULD YOU RATHER I DO IT?
>> SO, I THINK I ARTICULATED TWO
CONCERNS.
IF I'M FORGETTING ONE, PLEASE 
REMIND ME.
BUT THE TWO CONCERNS WERE, ONE, 
I DID NOT SEE REPRESENTATIVES OF
NSC LEGAL ON THE CALL.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 
LEGAL ADVISER AND HIS DEPUTY 
WERERE AWARE OF THE CALL.

English: 
AND I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT 
TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT THE 
LIMITED DISCLOSURE FOR FEAR OF 
THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT LEAKING.
>> AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT 
IT LEAKING BECAUSE YOU WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT B HOW IT WOULD PL 
OUT IN WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED 
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, NMCORREC?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU WERE ALSO WORRIED HOW
THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORTD HERE IN 
CONGRESS OF -- TOWARDS UKRAINE, 
RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU WERE ALSO CONCERNED 
THAT IT MIGHT AFFECT THE 
UKRAINIANS' PERCEPTION 
NEGATIVELY.
>> YES.
>> IN FACT, ALL THREE OF THOSE 
THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT, HAVEN'T 
THEY?
>> TYES.
>> YOU DIDN'T ASK THE LAWYERS TO
PUT IT ON THE CODEWORD SYSTEM, 
CORRECT?
>> I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT 
THE LEXICON HERE.
I DIDSK NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MOD

English: 
TO A COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM.
YOU JUST WANTED THE TRANSCRIPT 
TO BE CONTROLLED?
>> I WANTED ACCESS TO BE 
RESTRICTED.
>> OKAY.
>> AND WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT THE
TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN STORED ON 
THE PTCOMPARTMENTED SERVER, YOU 
BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, 
CORRECT?
>> WELL, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO 
ME IT WAS A MISTAKE.
I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THAT 
MENCON BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE 
PROCESS OF PULLING TOGETHER 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S MATERIALS 
AND THELS PRESIDENT'S MATERIALS 
FOR WHAT WAS A PLANNED BILAT 
BETWEEN POTUS AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AND WHEN I WENT TO DO 
THAT, I COULD NOT PULL UP THE 
PACKAGE INES OUR SYSTEM.
AND I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY.
I SPOKE WITH THE NSC EXECUTIVE'S
STAFF AND ASKED THEM WHY.
AND THEY DID THEIR RESEARCH AND 
INFORMED ME IT HAD BEEN MOVED TO
THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN 

English: 
EISENBERG WHOM I THEN ASKED WHY.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE JUDGMENT HE 
MADE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MINE
TO QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND IT AND HE ESSENTIALLY
TOLD ME I GAVE HIM SUCH 
DIRECTION.
HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND 
REPRESENTED IT BACK TO ME THAT 
IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS 
THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATE UF 
ERROR THAT WHEN HE ALSO GAVE 
DIRECTION  TO RESTRICT ACCESS, 
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF STAFF
TOOK THAT AS AN APPREHENSION 
THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE 
CONTENT OF THE MEMCON THAT WOULD
NOT EXIST ON THE LOWER 
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
>> THERE'S NO MALICIOUS INTENT 
IN MOVING THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SERVER?
>>E  CORRECT.
>> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, 
ANYBODY ON THE NSC STAFF THAT 
NEEDED ACCESS TO THE STAFF FOR 
THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY ALWAYS WAS 
ABLE TO ACCESS IT, CORRECT?
PEOPLE THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW 
AND A NEED TO ACCESS IT?
>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM?
>> YES.

English: 
>> YES.
>> THE MEMCON OF THE JULY 25th 
CALL WAS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, 
PREPARED NORMALLY?
>> YES.
>> THAT THERE ISN'T AN EXACT 
TRANSCRIPTION OF WHAT'S SAID ON 
THE CALL, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> THAT THERE IS NOTE TAKERS IN 
THE SITUATION ROOM AND THEN THEY
PREPARE A DRAFT THAT'S 
CIRCULATED AMONG RELEVANT 
PARTIES?
>> ESSENTIALLY, YES.
>> AND YOU HAVE RESPONSIBILITY 
FORIT COORDINATING ANY EDITS?
>> YES, WE LOOK AT THE -- 
SHORTHAND WE'LL CALL THE 
TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE MEMORANDUM 
OF CONVERSATION AND WE MAKE SURE
THAT THAT TRANSCRIPTION IS AS 
CLOSE TO ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE 
GIVEN OUR REQUIREMENTS ON UNDER 
THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT.
>> OKAY.
AND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED HE
THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ACCURATE.
DID YOU AS WELL?
>> I VIEWED IT AS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE.

English: 
>> COLONEL VINDMAN DID 
ARTICULATE THAT HE HAD A COUPLE 
OF EDITS.
HE WANTED BURISMA INSERTED.
I THINK IT WAS ON PAGE 3 OR 4.
IN PLACE OF "THE COMPANY" IN ONE
OF THE SECTIONS WHERE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS TALKING.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT EDIT 
REQUEST?
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT HE SAID IN 
EITHER THIS PROCEEDING OR THE 
DEPOSITION THAT HE WANTED THAT 
REQUEST, YES.
>> AT THE TIME, DID YOU 
UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAD ASKED FOR
THAT?
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT.
IT WAS MY PRACTICE IF AN EDIT 
WAS -- D IF I BELIEVED AN EDIT 
ACCURATELY REPRESENTED THE CALL,
I WOULD ACCEPT IT.
IF I DIDN'T HEAR IT IN THE CALL,
IF IT DIDN'T EXIST IN MY NOTES, 
I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE EDIT.
>> ON PAGE 4 HE WANTED TO SWAP 
OUT THE WORD COMPANY FOR THE 
WORD BURISMA.
>> AND WHEN THAT EDIT FROM 
COLONEL VINDMAN WAS NOT 
INSTALLED, DID HE GIVE YOU ANY 
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK THAT IT WAS 

English: 
CRUCIAL THAT THAT EDIT GET IN 
THE DOCUMENT?
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.
>> DID HE EVER RAISE ANY 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF 
THE TRANSCRIPT?
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.
>> DID HE EVER RAISE ANY 
CONCERNS TO YOU GENERALLY ABOUT 
THE CALL?
>> WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE 
CHANGES OF THEIN MEMCON, I BELIE
HE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
CALL.
I BELIEVE WE BOTH AGREED WE 
WANTED THAT MORE FULL-THROATED 
EMBRACE OF ZELENSKY AND HIS 
REFORM AGENDA, AND WE DIDN'T GET
IT.
>> OKAY.
YOU INDICATE IN YOUR DEPOSITION 
THAT WHEN YOU TOOK OVER THE 
PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL, JULY 
15th, YOU WERE ALERTED TO 
POTENTIAL ISSUES IN COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S JUDGMENT?

English: 
>> YES.
>> DID SHE RELAY ANYTHING 
SPECIFICALLY TO YOU?
WHY SHE THOUGHT THAT?
>> NOT IN SUCH.
MORE OF AN OVERAERCHING 
STATEMENT FROM HER AND HER 
DEPUTY WHO BECAME MY DEPUTY THAT
THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
JUDGMENT.
>> OKAY.
DID ANY OTHER NSC PERSONNEL 
RAISE CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT 
MR. VINDMAN?
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I'M SORRY, COLONEL VINDMAN.
AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE 
CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO 
YOUR ATTENTION?
>> THEY WERE -- 
 SORRY.
WE ARE NOT -- I'M GOING TO 
INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER 
BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S BEYOND
THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING 
FOR.
THESE CONCERNS, MR. CASTOR, 
PREDATED ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH 
THE I UKRAINIAN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
>> DURING THE DEPOSITION, I 

English: 
ASKED YOU, MR. MORRISON, WHETHER
OTHERS RAISED A CONCERN WHETHER 
MR. VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED 
INFORMATION?
>> YOU DID ASK THAT, YES.
>> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS?
>> OTHER THAN THAT 
REPRESENTATIVE, YES.
>> I ASKED WHETHER YOU WERE 
CONCERNED THAT COLONEL VINDMAN 
DID NOT KEEP YOUP IN THE LOOP AL
THE TIME WITH HIS OFFICIAL 
DUTIES?
>> YES.
>> AND IN FACT, WHEN HE WENT TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL 
LAWYERSUR FOLLOWING THE JULY 25 
CALL, HE DID NOT FIRST COME TO 
YOU, ISST THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOU WERE HIS SUPERVISOR 
IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND IN HINDSIGHT, DID YOU 
WISH THAT HE HAD COME TO YOU 
FIRST BEFORE GOING TO THE 
LAWYERS?
>> YES. T
>> AND WHY IS THAT?
>> ONE, IF HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT
SOMETHING, ABOUT THE CONTENT OF 
 CALL, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD
HAVE EXPECTED TO BE NOTIFIED OF.
I ALSO THINK JUST AS A MATTER OF
PRACTICE, SINCE WE BOTH WENT TO 

English: 
THE B LAWYERS, WE DIDN'T 
NECESSARILY BOTH NEED, TO AND 
ECONOMY OF EFFORT MAY HAVE 
PREVAILED.
>> AT ANY POINT SUBSEQUENTLY, 
DID HE BECOME FRUSTRATED THAT HE
FELT CUT OUT OF SOME OF THE 
UKRAINE PORTFOLIO?
>> YES.
>> AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF 
HIS CONCERNS?
>> WELL, HE -- HE WAS CONCERNED 
WITH RESPECT TO THE UKRAINIAN 
TRIP THAT HE WAS NOT -- HE DID 
NOT GO.
HE ASKED ME WHY IT IS MY 
PRACTICE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR ONE ON ONE.
THERE  WERE CERTAIN OTHER 
MATTERS.
>> OKAY.
AND DID YOU EVER GET THE SENSE 
THAT YOU  TRESOLVED HIS CONCERN 
OR DID THEY LINGER?
>> I -- I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY 
THINKING, AND THAT WAS THAT.
>> OKAY.
BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES, 

English: 
AMBASSADORWA VOLKER, I WANT TO 
TURN QUICKLY TO THE -- WHAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBES AS 
THEAY IRREGULAR CHANNEL.
HE WAS A PARTICIPANT WITH YOU 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>>ME AND DID HE EVER RAISE 
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON
DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE 
EARLY AUGUST TIME PERIOD?
>> ONLY THAT HE SAW REFLECTED IN
THE
 TEXT MESSAGES THEMSELVES 
WHERE HE SAID IS THIS NOW A 
LINKAGE OR ARE WE DOING THIS?
HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT JUST IN 
GENERAL, YOU KNOW, RUDY 
GIULIANI, I THINK ALL OF US HAD,
BUT HE SAID, WHAT DO YOU DO 
ABOUT IT, ABOUT THE ROLE THAT 
HE'S PLAYING.
AND AS
 YOU NOTE, WE WERE IN 
FREQUENT CONTACT.
NEAR DAILY CONTACT THROUGHOUT 

English: 
THIS ENTIRE PERIOD.
>> AND SO DID HE EVER ENGAGE YOU
IN A LONG TELEPHONE CALL TO 
ARTICULATE HIS CONCERNS?
>> WE WERE ON MANY ONE ON ONE 
TELEPHONE CALLS.
HE DID NOT RAISE THOSE CONCERNS 
THAT WAY, NO.
>>  AND, I MEAN, YOU ARE AN 
EXPERIENCED DIPLOMAT AT ONE 
POINT IN TIME, SENATE CONFIRMED.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION.
SECRETARY PERRY IS A SECRETARY 
OF ENERGY.
CERTAINLY NOT -- DOESN'T SOUND 
LIKE AN IRREGULAR BUNCH.
DID HE EVER ARTICULATE TO YOU 
THAT HE THOUGHT THE THREE OF YOU
WORKING ON UKRAINE POLICY WAS A 
PROBLEM?
>> NO,IN HE DID NOT.
>> AND WERE YOU SURPRISED DURING
HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE CAME IN TO
THE DEPOSITION WHEN YOU 
ESTABLISHED THESE TWO TRACKS 
THAT ONE WAS O A REGULAR CHANNE 
HE WAS IN CHARGE OF AND THE 
OTHER WAS A -- 
>> YES.
I -- I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS 
CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT BECAUSE
I HAD BEEN IN MY ROLE FOR A 

English: 
COUPLE OF YEARS.
I HAD BEEN THE LEAD ON 
U.S./UKRAINEN NEGOTIATIONS AND 
NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA AND THE 
INNER AGENCY WORK AND WORK WITH 
OUR ALLIES.
AND WE HAD A SECRETARY OF ENERGY
WHO IS A CABINET OFFICIAL.
AND I THINK HAVING SUPPORT FROM 
THE VARIOUGS U.S. OFFICIALS FOR 
OUR STRENGTHENING OUR ENGAGEMENT
WITH UKRAINE, I VIEW THIS AS A 
VERY POSITIVE THING.
AND IF THE CONCERN IS NOT UP SO 
MUCH THEN BECAUSE WE'RE ALL 
OFFICIALS BUT MAYOR GIULIANI, I 
DON'T VIEW THAT AS A CHANNEL AT 
ALL BECAUSE HE'SHA NOT A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE U.S.
 
GOVERNMENT.
HE'S A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
I VIEWED HIM AS PERHAPS A USEFUL
BAROMETER IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT 
MAY BE HELPFUL COMMUNICATION 
FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, 
BUT NOT SOMEONE IN A POSITION TO
REPRESENT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AT
ALL.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE OR 
TEN-MINUTE BREAK.
IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE TO 
ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE
ROOM FIRST, AND --

English: 
>> AND WE WILL TAKE THAT FIVE 
MINUTES HERE TOTE SUM UP WHERE  
ARE.
THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING OF 
THE DAY.
WEAY STARTED ABOUT -- I THINK W 
STARTED AT 9:00 A.M. EASTERN 
TIME.
IT'S NOW 5:41 EASTERN TIME.
AND THEY ARE TAKING A BREAK.
AND THEY WILL RESUME HERE 
SHORTLY WITHIL MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
BUT I'M HERE WITH CHUCK TODD AND
BARRETT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL 
PROSECUTOR AND NBC NEWS LEGAL 
ANALYST.
LET ME STARTH  WITH YOU, CHUCK.
GOING IN, TIM MORRISON, NSC 
RUSSIA EXPERT, SEEN AS SOMEONE 
THAT MIGHT BE MORE SYMPATHETIC 
TO THE CAS SE REPUBLICANS ARE 
MAKING.
HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM 
NECESSARILY WITH WHAT HEBL HEAR 
ON THAT JULY 25th CALL.
DID HE DELIVER?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE DELIVERED 
AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS HOPED HE 
WOULD.
HE WAS DEFINITELY A FACT WITNESS
FOR THEM.
I THOUGHT, THOUGH, THEY WERE 
HOPINGE HE WOULD BE MORE HELPFU 
THAN HE WAS.
YOU  KNOW, YET HE DIDN'T HEAR 

English: 
ANYTHING ILLEGAL ON THE CALL.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T HEAR
ANYTHING PROBLEMATIC.
IN THAT CASE, IT IS -- I DON'T 
THINK IT'S AS HELPFUL AS 
REPUBLICANS THOUGHT IT WOULDS B.
LOOK, I DO THINK THEY DID A GOOD
JOB -- THEY DID A GOOD JOB -- IF
THE REPUBLICAN GOAL WAS TO GET 
VOLKER AND MORRISON TO SAY, HEY,
SOME OF THIS STUFF WAS MORE 
ROUTINE THAN IT COMES ACROSS, I 
THINK THEY PAINTED SOME OF THIS 
AS MORE ROUTINE.
THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS, IS IT 
EVEN VOLKER AND MORRISON ARE 
SAYING, YEAH, BUT THAT PHONE 
CALL WAS HAUNUSUAL.
AND SOME OF THESE REQUESTS WERE 
UNUSUAL.
AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT I THINK HAS
BEEN THE MOST DAMAGING FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS TODAY, BECAUSE I 
THINK THEYSE HOPE THAT VOLKER A 
MORRISON WOULD SORT OF -- I 
THINK HELP THEM MORE THAN THEY 
DID.
HOW MUCH VOLKER CHANGED HIS 
TESTIMONY.
VOLKER STRIKES ME AS SOMEBODY 
WHO THREW HIMSELF AT THE MERCY 
OF -- 
AND SAID, MAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
GIULIANI WAS UP TO.
I WAS REALLY TRYING TO LAND THIS
PLANE AND HE'S GOING, I DIDN'T 
QUITE UNDERSTAND -- 
>> WATCHING AID GET CUT OFF.
>> I THINK SOME PEOPLE THINK, 

English: 
OH, YOU WERE WILLFULLY BLIND ON 
SOME OF THISWI IF YOU DIDN'T THK
BURISMA AND BIDEN WERE THE SAME 
THING.
MAYBE THAT'S OKAY.
MAYBEMA DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE IT.
IF I'M THE PRESIDENT, IF I'M 
REPUBLICANS, I'M NERVOUS ABOUT 
VOLKER ESSENTIALLY A SAYING, LO,
YES, THIS WAS A MESS.
I WAS TRYING TO LAND IT.
I WASN'T DOING IT WITH CORRUPT 
INTENT.
>> GIVE ME THE LEGAL 
E
PERSPECTIVE.
ARE THEY BEING MORE HELPFUL TO 
ONE SIDOR THE OTHER?
>>EY I'D SAY WITH CHUCK.
I'M NOT SURE EITHER OF THESE 
WITNESSES IS REALLY GOING FAR 
FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
LOOK, IT MAY BE THE STANDARD 
THAT THEY'RE NOT HURTING THEM, 
WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS 
HELPING.
REMEMBER, WE JUST LISTENED TO 
VOLKER VERY ADAMANTLY SAYING, 
YOU  KNOW, I DON'T THINK JOE 
BIDEN HAD'T ANYTHING TO DO WITH 
ANY SORT OF CORRUPTION MULTIPLE 
TIMES IN THE BRIEF TIME THAT 
HE'S ALREADY BEEN TESTIFYING.
HE'S REALLY DEFLECTING ATTENTION
AWAY FROM ANY WRONGDOING BIDEN 
MAY HAVE HAD AND THAT'S 
SOMETHING REPUBLICANS CAN'T LIKE
HAVING REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES.
>> HOW DOES THIS RAISE THE 

English: 
STAKES NOW FOR SONDLAND 
TOMORROW?
>> SONDLAND'S NAME HAS BEEN 
MENTIONED COUNTLESS TIMES BY 
EVERY SINGLE WITNESS TODAY.
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY AND IT IS 
AS CRITICAL AS IT COULD POSSIBLY
BE AND HE HAS GOT TO BE SWEATING
RIGHT NOW.
>> THERE'S STILL ONE MORE PERSON
THAT THEY COULD LIKE TO TESTIFY 
THAT I THINK HE MAY GET.
THAT'S JOHN BOLTON.
THE MOST DEVASTATING PART OF 
MORRISON'S TESTIMONY IS WHAT HE 
RECALLED, HEY, BOLTON TOLD ME TO
TALK TO THE LAWYER.
>> SO WHEN SONDLAND TESTIFIES, 
ARE THERE ANY THOUGHT, ANY 
POSSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT INVOKE
THE FIFTH?
>> THAT'S THE RUMOR RUNNING 
AROUND.
TO  ME, IT WOULD MAKE MATTERS 
WORSE.
>> I AGREE.
LOOK, IT'S A HUGE ACCEPTANCE OF,
YOU TAKNOW, I HAVE SOMETHING TH 
I SHOULD FEEL POTENTIALLY WOULD 
INCRIMINATE ME.
I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH 
CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.
ICO THINK IT'S UNLIKELY WE'D SE 
THAT.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY HE MAY BE IN A
POSITION WHERE THAT WOULD BE A 
GOOD IDEA WHERE IF YOU WERE HIS 
LAWYER YOU'D ADVISE HIM.

English: 
>> HE'S GOT A LOT TO CLEAR UP 
AND THE PHONE CALL THAT WE NOW 
KNOW ABOUT IS GOING W TO BE -- 
>> VOL TER IS TELEGRAPHING ONE 
STRATEGY.
DUMP ON RUDY.
I'D BE CURIOUS IF GORDON 
SONDLAND BECOMES PART TWO OF 
DUMP ON T RUDY.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES ON OUR
STREAMING NETWORK NBC NEWS NOW.
OF COURSE, WE'LL BE BACK ON THE 
AIR TOMORROW MORNING ATN 
9:00 A.M. FOR TESTIMONY FROM 
GORDON ROSONDLAND, THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND PERHAPS THE MOST EAGERLY 
ANTICIPATED WITNESS SO FAR 
BECAUSE OFAR HIS DIRECT 
COMMUNICATIONS ON UKRAINE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I'LL SEE YOU HERE SHORTLY WITH A
COMPLETE WRAP-UP OF ALL WE'VE 
SEEN TODAY ON "NBC NIGHTLY 
NEWS."
UNTIL THEN, I'M LESTER HOLT.
NBC NEWS IN NEW YORK.
GOOD DAY, EVERYONE.

English: 
>>> HEY, EVERYONE.
I'M ALISON MORRISON.
YOU'RE WATCHING NBC NEWS NOW.
SPECIAL COVERAGE.
WE'RE IN THE SECOND HALF OF DAY 
THREE OF THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL IS ON CAPITOL
HILL.
SHE'S BEEN IN THE HEARINGS ALL 
DAY.
WE'RE HEARING FROM KURT VOLKER 
AND TIM MORRISON.
WHAT ARE THE BIG HEADLINES FOR 
YOU SO FAR?
>> WELL, ALISON, ONE OF THE 
FIRST HEADLINES IS ABOUT VOLKER.
HE HAS COME INTO THIS HEARING 
TODAY AND REVISED HIS TESTIMONY 
FROM HIS DEPOSITION THAT HE GAVE
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS A FEW WEEKS 
AGO.
HE SAID AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO
CONNECTION BETWEEN BURISMA, THE 
ENERGY COMPANY, AND THE BIDENS.
WELL, TODAY HE SAID AFTER 
LEARNING MORE SINCE HIS 
DEPOSITION, THAT, IN FACT, THERE
WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE 
TWO.
THAT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS WAS 
ONE IN THE SAME.
AND HE ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD A 
LOT OF RESPECT FOR JOE BIDEN.

English: 
THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT HE 
KNEW JOE BIDEN FOR 25 YEARS AND 
THAT THERE WAS NOTHING CORRUPT 
ABOUT HIM.
SO VOLKER'S TESTIMONY, THAT WAS 
EXPLOSIVE.
MORRISON'S TESTIMONY, THERE'S A 
LOT WE CAN GO THROUGH WITH WHAT 
MORRISON SAID.
HE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNSEL ADVISER.
HE LEFT HIS POSITION.
AND HE SAID THAT -- IN THIS JULY
25th PHONE CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, HE WAS DISAPPOINTED 
BECAUSE HE WANTED A 
FULL-THROATED SUPPORT OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DID NOT 
HAPPEN.
AND SO HE THOUGHT THAT THE CALL 
WAS UNFORTUNATE, ALISON.
>> THESE WERE TWO WITNESSES THAT
REPUBLICANS WANTED TO HEAR FROM 
TONIGHT.
GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, 
DO YOU THINK THESE ARE STILL TWO
WITNESSES THAT REPUBLICANS 
WANTED TO HEAR FROM TONIGHT?
>> IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
SO THE REPUBLICANS CALLED THESE 
WITNESSES, AND YOU WOULD HAVE 

English: 
EXPECTED THESE WITNESSES TO 
REALLY POKE HOLES INTO THE 
DEMOCRATS' ENTIRE THEORY HERE.
BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
WHAT THEY DID ACTUALLY IS 
CORROBORATED A LOT OF WHAT WAS 
ALREADY SAID BY OTHER WITNESSES 
BEFORE.
WHERE THEY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM 
THE OTHER WITNESSES IS THE FACT 
THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THINGS 
WERE AS EXPLOSIVE OR TRAUMATIC 
OR SERIOUS OF A PROBLEM AS OTHER
WITNESSES DID.
BUT THEY'RE NOT -- THEY ALSO 
DIDN'T DISMISS ANYTHING HERE.
THEY SAID, YES, THEY HAD 
PROBLEMS WITH THIS JULY 25th 
PHONE CALL.
THEY SAID THAT, IN FACT, THE AID
WAS BEING INVESTIGATED -- OR WAS
BEING WITHHELD.
AND SO THERE WAS A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS 
BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
AND SO WHILE THESE WERE SUPPOSED
TO BE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESSES, 
THEY DID NOTHING TO ADVANCE 
THEIR CASE FOR REPUBLICANS.
>> LEIGH ANN, WE'RE SHOWING 
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE HEARING 

English: 
ROOM.
WOULD YOU TALK TO US ABOUT WHY 
YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THAT ROOM AND 
WE'RE CHATTING WITH YOU NOW?
>> YEAH, SO WE CAN'T HAVE A 
CAMERA OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING 
ROOM SO WE WALKED TO THE 
BUILDING NEXT DOOR IN THE CANNON
OFFICE BUILDING.
WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS PRESS 
AND EVERYONE IS MILLING ABOUT.
IT'S THE END OF THE DAY.
THERE'S OUR OWN GEOFF BENNETT 
RIGHT THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE 
THERE TAKING PHOTOS.
PEOPLE, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
TALK AND JUST HAVE SOME TIME.
BUT IT'S THE END OF THE DAY.
THIS IS HOUR NINE OR TEN, EIGHT 
OR SOMETHING OF HEARINGS.
THE AUDIENCE HAS STARTED TO THIN
OUT.
THERE'S NO LONGER A LINE OUTSIDE
THE HEARING ROOM.
BUT THERE'S STILL PEOPLE THERE.
AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE STILL
IN THIS HEARING ROOM.
GOING TO SEE THERE FOR THE 
DURATION WHICH IS ACTUALLY 
PRETTY AMAZING FOR CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS.
SO EVEN WHEN CONGRESSIONAL 

English: 
HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL ONLY 
LAST AN HOUR OR TWO OR MAYBE 
THREE HOURS ON SOME OTHER 
TOPICS, MEMBERS COME AND GO.
THEY NEVER SIT THROUGH THE WHOLE
THING.
SO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE 
FROM BEGINNING TO END JUST ON 
ITS OWN DENOTES THE SERIOUSNESS 
AND HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE THIS IS.
ESPECIALLY THE FACT THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE SITTING THERE.
THEY THINK THIS IS A SHAM 
PROCESS, THAT THEY ARE 100% 
INVOLVING THEMSELVES AND 
PARTICIPATING IN IT.
>> AND THIS IS EARLY IN THE 
WEEK.
WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER 
HEARINGS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.
MORE TESTIMONY.
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT 
TOMORROW AND HOW IMPORTANT 
GORDON SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY WILL
BE.
HIS NAME CAME UP A WHOLE LOT 
ALREADY TODAY.
WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING THAT.
>> GORDON SONDLAND IS THE NAME 
OF THIS ENTIRE INQUIRY.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
IT'S -- OTHER THAN THE 
PRESIDENT, IT'S GORDON SONDLAND.
HE WAS INVOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN 
IN THE MORNING SESSION AND 
TONIGHT AS WELL.
ONE THING THAT WAS INTERESTING 
THAT MORRISON SAID WAS THAT HE 
FINALLY REALIZED THAT SONDLAND 

English: 
WAS, IN FACT, CONNECTING THE AID
TO THE INVESTIGATION.
BUT THEN MORRISON ALSO SAID THAT
HE NOW KNOWS THAT THE -- THAT 
SONDLAND WAS, IN FACT, IN TOUCH 
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
HE SAID THAT EVERY TIME SONDLAND
SAID THAT HE TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT, HE WOULD LOOK INTO 
IT, AND IT WAS, IN FACT, TRUE.
MORRISON, REMEMBER, THE 
REPUBLICANS' WITNESS SAID THAT 
SONDLAND IS, IN FACT, IN 
CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DOESN'T 
EVEN KNOW WHO SONDLAND IS.
BARELY EVEN KNOWS THE GUY.
THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REALLY
WANT.
THEY WANT A DIRECT CONNECTION OF
THIS QUID PRO QUO OF THIS 
WITHHOLDING OF AID TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS 
THAT MORRISON GAVE THEM TODAY.
SO WHEN SONDLAND COMES BEFORE 
THE HEARING TOMORROW, HE'S GOING
TO HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS FROM 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE BECAUSE 
FROM WHAT ALL THESE WITNESSES 
HAVE SAID IS THAT HE IS THE ONE 
WHO IS TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT 
THE MOST OTHER THAN RUDY 
GIULIANI.

English: 
THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT CAME
OUT IN TODAY'S HEARING, IN 
TONIGHT'S SESSION OF THIS 
HEARING IS THAT OUTSIDE AND 
UNWARRANTED INFLUENCE OF 
GIULIANI.
BOTH MORRISON AND VOLKER MADE 
THOSE POINTS OVER AND OVER.
>> LEIGH ANN, THANKS FOR BEING 
WITH US.
I WANT TO BRING IN MSNBC LEGAL 
ANALYST DANNY SAVOLAS.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SONDLAND
BUT ALSO VOLKER TODAY.
HE SAID TODAY THAT THE HEARINGS 
HAVE CHANGED HOW HE IS INFORMED 
ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
BURISMA AND THE CONNECTION TO 
THE BIDENS.
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE WONDERING, 
DID HE JUST PERJURE HIMSELF?
HE'S CHANGING WHAT HE WAS 
G
SAYING.
>> IT'S SO HARD TO SAY.
YOU HAVE MULTIPLE TESTIMONY.
IT'S HARD TO SAY SO MUCH IS 
DEPENDENT ON WHAT HE REMEMBERS 

English: 
AND WHAT HE'S TESTIFYING ABOUT 
AND WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT HE TOLD PEOPLE IN THE PAST.
WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT WITH 
PEOPLE THAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY.
IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING, AND I 
DON'T WANT TO GO SO FAR AS TO 
SAY SOMEBODY IS COMMITTING 
PERJURY EVER BECAUSE PERJURY IS 
JUST NOT THAT EASY TO PROVE 
ULTIMATELY.
>> THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE 
OR THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIMILAR
QUESTION OR SIMILAR ISSUE 
TOMORROW BECAUSE PEOPLE SAID 
GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFIES 
TOMORROW OR HE'S STEPPED BACK ON
HIS TESTIMONY.
HE MAY BE IN A POSITION WHERE HE
HAS TO DO THAT TOMORROW.
>> I DON'T NORMALLY TALK ABOUT 
THE VIBE I GET FROM A 
TRANSCRIPT, BUT GORDON SONDLAND 
SOUNDS TO ME, THE ONE THAT'S 
BEEN RELEASED, KEEP IN MIND, WE 
ALREADY KNOW THE THINGS GORDON 
SONDLAND SAID IN 300 PAGES OF 
TESTIMONY, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT EMERGES FROM HIS TESTIMONY 
IS SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO 
HEDGE HIS BETS.
HE WAS ORDERED BY THE FROM THE 
GO TALK TO RUDY ABOUT WHATEVER 
RUDY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
HE THEN PASSES THAT ON TO OTHER 
FOLKS.
WELL, THAT WAS REALLY PERRY'S 
JOB.

English: 
THAT WAS VOLKER'S JOB.
I GENERALLY KNEW ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS ABOUT 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS.
THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DOWN 
WITH.
BUT THE OTHER STUFF I SORT OF 
KNEW AND THIS BIDEN STUFF I 
FOUND OUT LATER.
THEN WHEN IT GETS SQUISHY, 
DANGEROUS, HE FALLS BACK ON A 
LOT OF "I DON'T REMEMBERS."
AND THEY ARE THE KIND OF THINGS 
THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE OPERATING 
AT A HIGH LEFRL AND DEALING WITH
IMPORTANT THINGS EVERY DAY, THAT
YOU PROBABLY SHOULD REMEMBER.
>> IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM
A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE 
TREATING THIS AS A TRIAL OF 
SORTS, IS THAT WHAT REPUBLICANS 
WANT FOR PEOPLE TO SORT OF BE --
OR NOT BE CLEAR ON WHAT 
HAPPENED?
DOES THIS HELP THEM MAKE THEIR 
CASE THAT THIS IS NOT A 
SPECIFIC -- 
>> REPUBLICANS HAVE AN UPHILL 
BATTLE.
THEY'RE DEALING WITH WITNESSES 
WHO ON THE WHOLE IN THE LAST 
WEEK, THEIR CREDIBILITY, AT 
LEAST IN TERMS OF THEIR 
CHARACTER, THEIR EXPERIENCE, 
THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
AND I DON'T MEAN PERSONAL 
KNOWLEDGE AS A PERSIPIENT 
WITNESS, SOMEONE WHO SAW 
SOMETHING HAPPEN.

English: 
THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE 
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THEIR 
EXPERIENCE IN THEIR JOBS.
IT'S UNQUESTIONABLE.
YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE THAT.
SO FOR THE REPUBLICANS, IT HAS 
BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO 
MOUNT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THESE 
WITNESSES BECAUSE OF THEIR 
CHARACTER.
I MEAN, IT'S UNQUESTIONED.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE 
TO GO BACK TO CREDIBILITY 
ISSUES.
AND THEY DO THAT BY SAYING NOT 
THAT YOU ARE A LIAR OR YOU ARE 
NOT A CREDIBLE PERSON, BUT THAT 
YOU DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND MG.
YOU DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND 
INFORMATION.
YOU DIDN'T SAY THE WORD BRIBE.
YOU WERE JUST WORRIED ABOUT 
SOMETHING.
AND YOU SKIPPED THE CHAIN OF 
COMMAND, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
YOU DID ALL THESE OTHER THINGS 
THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE
DONE.
THIS IS CLASSIC 
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BUT YOU HAVE TO PICK AND CHOOSE.
YOU CAN'T KNIT PICK THINGS IN A 
CROSS-EXAMINATION WHEN YOU ARE 
CROSS-EXAMINING A WITNESS FOR A 
INJURY.
JURIES KNOW THAT SOMETIMES 
PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER WAS IT A 
RED SHIRT OR BLUE SHIRT.
IF YOU BEAT UP ON A WITNESS THAT
MUCH IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE 
JURY MIGHT NOT TAKE IT OUT OF 
THE WITNESS.
THEY MIGHT TAKE IT OUT ON THE 

English: 
CROSS-EXAMINING LAWYER.
>> I WANT TO STAKE WITH THE 
REPUBLICANS.
LAST WEEK WE TALKED ABOUT HOW 
THEY RELIED ON THIS ARGUMENT.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE.
IT WAS HEARSAY.
THAT CHANGED WHEN WE HEARD FROM 
VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS.
THEY WERE ON THAT CALL.
DID REPUBLICANS DO A GOOD JOB OF
SHIFTING THEIR STRATEGY OF 
HANDLING THIS DIFFERENTLY 
BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GO TO THE 
HEARSAY ARGUMENT ANYMORE?
>> THEY HAD TO BUT IN A SENSE IT
WAS SIMILAR TO THE HEARSAY 
ARGUMENT OF LAST WEEK.
WE CONCEDE THAT YOU HEARD WHAT 
YOU HEARD ON THE PHONE CALL.
BUT YOU DIDN'T REALLY HEAR ALL 
THIS OTHER STUFF THAT WAS GOING 
ON.
YOU NEVER TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT BEFORE.
YOU NEVER MET RUDY GIULIANI.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN 
GIULIANI'S HEAD OR IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S HEAD.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHY HE MADE THAT 
DECISION.
AND HE'S THE PRESIDENT.
HE'S ALLOWED TO MAKE A LOT OF 
VERY HIGH LEVEL COMMANDARGUABLY.
THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY WASN'T 
THAT DIFFERENT.
IN TERMS OF SAYING THIS IS 
HEARSAY, YOU AREN'T A PERCIPIENT
WITNESS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN AS TO 
THE SMALL CIRCLE OF THINGS, BUT 
YOU ARE JUST A COG IN THE WHEEL 

English: 
OF LIFE WITNESS.
YOU ONLY KNOW A SMALL CIRCLE AND
THE GIANT CIRCLE OF FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS, YOU WERE NOT PRIVY TO.
>> HOW ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT 
CASE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO LAY
OUT TODAY.
HOW DID THEY DO?
>> THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB 
OF CALLING WITNESSES WHOSE 
CREDIBILITY IS STRONG, EVEN 
THOUGH IT MAY BE SECONDHAND 
INFORMATION OR THEY MAY NOT KNOW
ALL THE POSSIBLE FACTS.
THEIR CHARACTER IS IMPECCABLE.
THEY ARE CAREER SERVANTS.
AND THERTHS THING THAT CONGRESS 
IS DOING, THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
DOING IS EDUCATING THE PUBLIC.
FOR THE MOST PART, PEOPLE DON'T 
REALLY KNOW WHAT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE DOD AND OUR 
FOREIGN SERVICE CORPS, WHAT THEY
DO ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.
IN MANY WAYS, HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
ARE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO 
EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE WAY
THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE 
AND THEN THE WAY THINGS WERE 
ACTUALLY DONE.
AND THAT'S THE WAY THEY PAINT A 
PICTURE OF SOMETHING BEING 
ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF UKRAINE 
BECAUSE OF ALL THIS BACK CHANNEL
ACTIVITY THAT WAS GOING ON AND 

English: 
THE FACT THAT YOU HAD SOMEONE IN
RUDY GIULIANI THAT WAS DOING 
SOMETHING THESE FOLKS HAD NEVER 
SEEN BEFORE.
JUST ON THEIR FACE, IT SURE 
SMELLS FUNNY.
>> TALK ABOUT HOW THE 
REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT HALLIE
JACKSON IS OUTSIDE THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
DO WE KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WATCHING TODAY, AND HOW HAS HE 
REACTED?
>> WE DO KNOW HE WAS WATCHING.
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
REPRESENT MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 
CABINET ROOM IN THE WEST WING 
EARLIER TODAY AS A MEMBER OF THE
POOL.
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS TUNED IN.
HE THOUGHT REPUBLICANS, IN HIS 
WORDS, ARE ABSOLUTELY KILLING 
IT.
HE WAS HAPPY TO SEE HIS GOP 
ALLIES RALLYING AROUND HIM, 
DEFENDING HIM.
I ASKED THE PRESIDENT IF HE 
THOUGHT LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN WAS A GOOD WITNESS.
HE DIDN'T GO AFTER VINDMAN IN 
THE WAY HE ATTACKED YOVANOVITCH.
HE DID HE DID NOT KNOW HIM.
WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM SOURCES 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE THROUGHOUT 
THE DAY HAS BEEN ESSENTIALLY A 
SELECTIVE LOOK AT THE PARTS OF 

English: 
TESTIMONY FROM TIM MORRISON, 
FROM VINDMAN, FROM JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS, THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
STAFF AND OTHERS, THINGS THAT 
BACK UP THE ARGUMENT THEY'VE 
BEEN MAKING.
YOU ARE SEEING A LOT OF 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POINTS 
WHERE WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN 
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAD NO 
ISSUE WITH THE WAY THAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS PUT TOGETHER, 
RIGHT?
YOU ARE SEEING THE WHITE HOUSE 
ON THAT.
YOU ARE SEEING THEM SEIZE ON A 
POINT THAT TIM MORRISON IS 
TALKING ABOUT HOW HE -- HE HAS 
THOUGHTS ON THAT JULY 25th PHONE
CALL.
SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING AT
CERTAIN PIECES THAT, THIS IS NOT
SURPRISING.
OF COURSE THEY ARE SELECTING THE
PARTS THAT BACK UP THEIR 
ARGUMENT.
I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, THAT WE'VE 
ALSO SEEN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE 
TWITTER ACCOUNT FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S RETWEETS SOME ATTACK
ISSUES WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
NOW GOING AFTER HIM DIRECTLY BUT
RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS 
JUDGMENT FOR EXAMPLE.
THINGS THAT HIS FORMER BOSS SAID
ABOUT HIM THAT THEY FOUND 
PROBLEMATIC.
SO THERE IS THIS MORE SUBTLE 

English: 
CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO DISCREDIT 
VINDMAN, WHICH AGAIN HAS SOME 
RISKS HERE.
TALKED ABOUT HIS MILITARY 
SERVICE.
TALKED ABOUT HIS FAMILY'S 
HISTORY COMING TO THIS COUNTRY 
AS A TODDLER, WHAT THAT MEANT TO
HIM, HIS FATHER AND OTHERS.
SOMEONE TRYING TO RELATE TO, I 
THINK, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 
THAT WAY.
SO BOTTOM LINE, YES, THE 
PRESIDENT TUNED IN.
WE'RE NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR 
THAT.
HERE'S WHAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING
FOR TOMORROW.
EU AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND.
THAT'S TESTIMONY THAT COULD BE 
PROBLEMATIC FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF 
EYEBALLS ZEROED IN ON WHAT 
SONDLAND MAY HAVE TO SAY 
TOMORROW AS WELL.
THERE'S BEEN A BACK AND FORTH 
THAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN ON THE 
USMCA.
IT'S CURRENTLY BEING NEGOTIATED,
WORKING ITS WAY THROUGHAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOW CLAIMING 
THAT NANCY PELOSI IS HOLDING UP 
THE VOTEOL ON THAT TRADE DEAL I 
ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY WHIP OR 
GAIN SUPPORT FOR AN IMPEACHMENT 
VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, 
THOSE ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT
TRUMP.

English: 
THAT'S ONE THING I WOULD WATCH, 
THE PRESIDENT GOING AFTER 
SPEAKER PELOSI, CALLING HER AN 
INCOMPETENT WOMAN.
I'M WONDERING HOW WE WILL SEE 
THAT DEVELOP.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE WE 
LET YOU GO.
THE PRESIDENT HINTED HE WOULD 
CONSIDER TESTIFYING.
ANY MORE TALK OF THAT TODAY?
>> Reporter: NO.
I ASKED HIM IF HE -- WHAT'S HE 
GOING TO DO?
HE DID NOT ANSWER.
I WOULD SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS 
HERE, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DANGLED THE POSSIBILITY OF HIM 
SPEAKING TFO INVESTIGATORS 
BEFORE.
NOTABLY DURING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION WITH 
ROBERT MUELLER.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD 
LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN TO THAT.
HE NEVER ACTUALLY APPEARED IN 
FRONT OF ROBERT MUELLER.
HE ANSWERED WRITTEN QUESTIONS.
RIGHT?
NANCY PELOSI AND OTHER DEMOCRATS
THAT I HAVE TALKED TO WOULD BE 
OKAY IF THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED 
THEIR WRITTEN QUESTIONS.
IF THIS GOES ANYWHERE, THAT'S 
POTENTIALLY WHERE THIS GOES.
YOU ARE HAVING ALLIES, LIKE 
LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JIM JORDAN 
WHO THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THE 
PRESIDENT WILL ACTUALLY APPEAR 
IN FRONT OF HOUSE INVESTIGATORS.

English: 
DEMOCRATIC SOURCES ARE SAYING 
THEY'RE NOT TAKING THAT 
SERIOUSLY.
THEY SAY IF THE PRESIDENT REALLY
WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HE WOULD 
LET PEOPLE LIKE MULVANEY TESTIFY
RATHER THAN BLOCKING THOSE 
POTENTIALLY KEY WITNESSES.TH
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING IS 
STARTING UP AGAIN.
>> DOMESTIC POLITICAL DEBATE IN 
THE U.S.
DOMESTIC POLITICAL NARRATIVE 
THAT OVERSHADOWS THAT.
YOU WERE RIGHT TO POINT THAT 
OUT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE. P
CAN YOU REPEAT THE READOUT YOU 
GOT Y OF THE JULY 25 CALL?
>> YES.
I RECEIVED A READOUT FROM A U.S.
PERSON AND A UKRAINIAN.
THE READOUT WAS THAT IT WAS A 
GOOD PHONE CALL, THAT IT WAS A 

English: 
CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL FOR 
THELA PRESIDENT'S WIN.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID REITERATE
HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION ANDS  PRESIDENT TRUM 
RENEWED HIS INVITATION FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT WAS AS 
YOU EXPECTED THE CALL TO GO?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO
TEE RYUP.
>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONCE AGAIN
THE JULY 25 TEXT THAT YOU WROTE 
WHICH WAS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU 
WERE RELAYING SO THAT HE COULD 
PREPARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
YOU WILL RECALL THIS, RIGHT?
YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS THE 
MESSAGE, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, 
HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING
PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE 
WILL INVESTIGATE, QUOTE, GET TO 
THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 
2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN -- 
THAT'S WHAT YOU EXPECTED FROM 
THE CALL?
>> I EXPECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY

English: 
WOULD BE CONVINCING IN HIS 
STATEMENT AND COMMENTS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS 
EXACTLY THAT, THAT HE WOULD 
INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM 
OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN 2016 
AND THAT IF HE WAS STRONG IN 
CONVEYING WHO HE IS AS A PERSON 
IN I DOING THAT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WOULD BE CONVINCE AND 
RENEW THE INVITATION TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE.
>> I YOU DON'T MENTION CORRUPTI 
IN THE TEXT, DO YOU?
THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT IN 
THIS?
>> THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT 
THERE.
INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAVE 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, THAT WOULD
BE CORRUPT, WOULD BE 
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION. 
>> YOU SAY IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN 
THAT INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN THE HAPAST.
YOU ARE AWARE, OF COURSE, THAT 
MOST INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TOED 
PAST?
>> YES. 
>> THAT DOESN'T REALLY MOVE THE 
NEEDLE, WHETHER IT'S CURRENT OR 
PAST IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECT OF 
THE INVESTIGATION.
>> THE SUBJECT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION.
>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE MEETING 

English: 
THAT YOU HAD ON JULY 26 WITH 
PRESIDENT 2 ZELENSKY AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> ON THE 26th?
WE HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, YES.
>> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT 
THE TOPIC OF INVESTIGATION DID 
NOT COME UP AT ALL.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DON'T RECALL THEM COMING 
UP, THE GENERAL PHONE CALL. 
>> YOU DIDN'T TAKE NOTES OF THAT
CALL -- THAT WAS MEETING?
>> I DID NOT. 
>> YOU HAD -- THERE WERE 
STAFFERS THERE TO DO THAT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> IF THERE ARE TWO STAFFERS WHO
TOOK NOTES OF THAT MEETING AND 
TESTIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT OF 
EITHER SENSITIVE TOPICS OR 
INVESTIGATIONS CAME UP, ARE WE 
BETTER OFFE TAKING THEIR WORD FR
IT THAN YOURS?
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT 
THEIR NOTES IF THEY WERE TAKEN 
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE 
MEETING. 
>> ANOTHER WITNESS TESTIFIES 
BEFORE US, LAURA COOPER, ABOUT A

English: 
MEETING THAT SHE HAD WITH YOU ON
JULY -- ON AUGUST 20th.
SHE RECALLED WITH SOME 
SPECIFICITY THAT MEETING, WHICH 
I BELIEVE WAS BASED ON HER 
NOTES, THAT YOU DESCRIBED THE 
STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE TRYING 
TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
MAKE TO -- I WILL QUOTE WHAT SHE
SAID, DISAVOW INTERFERENCE WITH 
U.S. ELECTIONS.
IF HE WERE TO AGREE DO THAT, SHE
TESTIFIED, THEN YOU THOUGHT IT 
MIGHT HELP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON 
SECURITYN ASSISTANCE.
IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE
CONVERSATION AS WELL?
>> NOT EXACTLY.
>> HOW DOES YOURS DIFFER?
>> I RECALL TALKING ABOUT THE 
STATEMENT THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED 

English: 
EARLIER, THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN 
IN THE SUBJECT OF THE EXCHANGES.
I DISCUSSED THAT THIS IS AN 
EFFORT WE ARE DOING.
THIS COULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING
A RESET OF THE THINKING OF THE 
PRESIDENT, THE NEGATIVE VIEW OF 
UKRAINE THAT HE HAD.
IF WE DID THAT, I THOUGHT THAT 
WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IN 
UNBLOCKING WHATEVER HOLD THERE 
WAS ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
THERE'S THIS NEGATIVE 
PRESUMPTION ABOUT UKRAINE.
GETTING THIS ON TRACK WOULD BE 
HELPFUL. 
>> YOU DON'T DOUBT THAT WHAT SHE
TESTIFIED IS INACCURATE, DO YOU?
>> I BELIEVE  SHE ACCURATELY 
REFLECTED WHATY SHE UNDERSTOOD 
FROM THE CONVERSATION.
>> YOU TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT 
ABOUT THE JUNE 28th CONFERENCE 
CALL THAT YOU HAD WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE DEPUTY 
SECRETARY WAS ON THE LINE. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE. 
>> AND SECRETARY PERRY BEFORE 
YOUTA LOOPED IN PRESIDENT 

English: 
ZELENSKY.
AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE 
PARTICIPANTS?
WAS PERRY NOT ON IT. 
>> I'M SURE KENT WAS NOT ON IT.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER 
SECRETARY PERRY WAS ON IT.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER I 
STAYED ON FORI PRESIDENT ZELENSY
JOINING THE CALL OR NOT.
>> WERE THERE ANY STAFF MEMBERS 
OR NOTE TAKERS ON THE CALL?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> WHY?
>> WE WERE HAVING A CALL AMONG 
OTHER 
OTHERSELF -- OURSELVES.
>> WE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THERE 
WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION OR WHAT YOU NEEDED
TO DO -- WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
NEEDED TO DO TO GET THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
>> I RECALL SEEING THAT IN 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY.

English: 
I BELIEVE THERE MAY  HAVE BEEN  
TEXT MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT.
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IS WE ARE 
LOOKING AT UKRAINE LOOKING INTO 
AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND 
BEING CONVINCING ABOUT THIS AND 
PRESENTING THE NEW TEAM AS A 
CHANGE IN UKRAINE.
>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE BURISMA AND 
THE SM2016 ELECTION?
>> YES.
YOU>> INTERPRETED THOSE TO BE OY
BECAUSE IN THEORY THEY WERE 
LOOKING INTOHE UKRAINIANS?
>> CORRECT.
>> WE CAN AGREE, CAN WE NOT, 
THAT THE  INVESTIGATION -- ALL 
THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WERE 
BARISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHAT YOU AMENDED YOUR 
TESTIMONY TO SAY IS THAT IN 
RETROSPECT, YOU DID NOT REALIZE 
THAT THE PURPOSE FOR MR. 
GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
WANT THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION 
WAS TO -- FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT 
AND DIGGING UP DIRT OR GETTING 

English: 
INFORMATION ON VICE-PRESIDENT 
BIDEN.
>> I LEARNED ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTERESTS IN 
INVESTIGATING BIDEN FROM THE 
PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT WHICH CAME
MUCH, MUCH LATER.
FROM GIULIANI, I DIDN'T KNOW HE 
WAS ACTIVELYIA PURSUING THIS.
I KNOW HE RAISED THIS WITH ME 
DIRECTLY AND I PUSHED BACK ON 
IT. T
>> YOU KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS PURSUING THIS WHEN 
HEG RAISED THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
HIMSELF. 
>> AGAIN, HE DIDN'T SPECIFY 
BIDEN.
HE DIDN'T SPECIFY BURISMA.
I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE GENERIC 
AND SOMETHING NOT APPROPRIATE 
FOR THAT MEETING.OM
>> I UNDERSTAND.
 BIDEN WASN'T MENTIONED.
WHEN INVESTIGATIONS ARE 
REFERENCED, IT'S BURISMA AND THE
2016 ELECTION?
>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. 
>> WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
RAISED THAT INVESTIGATION, HE 
DID THATIN IN RESPONSE FROM A 
QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIANS 
ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, 

English: 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
>> WHEN -- YOU SAID AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND MENTIONED SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS AT THE JULY 10th 
MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S 
OFFICE.
YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE.
>> YES .
>> DIDN'T HE MAKE THAT COMMENT 
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM 
THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT 
WHEN THEY COULD SCHEDULE THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING? T
>> THAT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT.
I REMEMBER THE MEETING 
ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING OVER 
AND THENRE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
BRINGING THAT UP.
>> IN THE JULY 2 OR 3 MEETING IN
TORONTO YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, YOU MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS TO HIM, RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE -- 
>> I WAS THINKING OF BURISMA AND
2016. 
>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT'S WHAT 
THE UKRAINIANS INTERPRETED 
REFERENCES TOPR INVESTIGATIONS  
BE RELATED TO BURISMA AND THE 
2016 ELECTION?
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY AT 

English: 
THAT TIME IF WE TALKED THAT 
SPECIFICALLY WITH -- THAT WAS MY
ASSUMPTION, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN THINKING THAT, TOO.
>> MR. MORRISON, WHEN DID YOU 
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH 
FIONA HILL ABOUT BURISMA AND THE
PARALLEL TRACK -- PARALLEL 
PROCESS INVOLVING P AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI?
>> WE HAD A NUMBER OF 
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 
15 JULY.
. 
>> IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU 
WERE AWARE OF THIS EFFORT TO 
PROMOTE THIS TH ABURISMA 
INVESTIGATION THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI WERE 
GOING ABOUT OR YOU HAD HEARD 
ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL?
>> I HAD HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR.
HILL.
>> I WANT TO PULL UP AN EXCERPT 
THAT QUOTES AN E-MAIL FROM JULY 

English: 
13.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE TO 
YOU, QUOTE, SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR 
ZELENSKY TO ASSURANCES OF NEW 
SHERIFF IN TOWN.
CORRUPTION ENDING, UNBUNDLING 
MOVING FORWARD AND ANY HAMPERED 
INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED 
TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY.
YOU RESPONDED, TRACKING.
WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEAN WHEN
HE WROTE TO YOU, ANY HAMPERED 
INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED 
TO MOVE A FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAD ANY 
UNDERSTANDING.
THESE ARE E-MAILS FROM JULY 13.
I WASN'T EVEN IN THE SEAT YET.
I KNEW THAT AMONG THE HEAD OF 
STATE MEETINGS WE WERE 
ATTEMPTING TO SCHEDULE WAS ONE 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
>> RIGHT.
BUT IT WAS BEFORE THIS THAT DR. 
HILL HADHA TOLD YOU ABOUT BURIS 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN 
PARTICULAR, HIS DESIRE FOR THIS 
PARALLEL PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE 
BURISMA, RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> SO YOU HAD THAT ASSOCIATION 

English: 
WHEN YOUYO RECEIVED HIS E-MAIL 
ASKING YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS,
CORRECT?
>> NOT NECESSARILY.
>> NO?
>> NO. 
>> WHY NOT?>>
>> AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD 
WITH HILL WAS SONDLAND.
SHE MIGHT HAVE COINED IT THE 
GORDON PROBLEM.
I DECIDED TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS DOING.
I DIDN'T NECESSARILYON ALWAYS A 
ON THINGS GORDON SUGGESTED, HE 
BELIEVED WERE IMPORTANT.
HE WANTED TO GET A MEETING.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED TO DO AND HAD AGREED TO A
MEETING.
SO I WAS WORKING -- I WAS 
TRACKING THAT WE NEEDED TO 
SCHEDULE A MEETING.KI
>> YOU WERE NOT ENDORSING THE 
NOTION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS?
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

English: 
>> THAT IS MY TESTIMONY.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
JUMP AHEAD.
AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED, YOU 
WENT TO A CONFERENCE IN UKRAINE.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, WHO TESTIFIED BASED ON 
DETAILED NOTES, INDICATED THAT 
EARLIER -- A FEW DAYS BEFORE 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
TOLD HIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
A BUSINESSMAN AND SO BEFORE HE 
WRITES A CHECK, HE LIKES TO SEE 
PEOPLE PAY UP.CH
YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT. 
>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
TESTIMONY.RE I
>> YOU ARE ALSO FAMILIAR THAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT YOU 
SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO 
HIM WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINE FOR
THE CONFERENCE.
DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?
>> I Y DO.
I WAS REPEATING WHAT GORDON 
SONDLAND HADOR SAID TO ME TO 

English: 
EXPLAIN TO BILL TAYLOR WHAT THAT
UNDERSTANDING WAS.
>> IN WHAT CONTEXT DID 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THAT TO 
YOU?
>> I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUN
THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
HE WAS SAYING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT, HE HAS A NEGATIVE 
VIEW OF UKRAINE.
HE SEES A CHECK ON HIS DESK 
THAT'S GOING TO THE UKRAINIANS.
NOT SURE ABOUT THEM.
HE WANTS TO HOLD ON TO IT UNTIL 
HE IS ASSURED.
>> RIGHT.
THE .PAY-UP BEFORE HE WRITES TH 
CHECK IS TO GET THE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME. 
>> WHAT DID YOU THINK IT MEANT?
>> I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A 
PAY-UP.
THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR.
I HAD HEARD FROM GORDON THAT HE 
SEES THIS CHECK, HE'S NOT SURE 
HEOT WANTS TO -- HE WANTS TO MA 
SURE HE HAS A DEAL WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS.
I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OTHER
THAN THE GENERIC FORMULATION.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> 15 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES.

English: 
>> DO YOU EXPECT MORE OF THESE 
MAGICAL 15-MINUTE DEVOTIONS THAT
YOU COME UP WITH IN THE BACK?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MAGICAL THEY
ARE.
THEY ARE PRESCRIBED BY 
RESOLUTIONS THAT WE CA HAVE UP 
TO 45 H MINUTES.
THIS IS PART OF THE PROCEDURE 
UNDER THEDU HOUSE RESOLUTION.
>> DO YOU EXPECT YOU WILL HAVE 
MORE?YO
>> I DO NOT EXPECT MORE WILL BE 
NECESSARY. N
>> FOR EVERYONE WATCHING, THIS 
IS, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW OUT F
CONTROL THIS PROCESS HAS BECOME.
THE DEMOCRATS JUST MAGICALLY 
GIVE THEMSELVES ADDITIONAL 
MINUTES.
WITH THE SPECIAL NOTE THEY CAN 
DO.
YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULDHE HA 
THELD DECENCY TO TELL US YOU AR 
GOING TO HAVE 15 MINUTES MORE.
I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN GO FOUR
HOURS, WE CAN GO FIVE HOURS.
WE WILL GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT.
YOU CAN KEEP DIGGING.

English: 
THE DEEPER THE HOLE YOU DIG, THE
MORE VIEWERS WILL TURN OFF.
PEOPLE JUST AREN'T BUYING THE 
DRUG DEAL THAT YOU GUYS ARE 
TRYING TO SELL.
I WOULD ADD THAT SINCE WE ARE 
GETTING INTO PRIME TIME, THESE 
ARE TWO WITNESSES THAT WERE YOUR
WITNESSES, THAT YOU CALLED IN TO
DEPOSE.
WE STILL ASK FOR WITNESSES THAT 
YOU DID NOT DEPOSE, INCLUDING 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO YOU AND 
OTHERS CLAIM NOT TO KNOW, WHICH 
WE STILL NEED TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF N THAT.
IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL
FACT WITNESS TO HOW THIS WHOLE 
MESS BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SECONDLY, WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE 
DNC OPERATIVES THAT WERE WORKING
WITH UKRAINIANS TO DIG UP DIRT 
FOR U WHAT YOU CALL -- OR WHAT E
LEFT CALLS CONSPIRACY THEORIES, 
WHICH THEY ARE ESRIGHT, THEY WI 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND DIRT 
THEY DUG UP TO SPIN THEIR OWN 
THEORIES TO ATTACK THE TRUMP 

English: 
CAMPAIGN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR 
THESE WITNESSES.
I KNOW OUR MEMBERS DO.
YOU HAVE A LITTLE CLEANUP HERE?
>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES.
I WILL TRY TO BE QUICK AND 
YIELD
TIME BACK
ARE YOU AWARE OF A STATEMENT 
JUST LAST WEEK FROM THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER ABOUT THE -- HE SAID NO
ONE TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, 
CERTAINLY NOT HIM, THAT THERE 
WAS ANY T LINK BETWEEN THE 
SECURITY T ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I SAW THAT STATEMENT.
>> DO YOU KNOW THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER?
>> I DO. 
>> DURING TIMES RELEVANT, DID 
YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH 
HIM ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS AND
LINKS?
>> NOT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH
HIM.
I BELIEVE I KEPT THAT DISCUSS TO
OTHERS.
WE DID DISCUSS WITH THEUS PRIME 
MINISTER AND AT THE TIME HIS 
DIPLOMATIC ADVISER SECURITY 

English: 
ASSISTANT AFTER AUGUST 29.
>> THE PRIMARY PERSON YOU WORKED
WITH IS MR. YERMAK?
>> YES.
HE ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
DID HE -- DID HE GIVE YOU 
FEEDBACK WITH HIS INTERACTIONS 
WITHCK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?
>> I CAN'T SAY WHETHER HE DID OR
DIDN'T.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES
AS WE WENT ALONG.TA
>> THE EPISODE AT WARSAW WHERE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED HIM 
ASIDE.
DID HE GIVE YOU -- DID HE GIVE 
YOU ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT?
>> I DID NOT GET ANYTHING 
SPECIFIC AFTER THAT.
THIS WAS AROUND, I BELIEVE, 
SEPTEMBER 1 OR 2.
IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT I HAD 
BEEN, I H THINK, TEXTED AND WASN
TOUCH WITH HIM WHERE I TOLD THEM
BOTH AND THE DEFENSE MINISTER, I
TOLD THEM ALL, DON'T WORRY, WE 
KNOW ABOUT THIS, WE'RE TRYING TO
FIX IT.Y,

English: 
I THINK I LEFT THE CONVERSATION 
AT THAT.
>> THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, THEY
TRUSTED YOU?
>> VERY MUCH SO.
WE HAD A VERY CLOSE 
RELATIONSHIP. 
>> WHEN YOU MADE STATEMENTS LIKE
THAT TO THEM, DO YOU THINK THEY 
BELIEVED ME?
>> I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE OTHER
CONVERSATIONS AND THEY WOULD 
HEAR THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT I THINK THAT THEY KNEW I WAS
SINCERE. 
>> THEY TRUSTEDHIWA AMBASSADOR  
 
TAYLOR?
>>YES. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO DEMYSTIFY THE
MAYOR GIULIANI ROLE.
YOU MET WITH HIM ONE TIME?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> YOU EXCHANGED TEXT MESSAGES?
>> YES.
>> WE SORT OFSA DID AN ACCOUNTI 
OF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. 
GIULIANI.
IT WASN'T CR. -- THERE WEREN'T  
MANY.
WE ACCOUNTED FOR THEM ALL.
THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHEN 

English: 
HE CAME IN, HE DIDN'T HAVE -- HE
DIDN'T HAVE ANY ONE ON ONE 
MEETINGS WITH MAYOR GIULIANI.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK HE TESTIFIED THATCOR 
THERE WERE A COUPLE CONFERENCE 
CALLS THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON 
WITH YOU. 
>> THAT IS TRUE.
>> GETTING BACK TO THE REGULAR 
CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
COINED IN HISAY DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY, DID YOU EVER HAVE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF CLOSE THE
LOOP WITH HIM ABOUT ANY CONCERNS
WHATSOEVER OR WAS IT ALL THESE 
SPECIFIC INSTANCES RAISED IN THE
TEXTS?
>> ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC 
INSTANCES. 
>> DO YOU THINK AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR INR YOUR COMMUNICATIONS 
WITH HIM BELIEVES MR. GIULIANI 
WAS IN GREATER COMMUNICATION 
WITH YOURSELF, SECRETARY PERRY 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

English: 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE THOUGHT.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> I HAVE NOTHING MORE.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN ALLOW US TO 
YIELD TO ONE U OF OUR MEMBERS?
>> THE HOUSE RULES DON'T PERMIT 
THAT, MR. NUNES.
>> WE YIELD BACK.
>> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.OG
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT 
SOMETHING IN YOURAS OPENING 
STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 
JULY 10 MEETING.
YOU TESTIFIED, PARTICIPATED IN 
THE JULY 10 MEETING BETWEEN 
BOLTON ANDWE UKRAINIAN CHAIRMANF
THEKR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
AS I REMEMBER, IT WAS OVER WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE A 
COMMENT ABOUTD INVESTIGATIONS.
I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS
INAPPROPRIATE.
THE CONVERSATION DID NOT 
CONTINUE AND THE MEETING 
CONCLUDED.TI
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE ASKED 
ABOUT THAT AND YOU TOLD US 
NOTHING ABOUT THIS.

English: 
I BELIEVE WE ASKED YOU ABOUT WHY
THE MEETING CAME TO AN END.
WHY YOU HAD EARLIER INDICATED I 
THINK TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT 
IT DID NOT GO WELL AND YOUR 
ANSWER WAS THEY WERE IN THE 
WEEDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY. 
>> THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBERED, 
WHAT I PROVIDED IN MY STATEMENT.
AS I SAID, I LEARNED OTHER 
THINGS, INCLUDING SEEING THE 
STATEMENTS FROM FIONA HILL AND 
THAT REMINDED ME THAT, YES, AT 
THE VERY END OF THE MEETING, AS 
IT WAS RECOUNTED IN VINMAN'S 
STATEMENT, I DID REMEMBER THAT.
YES, THAT'S RIGHT, GORDON DID 
BRING THAT UP AND THAT WAS IT.
>> AT THE TIME WE DEPOSED YOU 
FOR SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT HOURS 
AND WE WERE ASKING YOU ABOUT 
WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, YOU DIDN'T 
REMEMBER GORDON SONDLAND HAD 
BROUGHT THIS UP IN A JULY 10th 

English: 
MEETING WITH UKRAINIANS AND 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED AN END 
TO THE MEETING?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON DESCRIBED THAT
AS SOME DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND 
AND MULVANEY COOKED UP.
YOU HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT?
>> IN  TERMS OF GORDON BRINGING 
IT UP, NO, I DID NOT REMEMBER 
THAT AT THE TIME OF MY OCTOBER 3
TESTIMONY.
I READ THE ACCOUNT BY ALEX.
THAT JOGGEDAD MY MEMORY.
YES, THAT DID HAPPEN.
I DID NOT RECALL IT BEING AN 
ABRUPT END.
THE MEETING WAS ESSENTIALLY OVER
AND WE GOT UP, WE WENT OUT TO 
THE LITTLE CIRCLE IN FRONT OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
WE TOOK A FEDERAL.
IT DID NOT STRIKE ME AS ABRUPT.
>> AMBASSADOR, YOU SAID IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY, I THINK ALL OF 
US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
IF AS YOU SAY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND ONLY MENTIONED 
INVESTIGATIONS IN BOLTON MEETING
AND YOU DON'T RECALL HIM BEING 
MORE SPECIFIC, ALTHOUGH OTHERS 
HAVE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS IN 

English: 
THE WAR ROOM, WHY DID YOU THINK 
IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE?
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING OF
AN EYE ROLL MOMENT WHERE YOU 
HAVE A MEETING, YOU ARE TRYING 
TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 
BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.
WE HAVE THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AND N DEFENSE COUNCIL.
IT WAS A DISAPPOINTING MEETING.
I DON'T THINK THE UKRAINIANS GOT
AS MUCH OUTKR OF THAT IN TERMS  
THEIR PRESENTATION AS THEY COULD
HAVE.
THEN THIS COMES UP AT THE VERY 
END OF THE MEETING.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE 
TALKING ABOUT.
>> YOU HAVE SAID YOU THINK IT 
WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE 
UKRAINIANS TO DO INVESTIGATIONS 
OF 2016 AND BURISMA AS LONG AS 
IT DIDN'T MEAN THE BIDENS, 
SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOW D -- I 
UNDERSTAND YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN 
OTHERWISE.
BUT IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE, WHY 
ARE YOU SAYING TODAY THAT ALL OF
US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE?
>> BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE PLACE 
OR THE TIME TO BRING UP THAT.
THIS WAS A MEETING BETWEEN 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND 

English: 
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL, 
FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING WE ARE 
HAVING BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE 
UNITED STATES AFTER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ELECTION.ND
>> IS PART OF THE REASON IT'S 
INAPPROPRIATE ALSO THAT IT WAS 
BROUGHT UPRI IN THE CONTEXT OF 
TRYING TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING?
>> POSSIBLY.
ALTHOUGH, I DON'T RECALL THAT 
BEING -- I KNOW THIS WAS THE 
COUNSEL'S QUESTION.
I DON'T REMEMBER
 THE EXACT 
CONTEXT OF WHEN THAT CAME UP.
I VIEWED THE MEETING AS HAVING 
ENDED.
>> I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR 
UPDATED TESTIMONY THAT YOU THINK
IT'S OBJECTIONABLE TO SPEAK TO 
GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL.
AM I RIGHT?
>> TO INVESTIGATE THE 
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, SOMEONE WHO-P IS A U.S. 
OFFICIAL.
>> YOU RECOGNIZED WHEN YOU DID 

English: 
SEE THE CALL RECORD, THAT'S WHAT
TOOK PLACE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER THINKS IT'S INAPPROPRIATE
TO ASK THE FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE
TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. PERSON, 
LET U ALONE A POLITICAL RIVAL, T
YOU SAID YOU HAD NO CONCERN WITH
THAT.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE?
>> AS HYPOTHETICAL, I DO NOT.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 
HYPOTHETICAL. I
READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
IN THAT TRANSCRIPT, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT NOT ASK ZELENSKY TO 
LOOK INTO THE BIDENS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ONLY TELL
YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING AT THE 
TIME.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD 
THE PRESIDENT TO BE DOING.
>> NONETHELESS, THIS WAS THE 
FIRST AND ONLY TIME WHERE YOU 
WENT FROM LISTENING TO A 
PRESIDENTIAL CALL DIRECTLY TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, IS
IT NOT?
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT YOUR 
CONCERN WAS NOT THAT IT WAS 
UNLAWFUL BUT THAT IT MIGHT LEAK.
IS THAT RIGHT?

English: 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THE PROBLEM WITH LEAKING IS 
THAT WHAT WOULD BE LEAKING IS A 
PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN HEAD 
OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE MR. 
BIDEN.
ISN'T THAT THE PROBLEM?
>> I BELIEVE I STATED I HAD 
THREE I CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE 
IMPACT OF THE CALL LEAKING MIGHT
BE.
>> IF IT WAS A PERFECT CALL, 
WOULD YOU HAVE HAD A CONCERN OF 
IT LEAKING?
>> NO.
I WOULD STILL HAVE A CONCERN 
ABOUT IT LEAKING.
>> WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS
APPROPRIATE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE 
JOHN KASICH OR NANCY PELOSI OR 
TO INVESTIGATE AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER?
>> IN THE HYPOTHETICAL CASES, 
NO, NOT APPROPRIATE. 
>> BUT YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT 
JOEOT BIDEN?
>> AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO 
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME.

English: 
WHY I ACTED THE WAY I DID AT THE
TIME.CT
>> FINALLY, MY COLLEAGUES ASKED 
ABOUT,ED WELL, DOESN'T AID GET 
HELD UP FOR ALL KINDS OF 
REASONS?
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU HAVE SEEN
MILITARY AID HELD UP BECAUSE A 
PRESIDENT WANTED HIS RIVAL 
INVESTIGATED?
>> I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT.
>> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT MR. 
WILLIAMS?
MR. MORRISON, I'M SORRY.
>> NO. 
>> IOR YIELD. 
>> YOU TOOK TWO ADDITIONAL 
MINUTES.
ARE YOU GIVING OUR SIDE SEVEN 
MINUTES?
>> OF COURSE.
>> I RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER. 
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO 
YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR SERVICE IN
GOVERNMENT.
OUR COUNTRY IS SAFER TODAY 
BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF BOTH OF 
YOU MEN.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT DURING 
ALL THE TESTIMONY, NO ONE HAS 

English: 
EVER ALLEGED THAT EITHER OF YOU 
HAVE DONE ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE
OR IMPROPER AND EVERYONE HAS 
SPOKEN OF BOTH OF YOU AS HAVING 
A HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM 
AND A HIGH DEGREE OF ETHICAL 
STANDARDS.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER I APPRECIATED 
YOUR COMMENTS OF YOUR WORK TO 
FOCUS ON T RUSSIA AS AN INVASIO 
OF UKRAINE AND OCCUPATION AND 
YOUR WORK ON LEGAL DEFENIVE 
ARMS.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE JAVELINS?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE?
>> A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. 
>> MR. MORRISON, TELL US ABOUT 
YOUR MILITARY SERVICE.
>> MR. TURNER, I'M A U.S. NAVAL 
RESERVE OFFICER..S
I'M AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
>> WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW 
SCHOOL?
>> GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.
>> GENTLEMEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF TALK ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP 
THE PACE.
THESE ARE SHORT PERIODS OF TIME.

English: 
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT 
WHAT THEY HEARD AND THEIR 
UNDERSTANDINGS AND THEIR 
THOUGHTSY .UN
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT, 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL HAD 
CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER.
THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT.
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS WITH
RESPECT TO THESE PEOPLE TALKING 
AND THEIR FEELINGS AND THEIR 
THOUGHTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS, IT 
COMES DOWN TO WHAT DID THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
INTEND AND WHAT DID HE SAY AND 
WHAT DID THE UKRAINIANS 
UNDERSTAND OR HEAR?
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU ARE ONE 
OF THE FIRST PEOPLE IN THE OPEN 
TESTIMONY THAT'S HAD 
CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH.
I GET TO ASK YOU, YOU HAD A 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
YOU BELIEVED THAT THE POLICY 
ISSUES THAT HE RAISED CONCERNING
UKRAINE WERE VALID, CORRECT?
>> YES.CE
>> DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES EVER SAY TO YOU 

English: 
THAT HE WAS NOTAY GOING TO ALLO 
AID TO GO TO THE UKRAINES UNLESS
THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS?
>> NO, HE DID NOT.
>> DID THE UKRAINIANS EVER TELL 
YOU THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT 
THEY WOULD NOT GET A MEETING 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, A PHONE CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM
THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THEY 
UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF 
BURISMA,ED BI THE BIDENS OR THE 
ELECTION?
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT 
BELIEVE OROE INTENDED AND THE 
UKRAINIANS DON'T UNDERSTAND IT 
AND YOU ARE I THE ONLY ONE WHO 
STANDS IN BETWEEN THEM -- 
AMBASSADOR, THE THREE AMIGO 
THING OR WHATEVER THAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO DISPARAGE YOU WITH, 
YOU ARE NOTOU PART OF AN IRREGUR
CHANNEL, RIGHT?
AREN'T YOU THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> EXPLAIN THAT.
EXPLAINAT HOW YOU ARE THE OFFICL
CHANNEL. 
>> I WAS APPOINTED BY SECRETARY 
OF STATE, SECRETARY TILLERSON IN
JULY OF 2017, TO BE THE U.S. 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 

English: 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS.
THAT'S A ROLE THAT'S DIFFERENT 
FROM T ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
STATE OR DIFFERENT FROM 
AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE.
THAT ROLE IS FOCUSED ON THE 
DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES 
SURROUNDING THE EFFORTS TO 
REVERSE T RUSSIA'S INVASION AND 
OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE.
IT IS MINSK IMPLEMENTATION, IT'S
SUPPORT FROM NATO, IT'S SUPPORT 
FOR SANCTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, IT'S THE MONITORING 
MISSION, IT'S THE EFFORTS OF 
INDIVIDUAL ALLIES LIKE POLAND, 
THE UK, CANADA THAT ARE 
SUPPORTING UKRAINE.
IT IS WORK AT A SENIOR LEVEL IN 
THE INTER-AGENCY.
>> I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF 
THERE.
YOU WERE ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE 
WHO HAS F ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO 
GIULIANI, THE SO-CALLED 
IRREGULAR CHANNEL.
ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAD 
FEELINGS AND UNDERSTANDINGS 
ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING.
DID GIULIANI EVER TELL YOU THAT 
THE UNITED STATES AID OR A 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT 

English: 
OCCUR FOR THE UKRAINIANS UNTIL 
THEY AGREED TO AN INVESTIGATION 
OF BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 
2016 ELECTION?
>> EVERYTHING I HEARD FROM HIM I
TOOK TO BE HIS OPINION. 
>> I WOULD  ASSUME THE UKRAINIAS
NEVER TOLD YOU THAT GIULIANI 
TOLD THEM THAT IN ORDER TO GET A
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, A 
PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
MILITARY AID ORCA FOREIGN AID FM
THE UNITED STATES THEY WOULD 
HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS?
>> NO.
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED 
YOU SPOKE TO M AMBASSADOR SONDLD
AND HE TOLD YOU OF A 
CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
ON PAGE 128 OF HIS TESTIMONY, HE
RELATES THE CONTENT OF A 
CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH 
THE PRESIDENT.
HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.
HE SAID, I -- HE WAS ASKED 
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WASS A QUI 
PRO QUO.
HE SAID, I DIDN'T FRAME THE 
QUESTION BASICALLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT THAT WAY.
I DID NOT FRAME THE QUESTION 

English: 
THAT WAY.
I ASKED THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION,
WHAT DO-E YOU WANT?
MR. SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY 
ASKING THIS QUESTION TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THISEN IS WHAT HE REPORTS THE 
PRESIDENT, HE SAID, I WANT 
NOTHING.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM 
ANYTHING.
I DON'T WANT ANYTHING FROM THEM.
I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT 
THING.
THAT'S WHAT HE -- HE KEPT 
REPEATING, NO QUID PRO QUO OVER 
AND OVER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO 
BELIEVE MR.N SONDLAND IS NOT 
TELLING THE TRUTH AS THE CONTENT
OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
>>NI NO, CONGRESSMAN.
>> DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY 
INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT 
ANYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THIS COMMITTEE EITHER IN THE 
SECRET TESTIMONY RELEASED OR IN 
THE OPEN TESTIMONY HAS PER JER D
PERJURED HIMSELF IN. 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT.AV. 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT.. 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT.. 

English: 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT.AVNKAVNKAV
>> HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS MOVE 
FORWARD.SE
DO YOU BELIEVE -- HE WAS TELLING
US HIS OPINION.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR OPINION 
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES DEMANDED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> NO, SIR.
>> TO BOTH OF YOU, UKRAINE IS 
ASPIRING TO THE EU.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EU.
IS THE UKRAINE IN THE AMBASSADOR
IT'S PORTFOLIO?
>> YES.
ALSO BECAUSE EU SANCTIONS ON 
UKRAINE ARE IMPORTANT.
>> MR. MORRISON?
>> I AGREE.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR 

English: 
TESTIMONY TODAY.YO
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DESCRIBED 
HIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS, QUOTE, 
PERFECT.
I THINK HE HAS DONE THAT ON 
TWITTER NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, BUT
BY COUNT 11 TIMES.
IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS 
CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFECT IS 
OF A PIECE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE
HEAR IN DEFENSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO THE 
UKRAINIANS.
THAT'S NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS
PURSUING ANTI CORRUPTION.
I'VE BEEN CONCERNED THAT THIS IS
NOT ABOUT GOING AFTER 
CORRUPTION, IT IS ABOUT AIMING 
CORRUPTION AT THE 
VICE-PRESIDENT.
MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED IN ON
THE CALL IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
SITUATION ROOM.
DID YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT 
MENTION THE COMPANY CROWDSTRIKE 
AND THE SERVER?
>> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. 
>>, DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUM 
MENTION THE BIDENS?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IN THE LENGTH OF THAT PHONE CALL

English: 
USE THE WORD CORRUPTION?
>> NO -- WELL, SIR, I DON'T 
BELIEVE HE DID.
>> WAS THE REQUEST THAT UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATE U CROWDSTRIKE AND T 
BIDENS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU 
UNDERSTOOD TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY TOWARDS COMBATING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?
>> SIR, IT WAS THE FIRST I HEARD
OF MUCH OF THIS.
>> IN FACT, IN YOUR DEPOSITION, 
YOU TESTIFIED YOU WANTED TO STAY
AWAYTO FROM WHAT YOU DESCRIBED  
THIS, QUOTE, BUCKET OF 
INVESTIGATIONS.
WHY DID YOU WANT TO
 STAY AWAY 
FROM THOSE ISSUES?
>> THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ADVISED 
BY DR. HILL. I
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL WAS NOT, AND 
I'M QUOTING YOU, THE 
FULL-THROATED ENDORSEMENT OF THE
UKRAINE REFORM AGENDA THAT I WAS
HOPING TO HEAR.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> SIR, WHAT WE -- MYSELF, THE 
COLONEL, OTHERS, WHAT WE 
PREPARED IN THE PACKAGE WE 
PROVIDED THE PRESIDENT WAS 

English: 
BACKGROUND ON PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, BACKGROUND ON HIS 
POSITIONS ABOUTIS REFORMING 
UKRAINE, FOREFORMING ITS 
INSTITUTIONS, ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION.
WE WERE HOPINGT  -- WE RECOMMEND
THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY SUPPORT 
WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RUN 
ON HIS OWN ELECTION AND WHAT HIS
PARTY HAD RUN ON IN ITS ELECTION
WHERE IT RECEIVED A MAJORITY 
MANDATE. 
>> THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN THE 
CALL, DID  IT?
>> NO, SIR. 
 YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER 
DISCUSSION IN WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT RAISED THOSE THINGS 
WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT?
>> CORRUPTION REFORM?
>> YES.
>> SIR, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME 
SINCE I REFRESHED MYSELF ON THE 
DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE AT 
THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY.CE
I HESITATE TO SAY DID HE EVER 
RAISE IT.
HE DID NOT RAISE IT AT THE TIME 
OF THE 25 JULY PHONE CALL. 
>> OKAY. T
SWITCHING A LITTLE BIT.
YOU STRIKE ME AS A PROCESS GUY.
IT'S NAGGING AT ME BECAUSE YOU 

English: 
CHARACTERIZED THE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND LINKING IN WHATEVER WAY
IT HAPPENED OF AID TO AN 
INVESTIGATION AS THE GORDON 
PROBLEM.
YOU SAID IT CAUSED YOU TO ROLL 
YOUR EYES. T
AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID EVERYBODY
THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
JOHN BOLTON CHARACTERIZED IT AS 
THE DRUG DEAL.
IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IN THE 
ROOM UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE'S A 
HUGE PROBLEM HERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT 
WOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF 
BUSINESS WHEN YOU HAVEL AN 
AMBASSADOR OUT THERE GOING ROGUE
AS APPARENTLY THERE WAS 
CONSENSUS THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS DOING, THAT NOBODY 
MIGHT REIGN THEM IN.
WHY DIDN'T THAT HAPPEN?
>> SIR, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
I WOULD AGREE THAT AMBASSADORS 
WORK FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
AND THE PRESIDENT.D 
>> DO YOU HAVE -- YOU DON'T HAVE
ANY IDEA -- YOU WORKED FOR HIM.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY JOHN

English: 
BOLTON WOULD CHARACTERIZE WHAT 
THE AMBASSADOR WAS DOING AS A 
DRUG DEAL BUT NOT REIGN HIM IN. 
>> AMBASSADORS DON'T WORK FOR 
THE NATIONAL'T SECURITY ADVISER.
>> BUT HE SPENDS TIME WITH THE 
SECRETARY OFS STATE.
I'M PUZZLED THAT EVERYBODY IN 
THE ROOM IS CHARACTERIZING THIS 
AS A GORDON PROBLEM OR 
INAPPROPRIATE OR A DRUG DEAL AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE DOES 
NOTHING.
>> SIR, I'M SORRY.
WAS THERE A QUESTION?
>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INSIGHT 
INTO  THAT?
>> NO, SIR. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU 
TESTIFIED YOU WERE TROUBLED ONCE
YOU READ THE RECORD OF THE CALL.
YOU TESTIFIED ASKING THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE TO LOOK
INTO THIS, YOU CAN SEE IT 
HAPPENS, THIS BECOMES EXPLOSIVE 
IN OUR POLITICS.
YOU CALLED OPPORTUNITY 
ACCEPTABLE.
WHAT'S SPECIFICALLY IN THAT CALL
TO THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT DO YOU 
FIND UNACCESSIBLE OR TROUBLING?
>> IT'S THE REFERENCE TO 
VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN.
>> THANK YOU.

English: 
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS MORNING WE HEARD ABOUT JULY
25.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A FAVOR.
THAT EQUIVALENT TO A DEMAND, AN 
ORDER, A REQUIREMENT.
AND YET IN THE LAST PART OF THE 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO 
HEADS OF STATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TALKS ABOUT A PROSECUTOR HE IS 
IN FAVOR OF AND WOULD LIKE TO 
SEE STAY THERE.
ZELENSKY SAYS, MR. PRESIDENT, 
NO, SINCE WE WON THE MAJORITY IN
OUR PARLIAMENT, THE NEXT WILL BE
MY PERSON, MY CANDIDATE.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A HEAD OF 
STATE WHO HAS BEEN COWED ORHA 
BULLIED AND IS UNDER THE THUMB 
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES?
>> NOT AT ALL.
>> NO, SIR.IT
>> THE IMPACT OF THE PAUSE THAT 
OCCURRED -- 55-DAY PAUSE IN THE 
ASSISTANCE, NONE OF US 
UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED
DURING THAT TIME FRAME. O
NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT OTHER THAN 
INTERNAL U.S. FOLKS UNTIL LATE 
AUGUST.

English: 
THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT 
NECESSARILY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT.
THUTE POTENTIAL IMPACT THAT I 
AGREE WITH RUSSIA'S 
INTERPRETATION OF OUR SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE WASN'T KNOWN UNTIL 
THE LAST 14 DAYS.
THE IMPACT ON THE AID THAT THEY 
HAD, SHOULD RUSSIA HAVE TRIED TO
MOVE THE LINE OF CONTACT FURTHER
WEST WITH THEIR TANKS, WOULD THE
LETHAL ASSISTANCE WE GIVE THEM 
BEENHE AVAILABLE TO THEM TO PUS 
BAN OF COURSE THAT?
>> YES IT WOULD.
>> MR. MORRISON?
>> I AGREE WITH THAT.
I WOULD ADD THE HOLD AS I 
UNDERSTOOD IT APPLIED TO 
E
UKRAINE'S SECURITY SYSTEMS, 
UASI.
IT DID NOT APPLY TO FMS.
THE JAVELINS WERE PROVIDED UNDER
FMS.ER
>> THE MOST LETHAL WEAPON THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT WAS 
AVAILABLE TO THEM SHOULD THE S 
RUSSIANS HAVE PUSHED THEIR TANKS
WEST?

English: 
>> YES, SIR.
>> EVEN WITH THE PAUSE.
EVEN WITH ALL THE STUFF GOING 
ON.
>> YES, SIR. AFF
>> "ASSOCIATED PRESS" IS 
REPORTING THAT THE RUSSIANS IN 
AN ACT OF WAR TOOK TWO GUNSHIPS 
AND 24 SAILORS.
THEY ARE REPORTING TODAY THAT 
THE -- THEY HAVE GIVEN THE 
GUNBOATS BACK.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE UKRAINE SIN
IS INEPT?
>> NO.
I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY -- THE
UKRAINES ARE INEPT.NEPT?
>> NO.
I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY -- THE
UKRAINES ARE INEPT.
>> I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU OR 
ONE OF YOUR LAWYERS MEMBERS TO 
PUT INTO THE RECORD THE FEDERAL 
STATUTE THAT PROVIDES FOR THE 
SALUTE IMMUNITY -- RIGHT TO 
IMMUNITY THAT YOU EXERTED OVER 

English: 
AND OVER AND OVER.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THERE.
IF IT IS A FEDERAL STATUTE 
AND/OR A BRIEF THAT YOU CAN 
CITE, PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD 
SO THAT WE WILL KNOW THAT.
BEFORE YOU GET MAD AND ACCUSE ME
OF WANTING TO OUT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, YOU GET UPSET 
EVERY TIME SOMEBODY ACCUSES YOU 
OF KNOWING WHO THE MISSILE 
BLOW 
WHISTLE-BLOWER NOIS.
I GET UPSET EVERY TIME YOU 
ACCUSE ME -- BECAUSE I WANT TO 
KNOW THESE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND W 
WANT TO KNOWST WHAT'S GOING ON,E
WANT TO OUT THAT INTERVIEWER.
IT'S UNFAIR.
THIS IS ABOUT LEVELIN THE 
PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE TWO 
TEAMS.
YOU KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
IS.
IT'S LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT YOU PUT 

English: 
IN THE RECORD THE BASIS ON WHICH
YOU CONTINUE TO ASSERT THIS 
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THE SPEAKER, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 
ISSUED -- YOUR LEAGUE, THAT'S A 
DOCUMENT THAT WE USED TO TALK TO
EACH OTHER.
IT'S WITH 434 OTHER MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE THE TRUTH.
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE 
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SHE SAID IN THAT -- YOUR LEAGUE 
THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS, BY 
LAW, IS REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO 
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.
YOU ARE DEFYING THE SPEAKER IN 
THIS RECORD.
I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BETWEEN YOU 
AND HER.
IF SHE'S CORRECT, THEN YOU ARE 
DEFYING THE LAW.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE MISLED
US INTO THINKING SOMETHING NOT 
TRUE, THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO 
TELL THE SPEAKER SHEEE NEEDS TO 
RETRACT THAT LETTER.
SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
IF THE SPEAKER IS -- IS THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER REQUIRED TO 

English: 
TESTIFY TO US OR NOT?IS
WHAT IS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO 
ANONYMITY THAT SHE QUESTIONED?
I YIELD BACK. 
>> TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I WILL PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
STATUTE INTO THE RECORD AS WELL 
AS THE PRIOR COMMENTS TALKING 
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF 
ANONYMITY OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS.
I RECOGNIZE MISS SEWELL. 
>> THANK YOU.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IT SEEMS BY 
EARLY JULY IT HAS BECOME CLEAR 
THAT MR. GIULIANI IS A MAJOR 
PROBLEM WITH THE RELATIONS.
YOU PREVIOUSLYOB TESTIFIED THATN
JULY 2, YOU MET WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND HIS AIDE
IN TORONTO.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I HAD A BILATERAL MEETING 
BETWEEN THEER U.S. AND UKRAINE 
DELEGATION.
>> THERE YOU DISCUSSED MR. 
GIULIANI'S, QUOTE, NEGATIVE 
VIEW, QUOTE, OF UKRAINE BASED ON
AAS CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE 
2016 ELECTION.

English: 
RIGHT?
>> I CONVEYED16 THAT HE WAS 
REPEATING A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE BASED ON 
ACCUSATIONS OF THE THEN 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL.
>> ARE YOU SAYING YOU DIDN'T 
THINK THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE 
VIEWS?
>> NO, NO.
THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE VIEWS.
>> BUT THAT WASN'T YOUR 
DESCRIPTION?
>> I'M SORRY.
I LOST THE QUESTION.
>> I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WHO 
SAID THE NEGATIVE -- 
>> THEIV PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF 
UKRAINE WAS PUTTING OUT THIS 
THEORY OF CONSPIRACY THAT I 
BELIEVE WERET SELF-SERVING AND 
INACCURATE.
MR. GIULIANI HAD REPEATED THESE 
TO ME.
SO I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS 
AFFECTED BY THOSES AND BELIEVED 
THOSE AND -- 
>> BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE?
>> BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE 
AND WAS CONVEYING THEM TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> WAS IT PROBLEMATIC HE 
BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE?

English: 
>> YES.
THE WHOLE THING WAS PROBLEMATIC.
>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED 
THAT ON JULYFI 2, YOU TOLD 
UKRAINIANS THEY NEEDED TO, 
QUOTE, COOPERATE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS, END QUOTE.
YOU ARE NOW SAYING YOU DON'T 
RECALL THAT -- SAYING THOSE 
WORDS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THE 
WORDS COOPERATE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> DID YOU SAY INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I BELIEVE I  DID, YES. 
>> WHAT DID YOUDI MEAN BY 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I MEANT BURISMA AND 2016 WAS 
THIS MY MIND.
I WANTED TO KEEP IT GENERAL.
UKRAINE, BEING CONVINCING TO 
GIULIANI AND HOPEFULLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS 
BY S FIGHTING CORRUPTION WOULD 
ENGAGE IN WHATEVERD 
INVESTIGATIONS NECESSARY TO 
CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY.
>> MOVING TO JULY 10, AMBASSADOR
VOLKER SENT YOU A TEXT.
YOU SENT A TEXT MESSAGE TO 
GIULIANI.
I THINK IT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW.
YOU SAID, MR. MAYOR, COULD WE 
MEET FOR COFFEE OR LUNCH IN THE 
NEXT WEEK ORN SO?

English: 
I WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE YOU ON MY
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT UKRAINE.
I WOULD LIKE -- I THINK WE HAVE 
AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET WHAT YOU 
NEED.PP
DID YOU SAY THAT?
IS THAT -- 
>> THAT'S AN ACCURATE TEXT 
MESSAGE.
>> WHAT DID YOU MEAN?
 > CONTACT WITH THE ACTUAL
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE, THE 
PEOPLE NOW REPRESENTING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM.
>> LATER THAT DAY YOU AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET WITH 
UKRAINE OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
WE HEARD FROM SEVERAL WITNESSES 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
THE UKRAINES THAT THEY NEEDED TO
COOPERATE WITH THE QUOTE, 
UNQUOTE, INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER
TO GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING.
WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS A PART
OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE?
>> U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE 
WAS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
>> WAS IT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 
THESE KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS?
YOU SAID THE INVESTIGATION WAS 
BURISMA -- 
>> INSM ORDER TO FIGHT CORRUPTI,
YOU NEED TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATIONS.

English: 
YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT UKRAINIAN 
CITIZENS HAVE BEEN UP TO.
>> WAS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT?
WAS ITTH BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT  
YOU KNEW -- THE PRESIDENT WANTED
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE DONE 
AS A CONDITION OF -- FOR THEM TV
HAVE A MEETING IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE?
>> WELL, FIRST OFF, WE HAVE TO 
BE CLEAR WHAT H WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT IN TERMS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
VICE-PRESIDENT KIBIDEN.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT -- 
>> BURISMA HAS NOTHING TO -- 
>> I'M SAYING WHETHER YOU 
UKRAINIANS WITHIN THE COMPANY 
HAD ACTED IN A CORRUPT WAY OR 
THOUGHT TO BUY INFLUENCE, THAT'S
LEGITIMATE TO INVESTIGATE.
IF UKRAINE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT 
ABOUT THEIR INTENTIONS ON 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
DOMESTICALLY, THAT'S HELPFUL IN 
ORDER TOFI CONVINCE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT THIS IS -- 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE 
HEARD FROM TWO WITNESSES THIS 
MORNING THAT THOSENE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT OFFICIAL

English: 
U.S. POLICY.NS
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I DON'T KNOW 
IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE 
GETTING YOURSELF INTO.
SITTING HERE TODAY, I TRUST YOU 
UNDERSTAND THAT PRESSURING 
UKRAINE TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN 
U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY IS SIMPLY 
WRONG.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME.D 
>> I YIELD MY TIME TO JIM 
JORDAN. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMEN.
YOU WERE THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE TO PEUKRAINE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WORKED AT 
THE  WNFC.
YOU WERE DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF STATE.
SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO 
NATO.
AND YOUR  DIPLOMATIC CAREER.
IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU, WHEN YOU 
REFER TO THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, 
BUT IT BOTHERS REPRESENTATIVE 
TURNER AND ME.
YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT, YOU WERE THE 
ADMINISTRATION'S MOST OUTSPOKEN 
PUBLIC FIGURE HIGHLIGHTS 
RUSSIA'S INVASION AND OCCUPATION
OF UKRAINE AND CALLING OUT 
RUSSIA'S RESPONSIBILITY IN THE 
WAR.

English: 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IN THAT CAPACITY, YOU 
STRONGLY Y ADVOCATING FOR LIFTI 
THE BAN OF LETHAL DEFENSE TO 
UKRAINE.
>> CORRECT. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL 
SKEPTICAL OF GIVING TAX DOLLARS 
TO UKRAINE?
>> YES. 
>> YOU SAID THAT IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
THE REASON IS THE GUY DOESN'T 
LIKE FOREIGN AID.
>> THAT'S ONE REASON.
UKRAINE'S HISTORY OF CORRUPTION 
IS ORANOTHER. 
>> THE THIRD MOST CORRUPT 
COUNTRY ON THE PLANET.
EUROPE ISN'T DOING ENOUGH.
BY THE NGWAY, IN THE PRESIDENT' 
MIND, HE DID THINK UKRAINE WAS 
TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 
ELECTION.NG
BECAUSE THINGS HAPPENED.
DEMOCRATS WANT TO DENY IT.
WHEN THE AMBASSADOR WRITES AN 
OP-ED CRITICIZING CANDIDATE 
TRUMP, THAT'S TRYING TO 
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.
WHEN A KEY MINISTER IN THEIR 
GOVERNMENT SAYS NEGATIVE THINGS 
ABOUT CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT 

English: 
LOOKS LIKE IT'S TRYING TO 
INFLUENCE THE CAMPAIGN.
WHEN THEY SAY THEY WANT HILLARY 
CLINTON TO WIN, THAT PROBABLY 
STICKS IN A CANDIDATE'S MIND.
WE RUN CAMPAIGNS.
PEOPLE SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT US.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY THINK GREAT
THINGS ABOUT THEM.
YOU WERE CONVINCED ZELENSKY WAS 
THE REAL DEAL. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH 
THE GUY.
GUESS WHAT?
WHEN AID WAS FROZEN, YOU KNEW IF
YOU COULD GET THESE TWO IT WOULD
WORK OUT.
WHAT DID YOU SAY?
YOU TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, DON'T 
WORRY ABOUT IT.
YOU SAID, DON'T BE ALARMED.
>> YEAH.
>> GUESS WHAT HAPPENED.
WHEN AID IS FROZEN AND WHETHER 
IT'S A RELEASED, ALL INTERACTIO 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
SENIOR U.S.ND OFFICIALS, RIGHT?
STARTS WITH THE CALL.
STARTS WITH THE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.H 
NEXT DAY YOU MEET WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN UKRAINE.
THEN WE HAVE AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
MEETING WITH HIM.
THEN VICE-PRESIDENT PENCE 

English: 
MEETING WITH HIM.
THEN WE HAVE US SENATORS JOHNSON
AND MURPHY MEETING WITH HIM.
GUESS WHAT?
IN NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, NOT A
SINGLE ONE THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION, NOT ONCE 
DID THEY COME UP.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> NOT ONCE.
NO DISCUSSION OF AID FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS.IS
AS YOU TESTIFIED, YOU NEVER 
BELIEVED AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS 
WAS EVER BEING TALKED ABOUT.
IN ANY OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE 
MEETINGS?
THEY BECAME CONVINCED OF THE 
SAME THING YOU KNEW.
THEY ALL SAW THE SAME DARN 
THING.
THIS GUY WAS THE REAL DEAL.
HE IS A LEGITIMATE REFORMER.
THEY ALL CAME BACK AND TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS GUY IS REAL.
GO AHEAD AND RELEASE THE 
DOLLARS.
BY THE WAY IN THE SAME TIME 
FRAME, S YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE 

English: 
HAPPENED?
THEIR PARLIAMENT, AS MR. 
MORRISON TESTIFIED TO, TO PASS 
REFORMS MEASURES, TO PUT IN THE 
SUPREME ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT, 
TO GET RID OF THISAN ABILITY TH 
NO ONE IN THEIR CONGRESS AND 
THEIRES PARLIAMENT COULD BE HIT 
WITH A CRIME.
THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE.
ALL THAT HAPPENED AND THEY COME 
BACK AND TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
GUESS WHAT, TIME TO RELEASE THE 
DOLLARS.
AND HE DID IT.
>> THE DOLLARS WERE RELEASED.
>> HE DID THE JOB.
YOU DID YOUR JOB.
YOU GOTTA PUT UP WITH THIS 
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE OUT TO
GET THIS PRESIDENT.
YOU DID YOUR JOB THE WAY MR. 
TURNER DESCRIBED YOU DID YOUR 
JOB OVER ALLID THESE YEARS.
ALL THESE YEARS.
THE DEMOCRATS PUT YOU THROUGH 
THIS.
YOU HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY 
WELL.GH
THE KIND OF DIPLOMAT WE WANT 
SERVING.
HERE IS THE SADDEST -- ONE OF 
THE SADDEST THINGS ABOUT ALL 
THIS, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
PUTTING US THROUGH.
YOU TWO GUYS WHO ARE HERE 
TELLING IT STRAIGHT, YOU BOTH 
DECIDED YOU ARE GOING TO STEP 
OUT OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF 

English: 
WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING.OF
THAT'S THE SAD THING.
PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
ARE STEPPING OUT OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE
GUYS ARE DOING.
THAT'S WHY MR. TURNER GOT FIRED 
UP AND WHY I'M FIRED UP.
WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DID.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
FOCUS ON THE PRESS STATEMENT 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY 
GIULIANI WANTED UKRAINE TO MAKE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU HAD 
THIS EXCHANGE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, 
MORRISON, READY TO GET DATES AS 
SOON AS YOUR MAN CONFIRMS.
YOU REPLY, EXCELLENT.
HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, NOT 
SURE I DID.
I THINK POTUS REALLY WANTS 
DELIVERABLE.

English: 
THE DELIVERABLE WAS A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT THATUB UKRAINE WAS 
GOING TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO BURISMA AND ALLEGED 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY 
UKRAINE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU.
I UNDERSTOOD THE DELIVERABLE TO 
BE THE STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE 
BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
>> ON AUGUST 13, YOU AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DISCUSSED A 
STATEMENT WITH MR. GIULIANI.
WHY?
>> BECAUSE THE IDEA THE 
STATEMENT HAD COME UP FROM THE 
MEETING WITH MR. GIULIANI.
HE ASKED ME TO CONNECT HIM WITH 
MR. GIULIANI.
I DID.
THEY HAD A MEETING.
THEY BOTH CALLED ME AFTERWARDS.
MR. GIULIANI SAID HE THOUGHT 
UKRAINE SHOULD MAKE A STATEMENT 
ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION.SH
HE SAID, WE WILL SAY ALSO 
BURISMA.
HE PROVIDED A DRAFT STATEMENT.
I WANTED TO BE ASSURED THAT THIS
STATEMENT WOULD ACTUALLY CORRECT
THE PERCEPTION THAT MR. GIULIANI

English: 
HAD 
GIULIANI HAD OF UKRAINE AND WHAT
THEY STAND FOR NOW SO THAT WOULD
BE CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM THAT I 
HAVE OBSERVED WITH OURBL MAY 23 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THE PROBLEM BEING THAT HE'S 
GETTING A BAD SET OF 
INFORMATION, AF STATEMENT LIKE 
THIS COULD CORRECT THAT.
>> WAS MR. GIULIANI SATISFIED 
WITH THE STATEMENT?
>> NO, HE WAS NOT.
>> WHY NOT?
>> HE BELIEVED THAT IT NEEDED TO
SAY BURISMA AND 2016 
SPECIFICALLY OR ELSE IT WOULD 
NOTR  BE CREDIBLE, WOULD NOT ME 
ANYTHING.
>> SO, IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI 
WANTED A STATEMENT THAT 
REFERENCED BURISMA AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS EXPLICITLY THAT WOULD 
BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
MR. AMBASSADOR, HERE IS THE TEXT
YOU SENT TO THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL ON ALL 13.
YOU SAID, HI, ANDRIY, GOOD 
TALKING.
FOLLOWING IS A TEXT WITH AN 
INSERT AT THE END FOR THE TWO 

English: 
KEY ITEMS.
MR. AMBASSADOR, THOSE TWO KEY 
ITEMS WERE REFERENCES TO 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA, ISN'T
THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DID MR. GIULIANIITEMS TO YOU?
>> I DESCRIBED THE CONVERSATION 
WE HAD JUST HAD WITH MR. 
GIULIANI.
MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT IT WOULD 
NEED TO INCLUDE THESE THINGS TO 
BE CONVINCING TO HIM. I
I PUT THEM IN SO WE COULD 
UNDERSTOOD AND I SHARED WITH 
ANDRIY TO SAY THIS IS WHAT HE IS
TALKING ABOUT.
>> YOU INCLUDED THEM IN THE 
PROPOSAL TO THE UKRAINIANS?
>> I PUT IT BACK IN TO BE CLEAR 
TO THE UKRAINIAN THIS IS IS WHAT
THE CONVERSATION WAS.
>> MR. AMBASSADOR, IF YOU 
BELIEVEAM THE STATEMENT MR. 
GIULIANI DICTATED IN AUGUST WAS 
NOT A GOOD IDEA, SIR, WHY WERE 
THE UKRAINIANS CONSIDERING 
GIVING AN INTERVIEW WITH THE 

English: 
SAME THINGS INW SEPTEMBER?
>> IFPT I MAY, CONGRESSMAN, I 
CONVEYEDN, THIS TO THE UKRAINIA 
TO BE CLEAR SO WE KNEW WHAT THE 
CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT, A 
FOLLOW-UP.
THE UKRAINIANS SAID THEY HAD 
REASON NOT TOS DO THAT AND THEY 
DESCRIBED THE REASONS.
I AGREED WITH THEM AND WE AGREED
TO SCRAP THE STATEMENT.
FROM THAT POINT ON I HAD NO 
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THID
STATEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAME UP OR 
WHY IT CAME UP THAT THERE WOULD 
BE A POSSIBILITY OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY DOING ANDE INTERVIEW WH
U.S. MEDIA LATER SAYING 
SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IN THE 
END HE DIDN'T DO THAT EITHER. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST DURING THE 
JULY 25th CALL WERE NOT 
CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.
I EMPHATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU, 
SIR, YET THESE TEXT MESSAGES 
SHOW THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
SPENT MUCH OF AUGUST PRESSING 
UKRAINE TO MEET THOSE REQUESTS.

English: 
WE CAN ONLY BE GRATEFUL, I 
GUESS,UL THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ESSENTIALLY GOT CAUGHT AND 
CONGRESS PASSED AIA LAW TO ENSU 
THE FUNDING WAS RELEASED TO 
UKRAINE BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING 
HERE.
I WANTBE TO START WITH YOU, IF  
CAN, MR. MORRISON.
INMO DISCUSSING THE 7/25 PHONE 
CALL AND THE CONCERNS LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN HAD.
HE CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS FOR 
THE TRANSCRIPT, AND YOU STATED 
YOU ACCEPTED ALL OF HIS EDITS, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED ALL THE
EDITS, I BELIEVE WERE FAITHFUL 
TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED.
>> DID HE COME TO YOU WITH AN 
EDIT THATN SAID THE WORD DEMAND 
SHOULD BE IN THERE?
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT 
SPECIFICALLY, SIR, NO.
>> HE DIDN'T EITHER.
HOW SOON AFTER THE PHONE CALL 

English: 
DID HE MEET WITH YOU ON THAT 
PARTICULARN ISSUE?
>> WE GOT THE DRAFT AS WAS 
NORMAL FAIRLY QUICKLY AFTER THE 
CALL. A
THAT SAME DAY.
>> THAT SAME DAY.
TODAY HE SAID I REPORTED MY 
CONCERNS TO MR.Y EISENBERG.
IT IS IMPROPER THE U.S. 
PRESIDENT DEMAND AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO AEMN OPPONEN.
HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
CONVERSATION, YET HE DID NOT AT 
ANY POINT ON THE EDIT SAY THERE 
SHOULD BEAY A DEMAND AND HE DIDT
DO THAT BUT HE DID SAY THAT HE 
DIDN'T COME TO YOU WITH HIS 
CONCERNS BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T 
AVAILABLE BUT THAT SAME DAY HE 
CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS.HA
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> HE SAID YOU WEREN'T AVAILABLE
AND YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, DID 
YOU?

English: 
>>D NO, SIR.
>> SOME TIME BETWEEN THE CALL 
AND TODAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN MUST HAVE BEEN HEARING 
VOICES, AND HE HEARD DEMANDS.
HE DIDN'T HEAR IT THAT DAY AND 
DIDN'T MAKE ITAY AN ISSUE THAT Y
BUT TODAY HE DOES.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY BIZARRE.
WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WENT TO LEGAL, MR. EISENBERG, DO
YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED NOT 
TODV SPEAK TO YOU?
>> I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, NO, SIR.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED
TO CONTACT ANYONE?
>> I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
OF THAT.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS 
ADVISED WHEN HE WENT TO LEGAL?
>> NO, SIR, I DO NOT. 
>> THANK YOU. D
I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. VOLKER, I WANT TO TELL YOU, 
I ENJOYED YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY
TODAY, TAKING US THROUGH THAT.
I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF LONG BUT 
WASON EXTREMELY WELL DONE, LETT 
SIGNED AND CONCERNS ABOUT 
LEADERSHIP IN YOUR ASSIGNED 

English: 
COUNTRY, AGREEING WITH AND 
SOMETIMES DISAGREEING WITH THE 
LEADERSHIP OF YOURHE OWN COUNTR 
WHEN YOU FELT WAS APPROPRIATE.
YOU'RE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
PART OF THE TEAM THAT IS THERE 
TO SERVE THE COUNTRY AND IN THAT
WAY.
THAT TO ME SOUNDED LIKE THE 
WORKS OF A VERY GOOD DIPLOMAT 
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
THAT.
IT IS TRULY APPRECIATE. F
CORRUPTION WAS A CONCERN, 
LEGITIMATELY,UKRAINE.
 POINTED OUT SOME 
OF THE THINGS DONE BUT 
UKRAINIANS IN PLAIN SIGHT, I 
MIGHT USE THAT TERM, BY PUTTING 
OP-EDS IN OUR NEWSPAPERS, AND 
CERTAINLY MOREPE THAN ONE COUNT 
CAN BE TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR 
ELENGTHSES, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH
THAT?
>> I WOULD.
>> WE HEAR THE WHOLE THING ABOUA
UKRAINIANS.
IT WAS DEBUNKED.
THAT COMES FROM AN IC COMMUNITY 
THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE COME UP 

English: 
WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE SOME 
OFNS THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WE WI 
FIND OUT, IF WE HAVEN'T ALREADY,
WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THIS 
WHOLE RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX.
YOU DID A GREAT JOB, YOU VETTED 
ZELENSKY'S INTENTIONS, WHAT HE 
INTENDED TO BE AS A PRESIDENT.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S ACCURATE?
>> YES, THAT WAS, IN FACT, ONE 
OF THE KEY, TO TAKE OUR JUDGMENT
AND REPORT BACK TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR JOB 
SHOULD BE.
AND YOU BECAME COMFORTABLE WITH 
THIS PRESIDENT, CORRECT?
>> YES, I DID.
>> YOU WORKED TO ASSURE OUR 
PRESIDENT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND IN SOME WAYS YOU HAVE TO 
WORK SOMETIMES THROUGH ANY MEANS
AVAILABLE AND THAT MIGHT INCLUDE
WORKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI IF HE
COULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THAT 
MESSAGE AND ADVICE TO THE 
PRESIDENT, DIRECT?
>> I BELIEVE THE MESSAGES WERE A
PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE -- 
THEY WERE AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT 

English: 
OUR OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO THE 
PRESIDENT WAS. O
AND SO I THOUGHT IT WAS 
IMPORTANT TO STEP IN AND FIX THE
PROBLEM.
>> YOU TERMED A USEFUL BAROMETER
OF WHAT THINGS WERE.
>> IF THEY CAN HELP THE CAUSE 
AND IN THAT SITUATION IT'S NOT 
ILLEGAL.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
PARTICIPATION HERE TODAY AND FOR
YOUR SERVICE.
I WANT TO TAKE US OUT SOME 
30,000 FEET FOR A MINUTE AND 
TALK ABOUT COVER-UPS.
BUT FOR THE FACT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER CAME FORWARD, WE 
WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
THIS.DN
BUT FOR THE FACT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL OF THE CIA FOUND IT TO 
BE BOTH URGENT AND CREDIBLE, WE 

English: 
WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THAT 
AFTER YOU HEARD THE CALL YOU 
WENT TO C THE ATTORNEY AND THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE LIMITED
ACCESS AND WERE PUT INTO A 
SPECIAL SERVINGER.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED
ANY DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER TO THIS
COMMITTEE.UM
MR. VOLKER, THANK YOU.
BUT FOR T THE FACT YOU AS A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH YOUR OWN 
PERSONAL PHONE AND YOUR TEXT 
MESSAGES WITH MR. GIULIANI, MR. 
SONDLAND AND MR. -- WHOMEVER 
ELSE, BUT FOR THOSE TEXT 
MESSAGES WE'VE BEEN PUTTING UP 
ON THE SCREEN, WE WOULD HAVE 
NOTHING, NOTHING. PHE
AND THIS COVER-UP WOULD BE 
COMPLETE.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK

English: 
ABOUT.
NOW ON JULY 19 YOU HAD BREAKFAST
WITH RUDY GIULIANI AT THE TRUMP 
HOTEL, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND IN THAT CONVERSATION AT 
ONE POINT, WHATEVER WAS BEING 
SAID IS NOT CREDIBLE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> AND THEN HE BROUGHT UP MR. 
BIDEN, AND I WILL QUOTE YOU 
HERE, I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG 
TIME.
HE'S A PERSON OF INTEGRITY.
TO GIULIANI, SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE
TO ME.
JOE BIDEN WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN
HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT BY 
MONEY OR THINGS FOR HIS SON OR 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.OR
WE'VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS OVER 
THE LAST FEWNS DAYS ABOUT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND 
BIDEN AND THE 2016 CROWD STRIKE 
SERVER AND YOU WITH MR. GIULIANI
BASICALLY DEBUNKED ALL OF THAT.

English: 
NOW AT THAT TIME, AT THAT 
BREAKFAST, WHO ELSE WAS WITH YOU
AT THATIT BREAKFAST?
>> THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT MR. 
GIULIANI BROUGHT ALONG.
I LEARNED THIS WAS PERNOFF WE'VE
LEARNED ABOUT.
>> SO HE WAS AT THAT BREAKFAST 
THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD WITH YOU 
AND WE NOW KNOW HE HAS SINCE 
BEENAS INDICTED FOR CAMPAIGN -- 
FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL 
ACTION COMMITTEE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I HAVE SEEN THAT.
>> AT ONE POINT HE REFERRED TO 
ZELENSKY HAVING TERRIBLE PEOPLE 
AROUND HIM.EF
WHO DID YOU THINK THAT WAS?
>> A FORMER INVESTIGATOR 
JOURNALIST AND LATER A 

English: 
PARLIAMENTARIAN.
HE IS SOMEONE THAT IN MANY OF 
THE STORIES IS SEEN AS BRINGING 
FORTH A BLACKLEDGER RELATING TO 
PAUL MANAFORT'S DUTIES IN 
UKRAINE. R
THAT WAS ONE PERSON.
THE OTHER WAS A PERSON BEING 
NAMED AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
CHIEF OF PRESIDENTIAL 
ADMINISTRATION WHO WAS KNOWN AS 
A LAWYER FOR ONE OF THE MAIN 
OLIGARCHS. 
>> DO YOU THINK OF THEM AS 
TERRIBLE PEOPLE?
>> I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE IS, 
NO.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. DR 
MR. MORRISON, EARLIER IN 
TESTIMONY ELICITED FROM OUR 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE, YOU INDICATED THAT 
OTHERS HAD REPRESENTED TO YOU 
THAT COLONEL VINDMAN LEAKED.
DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> ALL RIGHT.

English: 
COLONEL VINDMAN THIS MORNING 
UNDER OATH SAID THAT HE DID 
NOT/DOES NOT LEAK.
WOULD YOU, THEREFORE, WANT TO 
MAYBE REARRANGE YOUR COMMENTS 
ABOUT THE REFERENCES YOU MADE 
ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN?
>> NO, MA'AM.
>> EVEN THOUGH UNDER OATH HE 
SAID HE HAS NEVER LEAKED, YOU 
BELIEVE IN PEOPLE WHO SAID TO 
YOU THAT HE MAY HAVE LEAKED?
MA'AM, I DIDN'T BELIEVE OR 
DISBELIEVE THEM.
I'MEM BARELY RELATING WHAT THEY 
TOLD HAME. 
>> THEY TOLD ME AND SO YOU 
DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO PUT THAT 
FORWARD EVEN T THOUGH YOU HAD 
NO -- 
>>AD NO, MA'AM. 
>> THANK NOYOU, I YIELD BACK. 
>> MA'AM, I'M SORRY.
CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ANSWER.
NO, MA'AM.
THAT'S INCORRECT.
THEY, DR. HILL, OTHERS IN THE 
NSC RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ALEX.
THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOTED.
I DIDN'T TAKE THEM FOR FACE 
VALUE.
I TREATED THEM AS 

English: 
REPRESENTATIONS OF  AOTHERS.
I WAS  ON ALERT BUT I FORMED MY 
OWN ORJUDGMENT.
I TOOK NO ACTION BECAUSE OF THE 
STATEMENTS OF SOMEONE ELSE THAT 
I COULDN'T NEEDILY VALIDATE.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO IMPEACHAPALOOZA 2019,
COMPELLING AMERICA TO IMPEACH 
DONALD TRUMP THROUGH BOREDOM 
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND
IT TURNS OUT IMPEACHMENT IS 
BORING IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY 
COMPELLING ORE CONDEMNING 
EVIDENCE.
GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS, AND THE 
GOOD NEWS IS I WILL BE VERY, 
VERY BRIEF.
WE'RE GOING ON TEN PLUS HOURS OF
THIS.
I WILL YIELD BACK SOME OF MY 
TIME.
THE BAD NEWMES IS MOST OF MY 
COLLEAGUES AFTER ME WON'T.
WE STILL HAVE SOME TIME TO GO.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, VERY QUICKLY,
DO YOU THINK THAT SOMEONE SHOULD
BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION OF 
SUSPECTED ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL 

English: 
ACTIVITY JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE 
A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE EVEN FOR 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES?
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD 
BE ABOVE THE LAW.
>> OF COURSE ON
NOT.
THAT WOULD BE ABSURD TO SUGGEST 
THAT.
I WAS CERTAIN THAT'S HOW YOU 
WOULD ANSWERN  THE QUESTION.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ALLEGED 
ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS 
OCCURRED OVERSEAS, OCCURRED IN 
ANOTHER COUNTRY, WOULD IT BE 
IMPROPER TO B SEEK THE HOST 
COUNTRY'S HELP SUCH AS WITH 
INTERPOL?
>> THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR DOING 
THAT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO 
MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES 
ABROAD. 
>> AGAIN, TO SEEK THE HOST 
NATION'S GOVERNMENT'S HELP IS 
NOT UNUSUAL?
>> THAT IS CORRECT AND WE OFTEN 
HAVE TREATIES FOR THAT.
>> THAT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS AND 
THE ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT WAS
DOING HERE.
MR. MORRISON, I WONDER, MR. 
VINDMAN DESCRIBED THE SIX 
PEOPLE, FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE, IN A
SITUATION LISTENING TO THE PHONE
CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS.
COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED THEM 

English: 
ASED EXCEPTIONAL.
HE STATED THERE WAS NO REASON TO
QUESTION THEIR INTEGRITY OR 
PROFESSIONALISM.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION WE HAD IN 
CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE 
DESCRIPTION OF THESE NATIONAL 
SECURITY STAFF ASES EXCEPTIONAL 
PEOPLE?
>> THEY ARE PATRIOTS, YES.
>> GREAT INTEGRITY AND 
PROFESSIONALISM?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DO ANY OF THESE -- I'M SORRY,
DID ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL 
INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE OF 
UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY AND 
PROFESSIONALISM, INDICATE THEY 
HAD THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN 
ANY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL 
BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF THE 
PHONE CALL?
>> NOT
 THAT I'M AWARE OF, 
CONGRESSMAN.
>> DID THEY SUGGEST THE 
PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED WITH 
BRIBY OR ANY SUCH THING 
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, 
CONGRESSMAN.
>> IT ONLY LEAVES TWO 
EXPLANATIONS.
THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE WHAT WE 
DESCRIBED AS WITH GREAT 
INTEGRITY, EITHER THAT'S NOT 

English: 
TRUE, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE, OR 
THEY JUST INTERPRETED AN 
AMBIGUOUS CONVERSATION 
DIFFERENTLY THANER DID COLONEL 
VINDMAN.
AND AS AN ASIDE AS AN AIR FORCE 
OFFICER I NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WASHY AGAINST 
PROVIDING LETHAL AID.
DO YOU HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHY 
THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT?
>> I WOULD ONLY POINT TO 
STATEMENTS MADE AT THE TIME, 
PERCEPTIONS GERMANY WOULD OPPOSE
IT, THAT GERMANY SHOULD BE IN 
THE LEAD.
THERE WAS A PERCEPTION IT COULD 
BE PROVOCATIVE TO RUSSIA OR 
ESCALATE THE CONFLICT. T
AS A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE I 
DON'T AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS.
>> I AGREE.
I THINK YOU AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
GOT IT RIGHT.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.NT
>> MR. QUIGLEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO DIRECT

English: 
YOUR ATTENTION TO A MEETING YOU 
HAD WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND 
MR. YERMAK SEPTEMBER 14 IN KYIV.
DO YOU RECALL THIS MEETING, SIR?
>> I BELIEVE WE HAD DINNER.
>> AND DO YOU REMEMBER 
DISCUSSING WITH MR. YERMAK 
UKRAINE'S INTENT TO INVESTIGATE 
THEIR FORMER PRESIDENT?
>> I REMEMBER RAISING THE ISSUE 
OFUE PROSECUTION.
>> THEY BROUGHT IT UP?
THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR 
INTENTION?
>> TO BE CLEAR THERE WAS A LOT 
OF TALK IN KYIV AT THE TIME 
ABOUT WHETHER THE NEW TEAM WOULD
BE PROSECUTING THE FORMER 
PRESIDENT.
AND I HAD MET WITH MR. 
POROSHENKO.
 WITH OTHER EXAMPLES

English: 
OF COUNTRIES IN THE REGION THAT 
HAVE GONE FOR PROSECUTIONS OF 
THECU FORMER GOVERNMENT AND THE 
HAVE CREATED DEEP DIVISIONS.
I CITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION SPEECH -- I'M 
SORRY, HIS  NATIONAL DAY SPEECH 
FROM AUGUST 24 THAT WAS ALL 
ABOUT UNIFYING THE COUNTRY.
I CAUTIONED MR. YERMAK TO SAY 
PURSUING PROSECUTION OF 
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO RISKS 
DEEPENING THE DIVISIONS IN THE 
COUNTRY, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF
WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID
HE WANTS TO DO.
>> SO IT'S FAIR TO DESCRIBE IT 
AS YOU DISCOURAGED HIM FROM SUCH
ACTION.
>> I DISCOURAGED HIM.
I RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT WOULD BE.
>> AND WHAT WAS MR. YERMAK'S 
RESPONSE?
>> I BELIEVE FROM THE TESTIMONY 
OF OTHERS -- 
>> MR. TAYLOR?
>> MR. TAYLOR.
>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. 
KENT?
>> I BELIEVE MR. YERMAK SAID, 

English: 
WHAT, YOU MEAN LIKE ASKING US TO
INVESTIGATE CLINTON AND BIDEN.
>> SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF 
IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO ASK US TO 
INVESTIGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH 
YOU ARE, THESE SO-CALLED 
INVESTIGATIONS, BUT YOU DON'T 
WANTYO US TO INVESTIGATE OUR OW 
PRESIDENT.
IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE 
IT?
>> I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND 
WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO BECAUSE
TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE WEREN'T 
ASKING TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON OR
BIDEN.
I WAS PUZZLED BY THE REMARK.
>> IF YOU GO AND INVESTIGATE 
WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE MEANT OR ASK 
ANYBODY?
>> I TOOK IT AS A DEFLECTION 
FROM THE POINT I WAS MAKING 
ABOUT DEFYING UKRAINE.
>> MR. GIULIANI IN THIS TIME 
MENTIONED THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION.
HE MENTIONED BIDEN OVER 50 TIMES
AND 20-SOMETHING TIMES IN 

English: 
RELATION TO UKRAINE.
DID THAT STIR YOUR CURIOSITY?
>> HE DID BRING UP VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND I PUSHED 
BACK ON THAT AND SAID UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATING ITS OWN CITIZENS 
AND CORRUPTION WOULD BE FINE, 
GOING BEYOND THAT TO INVESTIGATE
THE VICE PRESIDENT IS NOT FINE.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS 
WITH ANYONE IN THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN 
THELS ADMINISTRATION ABOUT 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION
INTO POROSHENKO?
>> YES.
I RAISED THIS WITH AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR.
WE'D BEEN IN SOME OF THE SAME 
MEETINGS. 
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I RAISED IT
WITH PHIL KENT.
IT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD 
DISCUSSED AS PART OF OUR 
MEETINGS IN KYIV AT THE TIME.
>> IGS YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>> WHEN YOU HAD THIS 
CONVERSATION HAD YOU URGED THE 
UKRAINIANS NOT TO INVESTIGATE OR

English: 
PROSECUTE THE FORMER PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO, THEIR RESPONSE WAS, 
OH, YOU MEANRE LIKE YOU'RE ASKI 
USSK TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTON 
AND THE BIDENS.
THAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?
>> THAT'S WHAT I RECALL FROM 
SEEING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S 
TESTIMONY.
>> YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AT 
THE TIME, BUT AT THE TIME HAD 
YOU READ THE CALL RECORD?
>> NO.YO
>> NOW HAVE YOU READ THE CALL 
RECORD, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE, 
DOESN'T  IT?
>> YES.
>> I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT SOMETHING
YOU SAID EARLIER WHEN YOU SAID 
THAT Y THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEO 
HAD NO MERIT BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE 
ANY HARM IN D INVESTIGATING IT,S
THAT GARIGHT?
>> YES.
>> DON'T THEY HAVE JUF 
LEGITIMATE CORRUPTION TO 
INVESTIGATE WITHOUT SPENDING 
TIME INVESTIGATING A DEBUNKED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY?
>> ALL KINDS TO INVESTIGATE IN 
UKRAINE.
>> YOU PROPOSE THEY DO THIS 
INVESTIGATION AS SOMETHING YOU 
THOUGHT WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE 
THIS WASIG PART OF AN EFFORT TO 
FIX THE PROBLEM GIULIANI WAS 
CREATING?

English: 
>> I DID NOT PROPOSE IT. 
>> I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS OKAY 
ORT  AN AMENDED STATEMENT SEEME 
TO INCLUDE IT.AM
WAS THAT THE THINKING?
>> YES.
IF IT THREADS THE NEEDLE BETWEEN
WHAT UKRAINE TO DO.
THEN WHY NOT?
>> THIS IS PART OF WHAT YOU 
DESCRIBED AS YOUR EFFORT TO -- 
WHEN YOU SEE A PROBLEM TO FIX 
IT.
IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER BASED ON THE 
SEPTEMBER 25th CALL YOU WERE NOT
ABLE TO FIX IT.
I CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT ELSE 
GOING ONOT THAT WAS ABOUT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE EFFORT I
WAS MAKING WERE NOT IN THE 
CONTEXTN OF WHAT HAD ALREADY BEN
DISCUSSED.

English: 
>> A GIULIANI PROBLEM?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
AND MR. MORRISON FOR YOUR YEARS 
OF SERVICE AND YOUR PROFESSIONAL
EXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP ON 
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES.
I WANTED TO START WITH A JULY 
25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND ZELENSKY.
YOU WERE ON CALL AND THERE WAS 
NO MENTION OFL WITHHOLDING AID N
THE CALL, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSWOMAN. 
>> AND NO QUID PRO QUO, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> NO BRIBERY?
>> CORRECT. 
>> NO EXTORTION?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I 
PRESUME YOU GOT A READOUT OF THE
CALL.VO
>> FROM THE U.S. PARTICIPANTS 
WAS THERE ANYPA REFERENCE TO 
WITHHOLDING AID?
>> THERE WAS NOT.E 
>> ANY REFERENCE TO QUID PRO 
QUO?
>> THERE WAS NONE.
>> ANY REFERENCE TO EXTORTION?

English: 
>> NO, THERE WAS NONE.
>> I PRESUME YOU ALSO GOT 
FIELDBACK FROM YOUR UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS AS TO HOW THE CALL 
WENT.
DID THEY MENTION THE WITH 
HOLDING OF AID?
>> NO, THEY DID NOT. 
>> DID THEY MENTION ANY QUID PRO
QUO?
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> DID D THEY MENTION ANY BRIBE?
>> THEY DID NOT. 
>> AND, IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER 
THE CALL YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THIS WOULD BE ON JULY 
26th?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND INJU THAT MEETING HE MAD 
NO MENTION OF QUID PRO QUO?
>> NO.
>> OF WITH HOLDING AID?
>> NO.
>> THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN 
AWARE OF E THIS HOLD ON AID, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND IN THE COMING WEEKS YOU 
WERE IN TOUCH WITHKS UKRAINIANSS
PARTICIPATE OF YOUR OFFICIAL 
DUTIES AND THIS INCLUDED TALKING
TODE UKRAINIANS OVER THE PHONE,N
PERSON, IN TEXTS, AND UKRAINIANS
NEVER BROUGHT UP AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, 
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.AT
>> THEY NEVER BROUGHT UP THE HE
WITHHOLDING OF THE AID?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THEY NEVER BROUGHT UP QUID 
PRO QUO OR BRIBY?
>> LET ME BRING UP THE AID.

English: 
THEY DID BRING THAT UP AFTER THE
POLITICAL ARTICLE.
>> I WILL GET TO THAT.
UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE THEY
DID NOT BRING IT UP.
AND YOU SAID IN YOUR CLOSED DOOR
DEPOSITION, QUOTE, IT NEVER CAME
UP IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND
I BELIEVE THEY HAD TRUST IN ME 
THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED IF 
THAT WAS REALLY WHAT THEY WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AS YOU POINTED OUT THE 
UKRAINIANS NEVER EVEN KNEW THEIR
FOREIGN AID WAS ON PAUSE UNTIL 
THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 
AUGUST.AR
>> SO THEY DIDN'T KNOW DURING 
THE CALL.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. TNG
>> IN FACT, YOU HAD TO CORRECT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IN THE T CLOSED 
DOOR DEPOSITION.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 
ASKED YOU WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING 
WITHHELD FOR A REASON YOU 
COULDN'T YOEXPLAIN, NTHO ONE CO 
EXPLAIN, WEREN'T THEY UNDER EVEN
GREATER PRESSURE AND YOU 
ANSWERED, QUOTE TO MY KNOWLEDGE 
THE NEWS ABOUT A HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID NOT GET 

English: 
INTO UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 
CIRCLES ASOV INDICATED TO ME BY 
THE CURRENT FOREIGN MINISTER 
UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO GOT 
THE FACTS WRONGOT AGAIN WHEN HE 
ASKED YOU THIS, QUOTE, AT THE 
POINT THEY LEARNED THEIR AID WAS
PAUSED WOULDN'T THEY GIVE -- 
WOULDN'T THAT GIVE THEM ADDED 
URGENCY TO MEET THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST ON THE BIDENS?
AND YOU ANSWERED, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, QUOTE, I THINK THE 
UKRAINIANS FELT THEY ARE GOING 
INOI THE CORRECT DIRECTION AND 
THEY HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING ON AN
INVESTIGATION, END QUOTE.
ISN'T IT THE CASE, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, AT ONE POINT 
CHAIRMANSHIP SAIDOI TO YOU WHEN 
YOU ARE TRUTHFULLY TESTIFYING, 
AMBASSADOR, YOU'RE MAKING THIS 
MUCH MORERE COMPLICATED THAN IT 
HAS TO BE, END QUOTE?
PAGE 127 FROM THE DEPOSITION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I REMEMBER THAT.
>> BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE FACTS 
ARE, INDEED, NOT COMPLICATED AND
I'M GOING TO CLOSE OUT WITH TWO 
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOTH OF YOU.
DID UKRAINE OPEN AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, 

English: 
MR. MORRISON?
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE EITHER. 
>> DID ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY 
EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO?
MR. MORRISON?
>> NO, MA'AM.
>> MR. AMBASSADOR?
>> I DID NOT.
>> ANY EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY?
>> NO, MA'AM.
>> ANY EVIDENCE OF TREASON?
>> NO, MA'AM. 
>> NO EVIDENCE OFNO TREASON.
>> WITH THAT I FIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. MORRISON DID AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WANT THE SECURITY AID 
HOLD LIFTED?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN, HE DID.
>> YOU TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENTE TRUMP IN LATE 
AUGUST RELATED TO UKRAINE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SIR, CAN YOU POINT TO WHERE I
TESTIFIED TO THAT?
>> PAGE 266 YOU SAID AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENTN- TRUMP IN LATE 
AUGUST AT2019 BUT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS NOT YETSI READY TO APPROVE E
RELIEF OF THE ASSISTANCE.

English: 
>> THIS IS 226?
>> YES.
266 AND 268.
I'M ASKING YOU THIS, DID THAT 
HAPPEN OR DID IT NOT?
>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IN 
CHARACTERIZING IT.
I SEE.
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT.
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE 
MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMSA SNP 
>>M AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS READY 
TO APPROVE THE ASSISTANCE. 
>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL 
YOU THE REASON THAT STEMMED FROM
THIS MEETING?
>> NO, SIR. R
MR. MORRISON, DO YOU CONSIDER 
YOURSELF LOYAL TOON THE PRESIDE?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND THE PRESIDENT EXECUTES 
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES, IS THAT RIGHT?IC
>> YES, SIR.

English: 
>> AND AS A STAFFER AND EVEN 
SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN THE 
MILITARY, TO EXECUTE THE FOREIGN
POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT, IS 
THAT RIGHT?
>> MY OATH IS TO OBEY ALL LAWFUL
ORDERS.
>> ON JULY 25, YOU LISTENED TO 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TALK TO THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> JULY 25th, YES, SIR.
>> AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU 
HAD PREPARED AS FAR AS TALKING 
POINTS FOR THATFA CALL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT, YOU HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE THE U BIDENS, IS TH 
CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR, HE MADE A REQUEST.
>> AND AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, FAIR TO SAY
THAT YOU TALKED TO UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS A NUMBER OF TIMES?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES WHEN YOU TALK 
TO Y UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS DID 
YOU ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS?
>> NEVER, SIR.
>> WHY NOT?
>> SIR, IT WAS NOT A POLICY 

English: 
OBJECTIVE THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, TO 
CARRY OUTT, YOUR POLICY 
OBJECTIVES.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT
SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 
UNITED STATES.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES' PRIORITIES WERE 
TO INVESTIGATE THETA BIDENS.
AND I'M ASKING YOU, SIR, WHY 
DIDN'T YOU FOLLOW UP ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES WHEN YOU 
TALKED TO THE UKRAINIANS?
>> SIR, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT 
AS A POLICY OBJECTIVE.
>> MR. MORRISON, I KNOW THAT 
YOU'VE PUT THE CONVERSATION IN 
THE SERVER.UT
THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND 
THE REASONS YOU GAVE BUT YOU 
ALSO CHOSE TO DEFY THE 
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO NOT COME 
HERE ASOM OTHERS HAVE LIKE MR. 
MULVANEY AND MR. BOLTON AND YOU 
HAVE COME HEREOL AND HAVE BEEN 
TRUTHFUL AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
WHETHER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT 

English: 
PUBLICLY OR NOT YOU KNEW WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE 
UKRAINIANS TO DO WAS WRONG.
AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED YOUR DUTY 
IS TOED FOLLOW THE FOREIGN POLI 
PRIORITY OF THE PRESIDENT BUT TO
ALSO ONLY FOLLOW SOMETHING THAT 
IS A LAWFUL ORDER.
I DON'TL THINK YOU BELIEVE IT WS
A LAWFUL ORDER AND WHY YOU DID 
NOT FOLLOW UP ON THOSE 
PRIORITIES.ER
MR. VOLKER, WE'VE HEARD A LOT 
TODAY ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT BEING
SUCH AN ANTI-CORRUPTION 
PRESIDENT.
REALLY CARED ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION.
IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY?
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY?
>> NO, PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IS RUSSIA A CORRECT COUNTRY?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MET A 
NUMBER OF TIMES WITH PRESIDENT 
PUTIN, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, A FEW TIMES. 
>> AND HAS HAD A NUMBER OF PHONE
CALLS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. 
>> IS TURKEY A CORRUPT COUNTRY?
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO.
>> JUST LAST WEEK DESPITE THEIR 
CORRUPTION AT THE WHITE HOUSE 

English: 
PRESIDENT  AERDOGAN HAD AN 
AUDIENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
>> YES, HE DID.
>> FINALLY, MR. GIULIANI ON MAY 
9 TOLD "THE NEW YORK TIMES" 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BASICALLY KNOWS 
WHAT I'M DOING AS HIS LAWYER.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
STATEMENT?
>> NO, I'M NOT.
>> YOU AGREE THAT A LAWYER ACTS 
ON A CLIENT'S BEHALF AND ONLY ON
A CLIENT'SIE BEHALF, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT A LAWYER ACTS 
ON HISAW CLIENT'S BEHALF.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT ONLY ON A 
CLIENT'S BEHALF BECAUSE I THINK,
AS I UNDERSTOOD MAYOR GIULIANI 
IN THIS CASE, HE WAS DOING A LOT
I CONSIDERED TO BE ON HIS OWN.
>> YOU SAID NOT MEDDLING IN AN 
INVESTIGATION, HE DIDN'T SAY I, 
HE SAID WE, CORRECT?
>> I'M TAKING THAT FROM THE 
STATEMENT.
>> YIELD BACK.

English: 
>> MR. MORRISON, MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM CALIFORNIA SUGGESTS HE 
KNOWS YOURS OPINIONS AND THOUGHS
BETTER THAN YOU DO.
HE DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE A RESPONSE?
>> NO, SIR, I HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT MAKE A REQUEST.
I RECEIVED NO DIRECTION AT ANY 
TIME TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE A POLICY
PROCESS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I 
LAIDHA OUT IN MY DEPOSITION.
TO ENSURE OPINION IN THE 
INTERAGENCY AS TO THE IMPORTANCE
OF CONTINUING SECURITY SECTOR 
ASSISTANCE, AND THAT'S WHAT I 
DID.
I ACTED UPON THE DIRECTION I WAS
GIVEN.
>> GOOD COPY.
WHILE WE'RE WITH YOU, MR. 
MORRISON, THANKS FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY.
DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR 
OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOW POLITICAL INFORMATION 
COLLECTED BYOR UKRAINE ON THE 
BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN?
>> NO, SIR.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE SAME 
QUESTION.

English: 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE S IN OR 
OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION 
COLLECTED BY I UKRAINE ON THE 
BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN?
>> NO, I DID NOT.
>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A TEXT 
EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. YERMAK
ON AUGUST 12th THAT TALKED ABOUT
THIS PROPOSED STATEMENT.
AND MAYOR GIULIANI PROVIDED SOME
FEEDBACK ON WHAT HE THOUGHT 
NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT.
DID MAYOR GIULIANI GET FEEDBACK 
ON WHAT SHOULD GO INTO THAT 
PROPOSED STATEMENT?
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK 
THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED IT WITH 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> BASED ON YOUR RECOLLECTION, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO WAS IN 
THE ZELENSKY REGIME HAS MAYOR 
GIULIANI AYINTERACTED WITH?
IN ADDITION TO MR. YERMAK AND 
ALSO THE FORMER ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE HE 
WOULD HAVE INTERACTED WITH IN 

English: 
THE ZELENSKY GOVERNMENT.
I AM AWARE OF HIM HAVING CLAIMED
HE MET WITH THE PREDECESSOR AS 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL. 
 THAT'S NOT WITHIN WHICH 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE HE 
WOULD HAVE MET WITH.
>> IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE, 
WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ROLE IN 
UKRAINE?
>> HE CARED ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE WANTED TO SEE U.S. SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE INCREASED.
HE WANTED TO SEE EUROPEAN UNION 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE INCREASE 
INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND HE 
WANTED TO BE HELPFUL.
>> WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH SENIOR
ZELENSKY OFFICIALS WITHOUT 
LETTING OTHER PEOPLE KNOW?HO
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE WAS 
NOT LETTING PEOPLE KNOW.
I THINK HE MAY HAVE HAD SOME 
CONVERSATIONS BUT I THINK HE WAS
JUST ACTING, AND I THINK WE 
CIRCLED BACK QUITE FREQUENTLY 
WITH MYSELF, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
AND OTHERS.
>> CAN YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE A 
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 

English: 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MAYOR 
GIULIANI WERE DOING IN ALL THEIR
INTERACTIONS WITH UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS?
>> I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAD A 
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
I THOUGHT THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND I WERE WORKING ON 
THE SAMEKI OBJECTIVE WHICH IS 
GETTING A MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
AND THAT A STATEMENT THAT 
MENTIONEDTA BURISMA 2016 WOULD  
POTENTIALLY HELPFUL.
I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE 
ABOUT THEIR INTERACTION OR 
THOUGHTS WERE.
>> YOUR  DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING AS THE SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE OF T UKRAINE.
DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAVE
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING?
>> NO, I DON'T.
>> YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BURISMA AN 
THE BIDENS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS 
HAD SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING?
>> YES, I DO.D
>> THERE'S ALSO A PERCEPTION 
THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, WHO WE'VE ALL HEARD
33 YEARS OF BEING AN AWESOME 

English: 
AMBASSADOR WHEN SHE LEFT KYIV 
THAT THE U.S. POSITION ON 
CORRUPTION WOULD WEAKEN.
THAT'S A NARRATIVE FLOATING 
AROUND W.
WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO TOOK 
OVER?
>> IMMEDIATELY AFTER WAS 
PENNINGTON.
>> WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL STRONG OR
WEAK ON CORRUPTION?
>> I WOULD SAY IN LINE WITH ALL 
THE REST OFIT OUR POLICIES.
>> AND AFTER THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO
WAS THAT PERSON REPLACED WITH?
>> THAT WAS BILL TAYLOR.
>> WHO YOU SUGGESTED FOR THAT 
POSITION, CORRECT?
WAS  AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRONG O 
WEAK ON CORRUPTION?
>> VERY STRONG.
>> WHO SETS OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY?
>> SIR, THE PRESIDENT. O.
>> NOT SOME OTHER STAFFER WITHIN
THE NSC?
>> THEY ENSURE THE PRESIDENT HAS
THE FULL ARRAY OF OPTIONS FOR 
HIS DECISION.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CASTRO?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY.U,YO

English: 
IS IT CORRECT TO SAY BOTH YOU 
GENTLEMEN WERE EITHER APPOINTED 
OR HIREDOI BY THE WHITE HOUSE,  
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?
>> YES, SIR.TH
>> IN MY CASE BY SECRETARY 
TILLERSON.
>> BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?
>> SERVING IN THE SAME 
ADMINISTRATION.
>> SURE. 
>> YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, 
QUOTE, I JUST KNOW IF HE HAD A 
RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT I DID NOT HAVE.
IN FACT, IN ONE TEXT MESSAGE 
DATED JULY 26th, YOU WROTE TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, GREAT 
PHOTO, GORDON.
CAN YOU GET THIS TO POTUS 
WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES.
JULY 26th WAS THE SAME DAY THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT FROM A RESTAURANT IN 
KYIV, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THE DATE AGAIN?
>> JULY 26th.
>> YES, I KNOW THAT TO BE 
CORRECT NOW.
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF THE CALL?
>> I WAS  NOT.
>> THIS COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF IT
NOW, AS WE ALL ARE.

English: 
WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD A DIRECT LINE TO 
THE ECPRESIDENT?
>> HE CLAIMED HE SPOKE TO THE 
PRESIDENT FREQUENTLY. 
>> DID YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT 
THAT?
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS A BIG
PERSONALITY AND SOMETIMES SAYS 
THINGS THAT MIGHT BE BIGGER THAN
LIFE.
>> HE WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE,
HAND-PICKED BYE, THE PRESIDENT  
SOMEBODY IN THEDE PRESIDENT'S 
ADMINISTRATION TO SERVE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT HE COULD SPEAK
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
>> HE HAD ALSO BEEN A LARGE 
DONOR TO ONE OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES, IS 
THAT CORRECT?
>> I HAVE LEARNED THAT.
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU STATED 
DURING YOUR TESTIMONY THAT WHEN 
YOU MET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR 
THE FIRST TIME HE REPRESENTED 
THAT, QUOTE, HIS MANDATE FROM 
THE PRESIDENT WAS TO GO MAKE 
DEALS.PR
AND, IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT
BETWEEN JULY 25th AND SEPTEMBER 
11th OF THIS YEAR YOU HEARD OR 
LEARNED THAT H AMBASSADOR SONDLD
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE ON 
SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
IS IT ACCURATE THAT EVERY TIME 
YOU CHECKED YOU WERE ABLE TO 

English: 
CONFIRM THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
HAD, IN FACT, SPOKEN TO THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> MR. MORRISON, YOU ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND EMAILED YOU AND STAFF 
TO SAY HE BRIEFED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN ADVANCE OF HIS JULY 
25th CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL 
YOUON WHAT HE BRIEFED THE 
PRESIDENT H ON?
>> HE SENT ME AN EMAIL, SIR.
IT WAS A VERY SUCCINCT -- A LIST
OF THREE ITEMS WITH RESPECT TO 
UKRAINE.
I BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON THE 
CALL.
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
PERSONALLY CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT A TRUMP D
SPOKEN BEFORE THE JULY 25th 
CALL.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND PRESUMABLY THE WHITE 
HOUSE SITUATION ROOM KEEPS A 
RECORD OF THOSE CALLS.
>> SIR, THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE 
TO CONFIRM IT.
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOUR STAFF
PREPARED A BRIEFING MEMO WITH 
SUGGESTED POINTS FOR THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT TOIN RAISE ON JULY 25.
POINTS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH
U.S. POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN.
>> THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T USE 
THOSE POINTS, DID HE?
>> HE DID NOT.
>> LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.
YOU PREPARED MATERIALS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.EP
THEY DID NOT INCLUDE REFERENCES 
TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN.
THE GUY WHO IS THE GORDON 
PROBLEM, THE GUY WHO HAS A 
DIRECT LINK H TO THE PRESIDENT, 
WHO IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING 
DEALS, BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> AND THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RAISED THE 2016 ELECTION AND 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON
TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AFTER
HE WAS BRIEFED BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLANDMB AND THE PRESIDENT WE 
ON THE SAME PAGE.
THEY BOTH WERE WORKING TO 

English: 
BENEFIT THE POLITICAL INTERESTS 
EVEN WHEN THATIT UNDERMINED U.S 
FOREIGN POLICY.
I WANT TO ASK YOU IN THE SHORT 
TIME I HAVE BOTH YOU GENTLEMEN 
WHO SERVED THE UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT WHETHER PUTTING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASIDE WHETHER 
YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S PROPER FOR
ANY PRESIDENT NOW OR LATER TO 
ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND 
SPECIFICALLY THAT COULD BE A 
POLITICAL RIVAL.IF
AMBASSADOR?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
DO THAT.
IF WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
CONCERNS WITH A U.S. CITIZEN 
GENERALLY, THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
CHANNELS FOR THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER, SIR.
>>,  THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, I YIE 
BACK.
>> MR. RATCLIFFE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
GENTLEMEN, I APPRECIATE BOTH OF 
YOU BEING HERE TODAY.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR 
YOU.
MR. MORRISON, I'M GOING TO TRY 

English: 
AND SUMMARIZE SOME OF WHAT WE'VE
HEARD TO SHORTEN THIS.
YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL.
COLONEL VINDMAN ON THE JULY 25th
CALL, CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT HE 
TESTIFIED EARLIER TODAY THAT HE 
HEARD WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A 
DEMAND ON THAT CALL THAT WAS 
IMPROPER AND FELT HE HAD A DUTY 
TO REPORT THAT.
I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED 
ALREADY THAT HE DID NOT DISCUSS 
OR REPORT ANY OF THAT TO YOU, 
CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION 
WITH COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT OTHER
CONCERNS HE HAD WITH THE CALL, 
AND I  BELIEVE YOU SAID THE 
FIDELITY OF THE TRANSLATION AND 
THE FACTRA THAT YOU BOTH SHARED 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THERE NOT BEING
A FULL THROATED EMBRACE OF THE 
UKRAINIAN REFORM AGENDA.
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> BUT WITH RESPECT TO HIS 
CONCERN ABOUT SOMETHING 
IMPROPER, SPECIFICALLY AT NO 
POINT DID HE COME TO YOU AND SAY

English: 
I HEARD SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT
WAS IMPROPER AND WAS A CRIME.
>> SIR, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION 
OF HIM DOING THAT. 
>> NO BRIBE OR QUID PRO QUO?
>> NO, SIR.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AND AS YOU WERE LISTENING, DID 
YOU HEAREN PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKE 
DEMAND OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD 
CONSTITUTE A CRIME?
>> SIR, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO STAY
ON THE SAFE SIDE OF LEGAL 
CONCLUSIONS BUT, NO, SIR.
>> YOU HAVE A LAW DEGREE.
>> IAW DO, SIR.
>> YOU ARE GENERALLY FAMILIAR 
WITH BRIBY AND EXTORTION.
>> GENERALLY.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY AS YOU WERE
LISTENING TO THE CALL YOU 
WEREN'T THINKING THE PRESIDENT 
IS BRIBING THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, THAT NEVER CROSSED YOUR
MIND?
>> IT DID NOT, SIR.
>> OR HE WAS EXTORTING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
>> IT DID NOT, SIR.

English: 
>> AND HAVE YOU HEARD OR READ IN
THE MEDIA WHERE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU, THAT 
HE DIDN'T HEAR ANY DEMANDS OR 
FEEL ANYDS PRESSURE, HE DIDN'T 
EXPERIENCE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR 
CORRUPT ON THE CALL?
>> I ATTEMPTED IN NEW YORK AT 
THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND HE
MADE CLEAR AT THE TIME IN FRONT 
OF I THE PRESS HE FELT NO 
PRESSURE.
>> SO DID ANYONE ON THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER THIS CALL
EXPRESS THAT SOME CRIME, BRIBY, 
EXTORTION, ANYTHING HAD 
OCCURRED?
>> NO, SIR.HA
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. 
MORRISON, ABOUT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.
I DON'T WANT TO ASK YOU TO 
SPECULATE AS TO THE IDENTITY BUT
THE ACCUSATIONS THAT STARTED 
THIS AS TO THE VERACITY.
FIRST OF ALL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
WHO WAS NOT ON THE CALL ADVISED 
THE ICIG THAT HE OR SHE WAS 

English: 
CONCERNED THEHE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCTS CONSTITUTED UNDER 
SECTION 3033, QUOTE, A SERIOUS 
PROBLEM, ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF 
LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, END 
QUOTE.
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A LAW AS YOU 
LISTENED TO THE CALL?
>> I MADE NO JUDGMENT ABOUT ANY 
ILLEGAL CONDUCT OCCURRING.
THAT HE SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE 
LEADERSHIP TO TAKE ACTION TO 
HELP THE PRESIDENT'S 2020 
RE-ELECTION BID.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT MENTION
2020 DURING THE CALL, DOES HE?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID.
>>VE YOU DID NOT HEAR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP PRESSURE OR HAVE A DEMAND 
OF ANY KIND AS WE'VE ALREADY 

English: 
ESTABLISHED, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, SIR.
>> A WHISTLE-BLOWER LIKE COLONEL
VINDMAN USES THE WORD DEMAND.
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
>> YOU SHOULD USE THE 
MICROPHONE.
>> IN ALL DUE RESPECT, 
CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE YOU JUST 
SAID A WHISTLE-BLOWER LIKE 
COLONEL VINDMAN -- 
>> NO, I'M SORRY.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, LIKE COLONEL
VINDMAN, ALSO USES THE WORD 
DEMAND.
ON PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SONDLAND 
PURPORTEDLY PROVIDED ADVICE TO 
UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP ABOUT HOW 
TO NAVIGATE THE DEMAND THE 
PRESIDENT MADE OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
THERE WERE NO DEMANDS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
>> SO SPECULATION ABOUT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER ASIDE WITH REGARD
TOIT MOTIVATION, THE FACT IS TH 
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS WRONG ABOUT 

English: 
MANY OF THE FACTS AS WELL.E-
CORRECT?
>> SIR, I'M NOT INTIMATELY 
FAMILIAR WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
COMPLAINT BUT I DID NOT HEAR A 
DEMAND IN THE CALL.IN
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO 
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I FRANKLY FOUND SOME OF YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT TO BE NOT JUST
GENUINE BUT DOWNRIGHT ELOQUENT.
THE PASSAGES ABOUT PUSHING BACK 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION ANDNG 
SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT A OF 
STRONG, RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND
PROSPEROUS UKRAINE, ONE THAT 
OVERCOMES THE LEGACY OF 
CORRUPTION.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
SOME OF US BELIEVE WE'RE NOT 
PUSHING BACK STRONGLY ENOUGH ON 
RUSSIA.EL
SOME THAT WE'RE NOT BEING 
SUPPORTIVE ENOUGH OF UKRAINE. T

English: 
WE WANT TO HELP EXPLAIN WHY IT 
IS IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS.
YOU HAVE AN AUDIENCE TO LOOK 
INTO THE A CAMERA AND TELL WHY  
IS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.
WHY SHOULD IT MATTER IF THE 
BIGGEST ISSUE IS GETTING THEIR 
KIDS OFF TO SCHOOL, PAYING THEIR
BILLS AND THE LIKE, SIR?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, 
CONGRESSMAN.
I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY THAT
WE ARE NOT PUSHING BACK HARD 
ENOUGH ON RUSSIA AND THAT WE OWE
UKRAINE A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT.
>> WHY DOES IT MATTER?
>> RUSSIA IS TRYING TO UP END 
SECURITY, REASSERT DOMINATION.
IT HAS LED TO WAR IN EUROPE.
THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS LEFT MORE
PEOPLE DEAD I IN EUROPE THAN 
ANYTHING SINCE THE BALKANS.
IF ANYTHING SINCE WORLD WAR II.

English: 
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP 
FOR FREEDOM, FOR DEMOCRACY.
THEY WANT REFORM TO SEE THEIR 
COUNTRY BE SUCCESSFUL LIKE 
GERMANY, SWEDEN, LIKE US.
AND THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR OF 
AGGRESSION AGAINST THEM DESIGNED
TO HOLD THEM BACK.
WE WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF 
FREEDOM FOR THE UNITED STATES, 
WE OUGHT TO BE SUPPORTING 
FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE 
WORLD. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.D 
SO WE'RE HERE IN PART BECAUSE OF
CONCERN FOR GENERAL CORRECTION.T
THERE WASN'T A CONCERN FOR 
GENERAL CORRUPTION BUT REVIEWING
THE RECORD ON THAT, SIR, IS IT 
NOT TRUE IN MARCH OFT THIS YEAR 
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
CERTIFIEFD UKRAINE AS HAVING 
BEEN -- HAD MADE SUFFICIENT 
PROGRESS TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE?
>> I DON'T NOPE THE DETAILS BUT 
I BELIEVE THAT TO BE CORRECT.
>> ON APRIL 21st PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WON AN OVERWHELMING 

English: 
MANDATE WITH 73% OF THE VOTE 
BASED V LARGELY ON HIS EFFORT F 
ANTI-CORRUPTION?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IS IT NOT TRUE IT WAS 
EXPANDED ON JULY 21st WHEN THE 
PARTY WON ONE PARTY CONTROL ON 
THE BASIS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>>T  IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY HE 
ENACTED SWEEPING REFORMS TO 
COMBAT ANTI-CORRUPTION, DID HE 
NOT?
>> YES, HE HAS.
>> EVERYBODY ON THE GROUND 
THOUGHT OR IS FILLED WITH 
OPTIMISM UKRAINE WAS GETTING 
SERIOUS ABOUT COMBATTING THIS 
CORRUPTION.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER DID YOU 
KNOW ONE OF THOSE PASSED IN 
UKRAINE WAS A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR
THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT?
>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
>>  IT'S TRUE.
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD 
START WITH HIMSELF.E
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE KEEP CHARACTERIZING 
THIS IMPEACHMENTG INQUIRY AS 
INHERENTLY WRONG, AND I'M 
QUOTING THEM, IT WILL OVERTURN 
AN ELECTION.
OVER AND OVER, IT WILL OVERTURN 
AN ELECTION.

English: 
IT IS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION TOOL 
AND FOR MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE, YES, IT DOES 
OVERTURN AN ELECTION.
BY DEFINITION IT OVERTURNS AN 
ELECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A 
PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTITUTION 
PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT BUT I 
RECOMMEND THEY REREAD THE 
RELEVANT PASSES IN ARTICLE ONE, 
SECTIONS TWO AND THREE AND HOW 
WE GOT THERE.NS
NONE OF US WANTS TO BE HERE.
NONE OF US CAME TO THIS EASILY.
I DIDN'T.
I WILL RECALL THE 48 HOURS I 
SPENT AT OUR FAMILY CABIN IN 
SELF-REFLECTION AND PRAYERFUL 
DELIBERATION ABOUT THIS WHOLE 
MATTER.
COLLECTIVELY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO GRAPPLE WITH THIS VERY GRAVE 
DECISION.OI
IT'S WAITING AND IT'S GOING TO 
GET HARD.AI

English: 
AND IT'S HARD IN PROPORTION TO 
ITPOS IMPORTANCE TO OUR GREAT 
REPUBLIC.
A REPUBLIC IF WE CAN KEEP IT.
>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> MR. JORDAN?
>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN THE NOW
FAMOUS CALL TRANSCRIPT BOTTOM OF
PAGE THREE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THIS.
I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR AND
HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S 
REALLY UNFAIR.
DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS TALKING 
ABOUTAL ZELENSKY OR SHILKIN?
>> SHILKIN.
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD 
ISSUES WITH COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
JUDGMENT.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS, SIR.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAD CONCERNS 
WITH COLONELAD VINDMAN EXERCISI 
APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT AS TO WHOM 
SAID WHAT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS, SIR.
>> YOU TESTIFIED HILL HAD 
CONCERNS ABOUTIL COLONEL VINDMAS
JUDGMENT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS, SIR.
THAT COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT 
ALWAYS ADHEREID TO THE CHAIN OF 

English: 
COMMAND, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR.
>> TRYING TO ACCESS INFORMATION 
OUTSIDE HISS LANE, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> SIR, I BELIEVE I STATED I WAS
AWARE OF THOSE WHO WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT HE WAS NOT INCLUDED ON 
CERTAIN TRIPS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT 
COLLEAGUES EXPRESSED CONCERN TO 
YOU ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN 
LEAKING INFORMATION, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.G 
>> WHEN I ASKED COLONEL VINDMAN 
WHY HE DIDN'T GO TO YOU WITH HIS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL, EVEN 
THOUGH YOU,LL HIS BOSS, HAD NO 
CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING BEING, I
THINK YOUR LANGUAGE WAS, NOTHING
IMPROPER, NOTHING ILLEGAL ON THE
CALL.
I ASKED WHY HE INSTEAD WENT TO 
LAWYERS, HIS BROTHER, SECRETARY 
KENT AND ONE OTHER PERSON THAT 
HE WOULDN'T TELL US AND 
CHAIRMANSHIP WOULDN'T ALLOW HIM 
TO TELL US.
HE INDICATED THE LAWYERS 
INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT AND HE
TRIED TO GET HOLD OF YOU.

English: 
IS THAT FAIR? HTR
>> SIR, I WATCHED PART OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING.
I HEARD HIM SAY THAT, YES, SIR.
>> ONE THING CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
BROUGHT UP, HE POINTED OUT THAT 
YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN'S BOSS, 
ALSO WENT TO THE LAWYERS.
BUT YOUR REASON FOR GOING TO THE
LAWYERS WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, 
WASN'T IT?
>> YES, SIR.WA
>> I THINK AWED FEW THINGS YOU 
TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN TODAY'S 
HEARING BUT I THINK AT THE TOP 
OF YOUR LIST WAS YOU WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENT OF 
THE CALL LEAKING OUT.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED, ISN'T IT?
>> SIR, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CONTENTS 
LEAKEDON OUT.
THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO 
DECLASSIFY THE MEMCON.
>> YOU SEEMED TO BE PROPHETIC 
BECAUSE YOUPH SAID IT IN YOUR 
STATEMENT TODAY, AS I STATED 
DURING MY DEPOSITION, I FEARED 

English: 
AT THE TIME OF I THE CALL ON JU 
25th HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF THE 
CONTENTS OF THE CALL WOULD PLAY 
INOU WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL 
CLIMATE.
MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED.
YOU SAWRE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ANDT
SURE ENOUGH DID.
FAIR TO SAY?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND WE DID ALL OF THIS -- WE 
DID ALL OFS THIS AND THAT'S THE 
PART THAT -- THAT'S THE PART 
THAT GETS ME.
WE DID ALL  THIS, THESE HEARING,
WEEKS IN THE BUNKER IN THE 
BASEMENT OF THEHE CAPITOL AND FR
FACTS WE KEEP COMING BACK TO 
HAVE NEVER CHANGED, WILL NEVER 
CHANGE.ER
CONFIRMED THESE FUNDAMENTAL 
FACTS.
WE HAVE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AS 
YOU BOTH SAID.
NO LINKAGE TO SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE DOLLARS AND 
INVESTIGATIONS A IN THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT, THE TWO INDIVIDUALS 
WHO WERETH ON THE CALL.
THEY'VE BOTH SAID NO LINKAGE, NO
PRESSURE, NO PUSHING.

English: 
THE FACT THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T 
EVEN KNOW AID HAD BEEN WITHHELD 
UNTIL AUGUST 29th.
AND THE UKRAINIANS DID NOTHING 
AS FAR AS STARTING, PROMISING TO
START, ANNOUNCING THEY WERE 
GOING TO START.
DID NOTHING AND THE AID GOT 
RELEASED.
I BELIEVE IT GOT RELEASED 
BECAUSE OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING 
ABOUT, THE GOOD WORK OF 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS. W
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY IT 
HAPPENED.
HERE WE ARE AND YOU CALLED IT 
ALL.
YOU SAW THIS COMING, WHY YOU 
WENT TO THE W LAWYERS.
WHY YOU WANTED -- THAT'S WHY THE
CONCERN WAS THERE.
AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S MOST 
TROUBLING.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
OHIO.
>>M AMBASSADOR VOLKER ON DAILY 
MAIL THEY HAVE THISAI HEADLINE 
THAT SAYS UKRAINE'S SPECIAL 
ENROY KURT VOLKER WALKED BACK 
HIS CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY AND 
SAYSMO HE, QUOTE, HAS NOW LEARN 
THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN U.S. 
MILITARY AID AND A BIDEN PROBE.
THAT IS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY, IS IT?

English: 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN MY 
TESTIMONY.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. WELCH?
>> THANK YOU.
JUST FOLLOWING UP ON MR. JORDAN.
THE EASIEST WAY TO AVOID AN 
INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT DO 
ANYTHING WRONG.ST
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY WE'RE 
HERE.
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CAN'T BE 
TRADED FOR HELP IN A POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN.
LET ME GIVE AN ANALOGY AND ASK 
IF YOU AGREE.
THE MAYOR OF A CITY -- 
>> FOR SOME OF OUR NBC STATIONS 
OUR COVERAGE IS ENDING.
THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN TO NBC 
NEWS NOW.
YOU CAN WATCH THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING AND ANALYSIS ALONG WITH 
OUR STREAMING VIEWERS ON 
NBCNEWS.COM OR THE APP ON YOUR 
ROKU, APPLE TV OR AMAZON FIRE 
TV.
THAT COVERAGE CONTINUES NOW.
>> THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE IF IT 

English: 
WERE A GOVERNOR WITHHOLDING THE 
BUDGET REQUEST AS STATE POLICE 
UNLESS THE STATE POLICE AGREES 
TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION ON A
POLITICAL RIVAL.
YOU WOULD AGREE?
>> CORRECT.
YES, SIR.
>> IN YOUR VIEW, IS IT ANY 
DIFFERENT FOR A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS?
>> OF COURSE NOT, RIGHT?
CANNOT WITHHOLD AID UNLESS HE 
GETS AN INVESTIGATION INTO A 
POLITICAL RIVAL, MR. MORRISON. 
>> YES, SIR, I WOULD AGREE WITH 
THAT HYPOTHETICAL. 
>> AND WE'RE HAVING A DEBATE AS 
TO BOTH SIDES HOW TO READ WHAT 
IS PLAINLY BEFORE US, THE 
PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL WHERE 
THE PRESIDENTHO IGNORED THE WOR 
OF THE ADVISERS AND THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL TALKING POINTS 
AND INSTEAD CHOSE TO TALK ABOUT 

English: 
THE BIDENS AND HUNTER BIDEN AND 
ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO 
DEBATE THAT BUT ISN'T THE 
PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON 
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE
THE LAW, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL 
AND WORTH THE A EFFORT TO MAKE 
CERTAIN THAT WE CONTINUE TO 
GUARANTEE, AMBASSADOR MORRISON?
>> SIR, I HAVEN'T BEEN -- 
>> I'M SORRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> YEAH. 
>> AND MR. MORRISON. 
>> SIR THE RULE OF LAW IS 
CENTRAL TOS OUR DEMOCRACY.
>> IT IS SO TRUE.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME 
DISCUSSIONS AND CHALLENGE FROM 
THE OTHER SIDE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY IN 
FOREIGN POLICY TO DO WHAT HE 
LIKES.
AND, IN FACT, HE DOES.
IN OUR RECENT PRESIDENT IS TAKE 
OUR TROOPS OUT OF SYRIA AND 

English: 
ALLOW THE TURKISH FORCES TO GO 
IN, LITERALLY MEANT THAT SOME 
KURDISH FAMILIES WENT TO BED 
SATURDAY NIGHT AND WOKE UP 
SUNDAY MORNING AND PACKED THEIR 
KIDS AND FLED FOR THEIR LIVES.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE TOTALLY DISAGREED WITH
THAT BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE 
AUTHORITY TO DO IT AND IMPULSIVE
AS THAT DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN, 
UNWISE AS IT MAY HAVE BEEN, AS 
THREATENING TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
WE'RE NOT N TALKING ABOUT THAT 
HERE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I LISTENED TO
YOUR TESTIMONY L AND I TAKE IT D
THANK YOU FOR MAKING EFFORT TO 
TRY TO ADVANCE WHAT HAD BEEN A 
BIPARTISAN UKRAINE POLICY, HELP 
UKRAINE GET RID OF CORRUPTION, 
HELP RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
BUT WHAT YOU CAME TO LEARN 
PAINFULLY IS THAT THERE WAS A 
SIDE BAR UKRAINE POLICY WITH 
GIULIANIIC AS THE ADVOCATE AND  
APPEARS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS 
VERY MUCH INVOLVED, IS THAT 

English: 
CORRECT?
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
THAT, SIR.
>> YOU DON'T.
BUT AS YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, 
WHILE YOU WERE WORKING ON WHAT 
YOU THOUGHT WAS STOPPING 
AGGRESSION AND ENDING -- AND 
ELIMINATING CORRUPTION, THERE 
WAS ARR SIDE DEAL HERE TO GET 
INVESTIGATIONS GOING, CORRECT?
>> SO, YES.
SIR, MY OBJECTIVE WAS PURELY 
FOCUSED ON SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND NOT I HAVE
LEARNED THROUGH OTHER TESTIMONY 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT 
ABOUT INVESTIGATING BIDEN AND 
OTHER CONVERSATIONS B THAT I DI 
NOT KNOW ABOUT. 
>> RIGHT.
AND THANK YOU FOR
 THAT.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR 
ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
INTEGRITY AND SERVICE.
BUT AT THE BOTTOM LINE AT THE 
END OF THE DAY WE HAVE TO MAKE A
JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT WASDG UP TO WITH RESPT
TO THE REQUEST FOR THE FAVOR AND
HOW IT REPUDIATED THE POLICY 
THAT WAS THE BIPARTISAN EFFORT 

English: 
IN UKRAINE AND RAISES QUESTIONS 
ABOUT HE AND THAT HYPOTHETICAL 
EXAMPLE I GAVE OF THE MAYOR HELD
HIMSELF TO BE ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. MALONEY. 
>> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WAS STRUCK 
BY YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
YOU MOVED A LONG WAY FROM THE 
TESTIMONY YOU PRESENTED TO US IN
OCTOBER.
AND I KNOW YOU GAVE A REASON FOR
THAT, WHICH IS THAT YOU WERE IN 
THE DARK ABOUT A LOT OF THESE 
THINGS.
IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?
>> THAT IS ONE OF THING THAT I 
LEARNED A LOT OUT OF THE 
TESTIMONY -- 
>> LEARNED A LOT.
YOU LEARNED A LOT.
AND WHAT YOU SAID ON PAGE EIGHT,
I'M REFERRING TO YOUR STATEMENT 
THAT YOU GAVE THIS MORNING, 
EXCUSE ME, THIS AFTERNOON.
THAT I DID NOT KNOW, THIS IS 
QUOTING, I DID NOT KNOW THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR OTHERS HAD 
RAISED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WITH
THE UKRAINIANS OR HAD CONFLATED 
THE INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE 
UKRAINE CORRUPTION WITH 

English: 
INVESTIGATION OF THEIN FORMER VE
PRESIDENT F BIDEN.
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BURISMA MEANT
BIDEN, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE 
SAYING. 
>> I SEPARATED THE TWO. 
>> WELL YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT, 
SIR.
YOU WERE THERE ON MAY 23rd FOR 
THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT 
WHEN HE SAID TALK TO RUDY AND 
RUDY KARENED ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW 
KNOW MEANT BIDENST BUT YOU MISS 
IT ON MAY 23rd. 
>> NO, SIR.
I UNDERSTAND AT TIME THAT HUNTER
BIDEN HAD BEEN AE BOARD MEMBER. 
>> I UNDERSTAND.
BUT YOU DIDN'T READ THAT AS A 
REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS AT THAT TIME. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU WERE TWO MEETINGS IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND RAISED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS BUT YOUND DIDN'T 
KNOW Y IT WAS ABOUT THE BIDENS, 
THAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY, RIGHT?
AT THE TIME. 
>> I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS TALKING
ABOUT ANYTHING SPECIFIC. 
>> AND YOU HEARD HIM SAY 
ADMINISTRATIONS AND YOU SAIDAY 
BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS 

English: 
THE BIDEN AND THEN I GUESS IN 
THE WAR ROOM AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND RAISED BURISMA AND YOU 
MISSED THAT TOO AS I UNDERSTAND 
IT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND ON JULY 18th YOU KNEW AID
WAS WITHHELD AND IN AUGUST YOU 
SPENT A GOOD PART OF THE TIME 
WITH THIS STATEMENT WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI, RIGHT?
YOU WERE THE GUY MAKING THE 
CHANGES AND INTERACTING WITH THE
UKRAINIANS.
YOU WERE PUTTING IN RUDY'S 
CHANGES WHICH INCLUDED A CALL 
FOR INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND 
THE 2016 ELECTIONS WHICH YOU NOW
KNOW MEANT BIDENS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME.
AND ON SEPTEMBER 21st YOU'RE IN 
WARSAW AND THERE WHEN AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND TOLD ANDRE YERMAK HE 
WOULD NOT GET SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OR A WHITE HOUSEY 
MEETING UNLESS THERE WAS THE 
INVESTIGATION AND I UNDERSTAND 
YOU MISSED THAT, YOU WERE OUT OF
THEER LOOP THEN. 
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT, SIR.
I WAS NOT IN WARSAW AT THE 
MEETINGS. 

English: 
>> EXCUSE ME.
BUT YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM 
SONDLAND. 
>> THAT IS NOT QUITE CORRECT, 
EITHER.
IT WAS SOMETIME LATER. 
>> I GOT IT.
SO NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.
AND YOU SAID IN RETROSPECT I 
SHOULDT HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTIN
DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I DONE SO I 
WOULD HAVEE RAISED MY OWN 
OBJECTION. 
>> RIGHT.
THAT IS CORRECT -- 
>> WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS YOU 
ARRAISED, SIR?
>> WHAT I WOULD HAVE RAISED IS 
THAT PEOPLE ARE CONFLATING 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS WITH --
>> BUT YOU OBJECTED TO THE 
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AS 
YOU SIT HERE NOW YOU SAY YOU 
WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> IF IT WAS FOR BIDEN AN HIS 
SON. 
>> THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE 
AND I WOULD HAVE OEBTD -- 
OBJECTED TO THAT. 
>> AND IF YOU HEARD THEM ASK FOR
IT ON THE CALL AND IN RETROSPECT
THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE BEEN 
CONFUSING, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> IS
 CONFUSING THE RIGHT WORD?
IT WOULD PUT THEM IN A POSITION 
TO DO SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE TO

English: 
INVESTIGATE THE BIDEN. 
>> I THINK CONFUSED IS THE RIGHT
WORD BECAUSE THEY WERE CLEARLY 
HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLE FM
THE PRESIDENT IN ONE 
CONVERSATION AND DIFFERENT FROM 
ME AS A U.S. SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE -- 
>> WELL MAYBE, SIR, THEY 
UNDERSTOOD THAT INVESTIGATING 
BURISMA AND INVESTIGATING 2016, 
IN FACT, MEANT THE BIDENS EVEN 
THOUGH YOU DIDN'T.
AT THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO 
YERMAK AND PUTTING THE CHANGES 
IN THE STATEMENT HE TALKED TO 
SONDLAND AT THE SAME TIME AND SO
THE POINT BEING THAT THEY WERE 
PUTTING IN AN IMPOSSIBLE 
POSITION.
ASKED TO DO SOMETHING 
INAPPROPRIATE AND YOU NOW S KNO 
THAT, RIGHT?
AND YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED YOUR 
OWN OBJECTION?
>> WELL I KNOW THEY WERE ASKING 
IN THE PHONE CALL TO DO THAT, IN
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD 
WITH THE UKRAINIANS WE WERE NOT 
ASKING THEM TO DO THAT AND EVEN 
AT THAT POINT UKRAINIANS PERHAPS
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PHONE 
CALLED WHICH I DID NOT HAVE 
KNOWLEDGE OF N AT THE TIME, IS 
THAT WE JUST DON'T WANT TO GO 
THERE. 
>>O  RIGHT.
SO IN RETROSPECT, THOUGH, YOU 
WOULD HAVE RAISED OUOBJECTIONS, 
YOU WOULD HAVE SAID IT WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT 

English: 
TO DOSI THIS?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND MR. MORRISON, COULD I 
JUSTSO ASK YOU, SIR, I'M STUCK  
THIS ISSUE OF YOU DIDN'T SEE 
ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL BUT
YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO NSC LEGAL 
TO REPORT IT.
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MORRISON AND TO BOTH OF YOU,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR 
SERVICE.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.
MR. MORRISON JUST TO FOLLOW UP 
ON THE QUESTIONS FROM MY 
COLLEAGUE, YOU RESPONDED EARLIER
TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THE QUALIFY AND BASICALLY SAW 
NOTHING WRONG WITH IT BUT YOU 
SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO
GO TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO FIND OUT 
WHAT TO DO BECAUSE YOU WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL 
FALLOUT, NOT ABOUT ANYTHING 
BEING INAPPROPRIATE OR WRONG 
WITH THE CALL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> MA'AM, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE
PREMISE, NO. 

English: 
>> COULD YOU TELL ME WHY YOU 
FELT THE NEED AND YOU SAW 
NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL YET 
YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF 
COMMAND TO GO TO COUNSEL BECAUSE
OF WHAT?
WHAT WAS THE REASON W FOR THAT. 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I -- I 
DON'T AGREE WITH THE I PREMISE.
I DON'T THINK I SKIPPED THE 
CHAIN OF COMMAND. 
>> WHON  IS YOUR DIRECT REPORT?
>> DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER. 
>> AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON. 
>> DR. CHARLES KUPPERMAN. 
>> DR. KUPPERMAN.
DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM BEFORE 
YOU SPOKE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL?
>> NO. 
>> BUT YOU DON'T FEEL YOU SKIP 
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN DOING 
SO, GOING DIRECTLY TO COUNSEL?
>> MA'AM, IF I MAY, I VIEWED MY 
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LEGAL 
ADVISER AS ONE LARGELY FOCUSED 
ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
I WAS INTERESTED IN LOCKING DOWN
THE TRANSCRIPT, IF THAT IS AN 

English: 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER IN MAKING 
SURE THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER 
WAS -- 
>> AND WHY WERE YOU CONCERNED 
THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER -- 
>> BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE 
ANYBODY FROM THE LEGAL ADVISERS 
OFFICE IN THE LISTENING ROOM AND
I WANTED TO MIEKS SURE SOMEBODY 
FROM THE LEGAL ADVISERS OFFICE 
WAS AWARE AND I WANTED TO MAKE 
SURE IT WAS A SENIOR PERSON. 
>> AND WHAT DID YOU WANT THEM TO
BEAN AWARE OF SPECIFICALLY?
>> I WANTED THEM TO BE AWARE OF 
THE CALL BECAUSE I WANTED THEM 
TO KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. 
>> WHAT CONCERNED TO THE POINT 
WHERE YOU WANTED THEM TO KNOW 
WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED THAT YOU 
WENT DIRECTLY TO LEGAL COUNSEL 
TO INFORM THEM OF?
>> MY EQUIVALENT OF THE HEAD OF 
NSC LEGAL WAS AND IS JOHN 
EISENBERG.
HE'S MY EQUIVALENT IN THAT 
POSITION.
I WON'T GO TO SOMEBODY 
SUBORDINATE TO HIM. 
>> DIDN'T YOU TESTIFYBO EARLIER 
YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 

English: 
POLITICAL FALLOUT BASED ON THE 
POLITICAL CLIMATE IN D.C.?
>> YES -- 
>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED 
LUNTD COLONEL VINDMAN. 
>> JULY C 16 TO OCTOBER 31 OR S 
>> THANK YOU.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED
THAT YOU BELIEVE CONGRESSIONAL 
PRESSURE HELPED UNFREEZE THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEING 
RELEASED.
DO YOU STILL STAND BY THA 
TESTIMONY TODAY. 
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT.
I MET WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
AND THEN SAW THE LETTER THAT 
SEVERAL SENATORS SIGNED AND SENT
TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY AND I
WAS BRIEFED ABOUT THE 
POSSIBILITY OF A COUPLE OF PHONE
CALLS FROM SOME SENIOR MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE AS WELL. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I 
YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO YOU.
>> I THANK THE GENTLE WOMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, JUST WANT TO 

English: 
FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS ABOUT 
UKRAINIANS NOT AWARE OF THE AID 
BEING WITHHELD.
YOU'RE AWARE I'M SURE OF THE 
TESTIMONY OF COLONEL VINDMAN 
THAT IN FACT HE WAS CONTACTED BY
SOMEONE WITHIN THE EMBASSY 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE WHOLE PRIOR 
TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC. 
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT BUT I
TAKE THAT.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF MRS. CROFT'S
TESTIMONY AND TRANSCRIPTS 
RELEASED THAT UKRAINIANS FOUND 
OUT QUITEOU QUICKLY AFTER THE HD
WAS PLACED IN JULY AND THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS HAD A REASON TO KEEP 
ITSO SILENT AND NOT MAKE IT 
PUBLIC?
>> I SAW THAT IN HER TESTIMONY.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO 
QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT 
TESTIMONY ISTI ACCURATE. 
>> NO, I DON'T. 
>> SO THE UKRAINIANS DID FIND 
OUT BEFORE IT WASS  PUBLIC, 
ACCORDING TO THESEUB TWO 
WITNESSES.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE UKRAINIANS
CERTAINLY FOUND OUT IT WAS 
PUBLIC WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 
THE NEWSPAPER. 

English: 
>>  THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND FROM THE TIME THEY FOUND 
OUT FROM THE NEWSPAPER THEY 
STILL HADN'T HAD THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING AND STILL DIDN'T HAVE 
THE AID AND AT THAT POINT THEY 
HAD ALREADY HAD THE CONVERSATION
WITH THE PRESIDENT IN WHICH HE 
ASKED THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS, IS THAT CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 
>> GOOD EVENING TO BOTH OF YOU 
ANDEV THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVIC.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ON PAGE SEVEN
OF YOUR S OPENING STATEMENT TOD 
YOU SAID SINCE EVENTS 
SURROUNDING YOURVE EARLIER 
TESTIMONY, OCTOBER 3rd, 
QUOTE/UNQUOTE A GREAT DEAL OF 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND 
PERSPECTIVE HAVE COME TO LIGHT.
I HAVE LEARNED MANY THINGS THAT 
I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF 
THE EVENTS IN QUESTION, CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THAT INCLUDES CONVERSATIONS 
THAT OCCURRED AS WELL AS 
YOU WEREN'T A  WPART, CORRECT.  

English: 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SIR, YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT A
PART OF THE JULY 25th CALL, 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACCORDING TO
YOUR HOPING STATEMENT HAD A CALL
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 
26th, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ON SEPTEMBER 1st YOU WEREN'T 
PRESENT WITH THE SIDE BAR 
MEETING WITH SONDLAND AND 
SPECIAL ADVISER YERMAK, IS THAT 
RIGHT. 
>>TH THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU CERTAINLY WEREN'T 
PART OF THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN 
AMBASSADOR TAYLORNDF  AND AMBASR
SONDLAND IN WHICH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLANDAM, ACCORDING TO MULTIP 
PEOPLE NOW SAID THAT EVERYTHING,
A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 
MILITARY AID WERE DEPENDENT ON 
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS, ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT. 
>> T THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND CERTAINLY, SIR, YOU 
WEREN'T PART OF THE PHONE CALL 

English: 
ON SEPTEMBER 7th BETWEEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WHICH 
PRESIDENT TRUMPID INSISTING THA 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKYHA GO TO A MI 
AND MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF THE RIVALS. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU WEREN'T PART OF THE 
SEPTEMBER 8th PHONE CALL BETWEEN
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR -- I'M SORRY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHERE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AGAIN INSISTS THAT THESE 
ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVE TO HAPPEN, 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SIR, YOU SAY THAT YOU WEREN'T
A WITNESS TO ANY KIND OF QUID 
PRO QUO OR CONDITIONALITY 
BETWEEN MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS, WHAT SOMEONE 
CALLED MISSILES FOR 
MISINFORMATION TODAY, ISN'T THAT
RIGHT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> BUT, SIR, YOU WEREN'T PRESENT
FOR MANY IF NOTSE ALL OF THE PHE
CALLS AND CONVERSATIONS WHERE 
THE C ALLEGED INSTANCES OF QUID 
PRO QUO OCCURRED, ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.

English: 
>> SIR, LET ME TURN YOUR 
ATTENTION TO ANOTHER TOPIC THAT 
HAS COME UP TODAY.
IT ACTUALLY CAME UP LAST FRIDAY.
YOU HAVE HIGH REGARD FOR 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, CORRECT.
>> YES, I DO.
>> I PRESUME THAT YOU WERE AWARE
THAT AS THE AMBASSADOR WAS 
TESTIFYING, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ACTUALLY TWEETED VERY 
DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HER. 
>> I SAW THAT MOMENT. 
>> AND I PRESUME THAT YOU 
DISAPPROVE OF THOSE TYPES OF 
TWEETS, CORRECT. 
>>RO YES, I DON'T THINK THAT IS 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> YOU'VE SUPERVISED MANY PEOPLE
OVER THE YEARS DURING YOUR 
CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE, 
RIGHT. 
>> YES, I ICAM. 
>> AND YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT 
TO ONE OF YOUR DIRECT REPORTS OR
ANYBODY WHO WORKED IN YOUR 
ORGANIZATION, RIGHT?
>> NO, I WOULD NOT. 
>> IT IS I JUST WRONG. 
>> I BELIEVEIS THAT EVEN WHEN Y 
FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO CRITICIZE,
CRITICISM IS PRIVATE, PRAISE IS 
PUBLIC.
>> AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT 
YOU'RE A MAN OF HONOR AND YOU 

English: 
WOULD NOT ATTACK A VETERAN, YOU 
WOULD NOTRA ATTACK SOMEONE WHO  
CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE 
MILITARY WHO IS DOING THEIR 
DUTY, CORRECT?
>> I RESPECT THE SERVICE MEMBERS
IN UNIFORM. 
>> IN FACT, THERE IS A CERTAIN 
MAN THAT C WE BOTH ADMIRE.
THE LATE SENATOR JOHN McCAIN. 
>> YES. 
>> WHOAT UNFORTUNATELY WAS 
ATTACKED NOT ONLYLY WHEN HE WAS 
ALIVE BUT AFTER HE DIED BY THE 
 -- THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, ISN'T
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> AND I PRESUME YOU WOULD 
DISAPPROVE OF THE ATTACKED ON 
JOHN McCAIN. 
>> YES.
I KNEW JOHN McCAIN VERY WELL FOR
A VERY LONG TIME AND HE'S A 
HONORABLE MAN AND VERY MUCH A 
WAR HERO FOR THIS COUNTRY. 
>> T WELL, TODAY, SIR, AS 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS 
TESTIFYING, OUR PRESIDENT USED 
THE OFFICIAL TWITTER ACCOUNT OF 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
ATTACK LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S CREDIBILITY.

English: 
I PRESUME YOU DON'T APPROVE OF 
THOSE TYPES OF TWEETS EITHER, DO
YOU?
>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT AND 
WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, IT 
IS NOT APPROPRIATE. 
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE 
AND THANK YOU MR. MORRISON FOR 
YOURS AS WELL. 
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER 
QUESTIONING.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
FOR ANY CLOSING COMMENTS HE HAS.
>> THANK YOU.
AS THE FIRST DAY OF THIS WEEK'S 
IMPEACHMENT TV MARATHON DRAWS TO
A CLOSE I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT WE'RE 
WATCHING.
THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THE 
CULMINATION OF THREE YEARS OFFIN
SESSENT DEMOCRAT EFFORTS TO FIND
A CRIME TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT.
FIRST THEY TRIED TO MANUFACTURE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COLLUDEDES WITH RUSSIA.
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK THE DNC 
AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WORKED 
WITH A SPY CRISTO FER STEELE 
WITH FALSE INFORMATION ALLEGING 
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUDED
WITH RUSSIA AND THAT WAS LARGELY
ASSEMBLED FROM RUSSIAN AND 

English: 
UKRAINE SOURCES THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS CONTRACTOR WORKED WIT.
NEXT THEY PRIME THEIR HOPES ON 
THE WORK OF ROBERT MUELLER.
MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS AND 
MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS 
SEEKING EVIDENCE OF A PRIME THAT
WE KNOW WASN'T COMMITTED.
MUELLER'S FAILURE WAS 
DEVASTATING BLOW TO DEMOCRATS 
WHO CLEARLY HOPED HIS WORK TO BE
THE BASIS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT.
TODAY WE AREE WITNESSING THE 
UKRAINE HOAX.
THE DIRECT TO TV SEQUEL TO THE 
RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX.
THE PROD OF THE UKRAINE HOAX IS 
HARD TO FOLLOW.
IT SHIFTS FROM DAY-TO-DAY.
FIRST THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEY 
HAD EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO, 
THEN EXTORTION AND WITNESS 
INTIMIDATION AND NOWSS DEMOCRAT 
ARE PINNING THEIR HOPES ON 
BRIBERY.
LIKE ANY GOOD HOLLYWOOD 
PRODUCTION, DEMOCRATS NEEDED A 
SCREEN TEST BEFORE RELEASING THE
LATEST ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT.
THEY LEVERAGED THE SECRECY OF 

English: 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
TO INTERVIEW A CAST OF 
CHARACTERS IN PREPARATION FOR 
THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
FOR THE MEDIA ENTHUSIASTIC 
SUPPORT, THEY BUILT A NARRATIVE 
BASED ON SELECTIVELY LEAKED 
TESTIMONY.
SPEAKER PELOSI ARE SEEKING THE 
TRUTH AND THEY WANT TO KNOW THE 
ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWINGPE 
QUESTIONS THEY REFUSE TO ASK.
TO WHAT EXCEPT DID THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE WITH 
THE DEMOCRATS ONE- THIS COMMITT 
AND/OR HIS STAFF AND WHAT IS THE
FULL EXTENT OF THE UKRAINE 
MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN IN 2016, WHY DID 
BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND 
WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID 
HIS POSITION IMPACT ANY U.S. 
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PROMISED
A GRAVE AND SOMBER IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AND INSTEAD THEY GOT THE
SALACIOUS SPICED RING COMEDY 
THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR
THREE YEARS.

English: 
GOOD NIGHT.
SEE YOU IN THE MORNING. 
>>  THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I 
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY.
I WOULD HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF 
THINGS C ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD 
THIS AFTERNOON.
FIRST AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOUR 
WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN WHICH YOU 
SAY IN HINDSIGHT I NOW 
UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS SAW THE 
IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE 
UKRAINIAN COMPANYHE BURISMA AS 
EQUIVALENT TO A INVESTIGATING 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
I SAW THEM AS VERY DIFFERENT, 
THE FORMER BEING APPROPRIATE AND
UNREMARKABLE AND THE LATTER 
BEING UNACCEPTABLE.
IN RETROSPECT, YOU SAID I SHOULD
HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION 
DIFFERENTLYCT AND HAD I DONE SOI
WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN 
OBJECTION.
AMBASSADOR, WE APPRECIATE YOUR 
WILLINGNESS TO AMEND YOUR 
EARLIER TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF 
WHAT YOU NOW KNOW.

English: 
AND I THINK YOU MADE IT VERY 
CLEAR THAT KNOWING WHAT YOU DO 
TODAY THAT, IN FACT, THE 
PRESIDENT, SOUGHT AN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND 
THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE 
COUNTENANCES ANY EFFORT TO 
ENCOURAGE THE UKRAINIANS ENGAGE 
IN SUCH CONDUCT.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WERE ABLE 
TO DEBUNK I HOPE FOR THE LAST 
TIME THE IDEA THAT JOE BIDEN DID
SOMETHING WRONG WHEN HE, IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. POLICY 
SOUGHT TO REPLACE A CORRUPT 
PROSECUTOR, SOMETHING THAT NOT 
ONLY THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
WANTED, THE EUROPEAN UNION 
WANTED AND THE IMF WANTED BUT 
WAS THE CONSENSUS POSITION OF 
THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL 
SECURITYIO INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU DIDN'T GET A LOT OF 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TODAY AS 
OTHER WITNESSES DID BECAUSE YOU 
EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT WAS ALL 
NONSENSE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR ABOUT 
THAT.
MR. MORRISON I THINK WHAT IS 
MOST I REMARKABLE ABOUT YOUR 

English: 
TESTIMONY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VICE 
PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, YOU 
WITNESSED GORDON SONDLAND 
MEETING WITH ANDRE YERMAK, TOP 
ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
AND IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER 
SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HE 
INFORMED THE UKRAINIANS IF THEY 
WANTED THAT $400 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AID THEY WERE GOING TO 
HAVE TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT THE I PRESIDENT WANTED.
YOU WERE LATER INFORMED AND 
SIGNIFICANT AS YOU TESTIFY HERE 
TODAY, THAT THE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD A SUBSEQUENT 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND INFORMED YOU THAT IT 
WASN'T GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR 
THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL
TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HADWA TO DO IT HIMSELFF
HE WANTED TO GET THAT AID LET 
ALONE THE MEETING IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
NOW, YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO OPINE 
ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM 
BRIBERY.
ALTHOUGH YOU WEREN'T ASKED TO 

English: 
OPINE ON THE MEANING OF THE 
TERMS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
BUT BRIBERY FOR THOSE WATCHING 
AT HOME IS THE CONDITIONING OF 
OFFICIAL ACTS IN EXCHANGE FOR 
SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE.
THE OFFICIAL ACTS WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT HERE ARE A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
DESPERATELY SOUGHT AND AS YOU 
ACKNOWLEDGED, AMBASSADOR VOLKER,
WAS DEEPLY IMPORTANT TO THIS 
COUNTRY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.
TO SHOW THAT THE UNITED STATES 
HAD U THIS NEW PRESIDENT'S BACK.
THAT MEETING WAS IMPORTANT.
THAT MEETING IS AN OFFICIAL ACT.
THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE IS EVEN 
MORE SIGNIFICANT.
BECAUSE UKRAINIANS ARE DYING 
EVERY DAY IN THEIR WAR WITH 
RUSSIA.
AND SO TO WITHHOLD A MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO GET THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW 
HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AMBASSADOR, 
VOLKER, WAS WRONG FOR THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT TO REQUESTWR AND THE 
IDEA OF WITH HOLDING MILITARY 
AIDIT TO GET THE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE AN 
ANTHEMA AND REPUBLIC TO EVERY 
AMERICAN BECAUSE IT MEANS THE 
SACRIFICE JUST NOT OF UKRAINE 
BUT AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY 
FOR THE INTEREST OF THE 
PRESIDENT O PERSONALLY AND 
POLITICALLY.
NOW, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
ALL THEY SEEM TO BE UPSET ABOUT 
WITH THIS IS NOT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT AN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL, NOT THAT HE WITHHELD A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 
$400 MILLION IN AID WE ALL 
PASSED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS, THE OBJECTION IS
THEY GOT CAUGHT.
THE OBJECTION IS THAT SOMEONE 
BLEW THE WHISTLE AND THEY WOULD 
LIKE THIS WHISTLE-BLOWERY  
IDENTIFIED AND THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER 
PUNISHED.
THAT IS THEIR OBJECTION.
NOT THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED 
IN THE CONDUCT BUT THAT HE GOT 
CAUGHT.
THEIR DEFENSE IS, WELL, HE ENDED
UP RELEASING THE AID.

English: 
YES, AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS 
ODYUS.
AMERICANS MAY BE WATCHING THIS 
AND ASKING, WHY SHOULD THE 
UNITED STATES CARE ABOUT 
UKRAINE?
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT 
UKRAINE?
AND THIS WAS THE IMPORT I THINK 
OF THE CONVERSATION THE NOW 
INFAMOUS CONVERSATION IN THE 
KIEV RESTAURANT WITH GORDON 
SONDLAND HOLDING THE PHONE AWAY 
FROM HIS HEAD BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS TALKING SO LOUD.
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT ASK IN 
THAT CALL THE DAY AFTER THE NOW 
INFAMOUS CALL WITH ZELENSKY AND 
WHAT DOES HE ASK ON THAT CELL 
PHONE CALL?
NOTL  WHETHER THE RADA HAS PASS 
NEW ANTI-CORRUPTION P REFORM, N 
ARE THE UKRAINIANS GOING TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATION, MEANING INTO 
BIDEN.
AND SONDLAND'S ANSWER IS THEY'RE
GOING TO DO IT.
THEY'LL DO ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING 
THE PRESIDENTSS WANTS.
WHAT IS MORE TELLING IS THE 
CONVERSATIONNG I THINK THAT 
SONDLAND HAD WITH THE FOREIGN 

English: 
SERVICE OFFICER IN WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS BASICALLY DONALD 
TRUMP DOESN'T GIVE AN EXPLETIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE CARES ABOUT THE BIG THINGS.
AND MR. HOLMES SAID, WELL, 
UKRAINE IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.
THE RUSSIANS, THAT IS KIND OF A 
BIG THING.
AND SONDLAND'S ANSWER IS NO, NO,
HE CARES ABOUT BIG THINGS THAT 
AFFECT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS.
THIS IS WHY AMERICANS SHOULD 
CARERI ABOUT THIS.
THE AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT 
WHAT HAPPENS TO C OUR ALLIES.
WHO ARE DYING.
BUT AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT 
THEIR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
THEIR OWNUR PRESIDENT AND THEIR 
OWN CONSTITUTION.
AND THEY WILL
 NEED TO ASK 
THEMSELVES AS WE'LL HAVE TO ASK 
OURSELVES IN CONGRESS, ARE WE 
PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
CAN LEVERAGE OFFICIAL ACTS, 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, WHITE HOUSE
MEETINGS TO GET AN INVESTIGATION
OF A POLITICAL RIVAL?
ARE WE PREPARED TO SAY, WELL, 
YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT IS JUST 

English: 
WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GO 
THERE.
I DON'T T THINK OUR FOUNDING 
FATHERS WOULD HAVE WANTED US TO 
GO THERE.
INDEED I THINK WHEN THE FOUNDING
FATHERS PROVIDED A REMEDY, THAT 
BEING IMPEACHMENT, THEY HAD THE 
VERY CONCERN THAT THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAYSI BETR 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS 
OF THE COUNTRY FOR PERSONAL 
INTEREST.
THEYL PUT THAT REMEDY IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO 
WILLY-NILLY OVERTURN ELECTIONS.
NO, BECAUSE THEY WANTED A 
POWERFUL ANTI-CORRUPTION 
MECHANISM WHEN THAT CORRUPTION 
CAME FROM THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN 
THE LAND.
WE'RE ADJOURNED.
I ASK THE AUDIENCE TO PLEASE 
ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE
ROOM BEFOR
