Joe biden, come on over to ukraine its never going to happen spewing all they had to do apparently was announce an investigation. Okay, that is it for us. They hearing is set to resume shortly, but now we have special report up next. Spewing that evening, welcome to washington. I am bret baier. Continuing coverage of the impeachment hearings day 3, nine hours on capitol hill as you look alive at the chairman adam schiff getting ready to gavel into the next round of questions this from the lawmakers themselves, while we wait, we will bring in our panel here. Byron york, chief Political Correspondent of the national and josh holmes, former top advisor to mitch mcconnell, now president of the Cavalry Consultants as you look there at tom morrison, tim morris and heading back in for testimony, and kurt volker right behind him. Quickly down the row, your thoughts on today so far . Today is the day that we
found out there was a difference of opinion about this trumpzelensky call, some officials like Colonel Vindman listened and were very alarmed and thought it was improper, but others like to morrison who is vindmans boss listen to it and were not alarmed. Do not think any improper thing had happened. The interesting thing about today is this is the first time we have heard from the latter part, because satirical witnesses this morning, vindman and Jennifer Williams were democratic witnesses as have all of the witnesses been so far. But the ones testifying now, tim morrison and kurt volker are republican witnesses. Bret any thoughts . We had a new poll come out today from marist, and it shows that really not much has changed despite the fact that we have had a number of televised hearings on day 3, i dont know that this will make much difference either. Bret adam schiff now beginning this hearing, lets listen in. Mr. Goldman, you are
recognized for 15 minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador volker. I want to correct the record from the first round. You were right to point out that you asked if the quote that i represented you made in the deposition was your words, and i actually read the wrong part of the quota. What you actually said was it creates a problem again where all of the things we are trying to do to advance a bilateral relationship, strengthen our support for ukraine, strength and the positioning against russia is now getting sucked into a domestic, political debate in the u. S. Domestic political narrative that overshadows that. So you were right to point that out. I apologize for the mistake. I want to go back to a couple of things that you said during the minority round, can you repeat again with the readout that you got of the July 25th Call . Yes, i received a readout from both ukrainian colleague
yermak as well as a u. S. Person, i do not remember whether it was my staffer or somebody from the embassy or where. But the readout was that it was a good phone call, that it was a congratulatory phone call for the president s win in the election. Their president zelensky did reiterate his commitment to Fighting Corruption and advancing reform in the ukraine. And that President Trump renewed his information and invitation to zelensky to come to the white house. You said that that readout was exactly as you expected the call to go . Exactly. Thats what we are trying to tee up. I want to show you again the July 25th Text that you wrote to andriy yermak, which was a message that you were relaying to him so that he could prepare president zelensky. And you recall this, right . Where you said this was the message, good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house, assuming
president z will investigate. Get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. We will nail down date for a visit to washington. Thats what you expected from the call, right . I expected that president zelensky would be convincing in his statements and comments with President Trump. That he was exactly that. That he would investigate and get to the bottom of things that it happened in 2016. And that if he was strong in conveying who he is as a person and doing that, President Trump would be convinced and renew the invitation to the white house. Right, but you do not mention corruption in this text, do you . This is the word corruption is not in this text . The corruption is not there, investigating things that happen in the past that were corrupt would be investigating corruption. You just said again that investigating things that happen in the past, you are aware of course that most investigations relate to things that happen in
the past, right . Yes. So that does not really move the needle whether it is current or past in terms of the subject of the investigation, right . Yes, the investigation of things that happened in the past. You talked about the meeting that you had on july 26 with president zelensky and ambassador sondland inc. Ef, is that correct . On the 26th . I had a meeting with president zelensky, yes. And i believe you testified that the topic of investigation did not come up at all, is that correct . I do not recall them coming up, just the general phone call. You do not take notes of that phone call . No, i did not. You had other staffers to do that, right . Correct. There were two staffers that testified that the subject of either sensitive topics came up, are we that are off taking their word for then years . I have no reason to doubt
their notes if they were taken contemporaneously at the meeti meeting . Meeting. Another witness to testify before us laura cooper about a meeting that she had with you on august 20th. Do you recall having that meeting with her . Because he did not relay any or deposition . I did mention that i had been making the rounds to weigh in on lifting the hold on Security Assistance to do that with all of the inner agency players. And she recalled with some specificity that meeting, which i believe was also based on her notes that you described the statement that you were trying to get president zelensky to make and i will quote what she said Disavow Interference in u. S. Elections and commit to the prosecution of individuals involved in election interference. And if you were agreed to do that, she testified you thought that it might help to lift the
hold on Security Assistance. Is that your recollection of the conversation as well . Not exactly. How does yours differ . I recall talking about the statement we discussed earlier, the one that was the subject of these exchanges between mr. Yermak and myself. Myself and ambassador sondland and Rudy Giuliani, and then back to yermak. This was an effort that we were doing that it could be helpful in getting a reset of the thinking of the president and the negative view of ukraine that he had. And if we did that, i thought that there would also be helpful in unblocking whatever hold their was on Security Assistance. That if there is this negative perception about ukraine getting the stuff on track would be helpful. So that is a different interpretation, but you dont doubt that what she testified is inaccurate, do you . I believe that she accurately reflected what she understood from the conversation. You testified a little bit
about the june 28th Conference Call that you had with investor sondland, Ambassador Taylor, im not sure if deputy kent was on the line and Secretary Perry before he looped in president zelensky, am i right about the participants . Was Secretary Perry not on it . Im pretty sure that Deputy Assistant deputy kent was not on it. I dont remember whether Secretary Perry was on it. And i dont remember whether i stayed on for a president zelensky joining the call or not. There were two separate calls. Are there any Staff Members are no takers on the call . I dont believe so. Why . We were having a call among ourselves to talk about what were the messages we felt we needed to convey. At that point we have had other testimony from people who did take notes that there was a discussion about the investigations or what you needed to do, what president zelensky needed to do in order to get the white house meeting,
do you recall that . I recall seeing that and Ambassador Taylors testimony. I believe that it couldve been a text message to that effect. And again, it comes down to what are we talking about in terms of these investigations. Because what i certainly understood as we are talking about ukraine looking into and Fighting Corruption internally and being convincing about this as presenting the new president and the new team as a change in ukraine. You understood that the investigations were burisma and the 2016 election, correct . Yes. You interpreted those to be okay because in theory they were looking into ukrainians . Correct. But we can agree, can we not, that the investigations, all of the investigations we are talking about here today were burisma and the 2016 election . Correct. What you then amended your testimony again today to say in retrospect, if you do not realize that the purpose for
mr. Giuliani and President Trump to want to the Burisma Investigation was to further political benefits and digging up dirt or getting some information on Vice President biden. Thats what you learned subsequently, right . It is correct that i learned about the president s interest in investigating Vice President biden from the Phone Call Transcript gained much, much later. From giuliani i did not know that he was actively pursuing this. I did know that he raise this with me directly and i push back on it. Well, you knew that ambassador sondland was pursuing this at the July 10th Meeting when he raise the investigations himself prior again, he did not specify biden, he did not specify burisma as i recall either. I understand it as a generic comment, and something not appropriate for that meeting. I understand, but biden was not mention, but you do agree when investigations are referenced in this context, it
is burisma in the 2016 election, no . Yes, thats what i understand i understand. And on that july 10th phone call when ambassador sondland raise the investigations, he did that in response to a question from the ukrainians about the white house meeting, isnt that correct . Can you repeat the question . I did not get that. You say that ambassador sondland was talking about meetings at that office. Nu said that you thought there was an appropriate . Yes. Dinner to make that comment in response to a question from the ukrainian officials about when they could schedule the white house meeting . That im not sure about. I remember the meeting essentially already being over and ambassador sondland bringing that up. In the july 2nd or 3rd meeting in toronto that you had with president zelensky, you also mention investigations to him, right . And again, you were referring to burisma
i was thinking of burisma in 2016. You understood that thats what the ukrainians interpreted investigations to be about to burisma and the 2016 election . I dont know specifically at that time if we had talked that specifically, burisma and 2016, that was my assumption that they would be thinking that too. Now, mr. Morrison, when did you have that conversation with fiona hill about burisma and the parallel track, Parallel Process, rather involving ambassador sondland and giuliani, do you recall . A number of Handoff Discussions between one july and 15 july. So in that period of time, you were certainly aware of this effort to promote to this Burisma Investigation that ambassador sondland and Rudy Giuliani were going about . At least you had heard about it from dr. Hill . I heard about it from
dr. Hill. I want to pull up another excerpt from a recent Wall Street Journal article that quotes an email from Jul July 13th that ambassador sondland wrote to you. He wrote to you sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town. Corruption ending, unbundling moving forward and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. And you responded tracking. What did you understand ambassador sondland to mean when he wrote to you any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently . I dont know that i had any understanding. These are emails july 13 emails, i was not even in the seat yet. But i knew that among the Head Of State meetings we were attempting a schedule was one between the president and
president zelensky. Right, but it was before this that dr. Hill had told you about to burisma and ambassador sondland in particular his desire for this Parallel Process to investigate burisma, right . Yes. So you had that association when he received his email asking you about investigations, correct . Not necessarily. No . No. Why not . Because among the discussions that i had with dr. Hill were about ambassador sondland, i think she mightve coined it the gordon problem. And i decided to keep track of what ambassador sondland was doing. I did not necessarily always act on things gordon suggested he believed were important. So he wanted to get a meeting, i understood that the president wanted to do u. N. Had agreed to
a meeting, so i was working and tracking that we needed to schedule a meeting. You are not endorsing the notion of president zelensky sending a message about investigations . Is that your testimony. That is my testimony. Ambassador volker, i want to jump ahead. After the aide was released, you went to the yes conference, right . In ukraine . Are you aware that bassett or taylor, who testified based on quite detailed notes indicated that earlier, a few days before that ambassador sondland had told him that President Trump is a businessman . And so before he writes a check, he likes to see people pay up, something to that effect . You are aware of that . Im unfamiliar with that
testimony. You are familiar that Ambassador Taylor said that you said something very similar to him when you were in ukraine for the gas conference, do you recall saying that . Yes, i do. I was repeating what Gordon Sondland had said to me to explain to bill taylor what that understanding was. And in what context did ambassador sondland say that to you . We were talking about the release of the hold on Security Assistance. And he was saying that the president , he already has a negative view on ukraine prayed he sees a check on his desk that is going to the ukrainians. Not sure about them, so he wants to hold on until he assured. In the pale before he writes the check is to get the investigations that he wants, right . That was not clear to me. What did you think it meant . I did not think that there was a pay up. The language was similar. I heard from gordon that he sees the check and is not sure, he
wants to make sure that he has a deal with the ukrainians. I did not know specifically other than the generic formation. I yield back. 15 minutes to Ranking Member nunes. Parliamentary inquiry of mr. Chair. Do you expect any more of these magical 15 minute moments in the back . I dont know how magical they are, they are produced by 660 that we can have successive rounds of up to 45 minutes. This is part of the prescribed procedure under the house resolution. Do you expect more this evening . I do not expect more will be necessary. Thank you, gentlemen. For everyone watching, this is another example of how out of control this process has become. Where the democrats just magically give themselves additional minutes. Which they are right in the special rule that they wrote,
they can do. But you at least think that they would have the decency to just listed that you will have 15 minutes more, and i would say that you can go for hours, we can go five hours, we will give you all you want. You can keep digging if you want. The deeper the hole you dig, more viewers will turn off, people are not buying a drug deal that you guys are trying to sell. I would add that since we are in prime time, these are two witnesses that were your witnesses that you called into the post. We still ask for witnesses that you did not depose including whistleblower who you and others claim not to know, which we still need to get to the bottom of that, because it is the most important material fact witness to how this whole mess began in the first place. Secondly we have asked for the dnc operatives that were working
with the ukrainians to dig up dirt for which you call, or what the left calls Conspiracy Theories. Which they are right, they are Conspiracy Theories and dirt that they dug up to spend their own Conspiracy Theories to attack the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election. So i have no more questions for these witnesses. I know our members do. Mr. Castor, you have a little bit of cleanup there. Thank you mr. Nunes, i will try to be quick and yield some time back so we dont have to use every last minute. Senator volker, your are you aware of the statement from mr. Petrenko that he said no one told the ukrainians, certainly not him that there was any linkage between the Security Assistance funds and investigations . I saw that statement, yes. Do you know the Foreign Minister . I do. During time relevant, did you have any discussions with him about the investigation and links . Not about investigations with him, i believe i kept that
discussion to being with mr. Yermak. And we did discuss with Foreign Minister poroshenko and his diplomatic adviser Security Assistance after it was raised august 29th. I discussed that with him. The primary person you worked with was mr. Yermak . Yes. And mr. Yermak also had some meetings with ambassador sondland, did mr. Yermak ever give you any feedback from his interactions with ambassador sondland . I cannot say whether he did or did not, we were in frequent contact and talked about the issues as we went along. The episode at warsaw where apparently ambassador sondland pulled mr. Yermak aside, did mr. Yermak give you any feedback on that meaning . I did not get anything specific after that. This was around, i believe September 1st or 2nd. And it was at that time that i
had been texted by mr. Yermak and was subsequently in touch with him and poroshenko where told them both, and also the defense minister, told them all, dont worry, we know, we are trying to fix it. And i left the conversation at that. In the ukrainian officials to the best of your knowledge trusted you . Very much so, we had a close relationship. When you made statements like that did they believe you . I think they believed me. They would also have other conversations and hear things from other people. But they knew that i was sincere with them. They also trusted Ambassador Taylor . Yes. I would just like to demystify a little bit of the whole mayor giuliani role here, you met with him one time . That is correct. And you had some Text Messages with him, correct . Yes, between the 10th of july and around the 13th of august. And during your deposition we
sort of did an accounting of your communications with mr. Giuliani, and it wasnt, there were not that many. We sort of accounted for them all. Then ambassador sondland, when he came in, he did not have any oneonone meetings with mayor giuliani to your knowledge, is that correct . I dont believe he did. But i dont know. I think ambassador sondland testified that there were a couple of Conference Calls that he may have been on with you that is true. Okay, just getting back to the regular channel that Ambassador Taylor coined in his deposition testimony, did you ever have an opportunity to sort of close the loop with him about any concerns whatsoever . Or was it the specific instances
raised in the text . Only those specific instances. Do you believe that mr. Giuliani was in for greater communication with yourself, Secretary Perry, and ambassador sondland . I dont know what he thought. Okay. I think thats all i have mr. Nunes. I have nothing more. With the gentlemen allow us to use our magic minutes to yield to one of our members who would like to go . The house rules do not permit that, mr. Nunes. We yield back. We go to five minute member questions. I recommend myself for 5 minut 5 minutes. Volker, i want to ask you about something in your Opening Statement with respect to the July 10th Meeting, you testified participated in the july 10 meeting with security adviser bolden, and Security Defense counsel, as i remember the meeting was essentially over when ambassador sondland made a generic comment about investigations. I think all of us thought it was inappropriate. The conversation did not continue, and the meeting concluded. Ambassador volker, we asked you about that meeting for your deposition, and you told us nothing about this. I believe we asked you about why the meeting came to an end, and why you had earlier indicated i think to Ambassador Taylor that it did not go well, and your answer was that they were in the weeds of National Security policy. Why did you not tell us about this . Because thats what i remembered from the meeting what i provided in my october 3rd statement, as i said, i learned other things, including seeing the statements from alex vindman and fiona hill, and that reminded me that yes, at the very end of that meeting, as was recounted in Colonel Vindman statement, i did remember that, that yes, thats right, gordon brought that up and that was it. So at the time we deposed you
and i think we were there for six or 788 hours, and asking you specifically about what you kne, you did not remember that Gordon Sondland had brought us up in Th Ukrainians and ambassador bolden called an end to the meeting, ambassador bolden described that meeting as a drug deal that Sondland Mulvaney cooked up, you have no recollection of that . No, i did not remember that in the time of my october 3rd testimony. I read the account by alex, and that jog my memory. I said yes, thats right. That did not happen did happen. I do not remember it being a abrupt end to the meeting. The meeting was over. We got up and got out to the little circle in front of the white house and took a photograph. It did not strike me as abrupt. Ambassador volker coming his head in her testimony today, that all of us thought it was
inappropriate, as you say, ambassador sondland only reportd investigations in the meeting, and you do not recall him being specific, even those others have in the boardroom. Why did you think it was inappropriate . It was something of an eye roll moments where you have a meeting, you are trying to advance the substance of the bilateral relationship. We have the head of the security council. It was a disappointing meeting, because i do not think that the ukrainians got as much out in terms of their presentation as they could have. And then this comes up at the very end of the meeting, it is like, this is not what we should be talking about. But you said that you think it was appropriate to ask the ukrainians to do investigations of 2016 and burisma as long as burisma did not mean the biden thes, something that you should
have seen otherwise. But nonetheless, if it was appropriate, why are you saying today that all of us thought it was inappropriate . Because it was not the place where the time to bring up that. This was a meeting between the National Security adviser and the chairman of the national Security Defense counsel. First highlevel meeting we are having between the ukraine and the United States after president zelenskys election. Was part of it inappropriate being in the context of getting the white house meeting . Possibly, although i do not recall that being, i know that this was the councils question. I dont remember the exact context of when that came up. I view the meeting as essentially having ended. I think you said in your updated testimony that you do think it is inappropriate and objectionable to seek to get a Foreign Government to investigate a political rival,
correct . To investigate the Vice President of the United States or someone who is a u. S. Official. I dont think we should be asking Foreign Governments to do that. I would also say that that is true of a political rival. And you recognize when you got the call record when he finally did see the call record that thats what took place in the call, correct . That is correct. Mr. Morrison, Ambassador Volker thinks it is inappropriate to ask for an of state to investigate a u. S. Person, let alone a political rival, but you said you had no concern with that. Do you think that is appropriate . As a hypothetical matter, i do not. Not talking about a hypothetical matter. Read the transcript. In that transcript, does the president not to ask zelensky to look into the bidens . Mr. Chairman, i can only tell you what i was thinking of the time. That is not what i understood the president to be doing. But nonetheless, this was the first and only time where you
went from listening to a president ial call directly to the National Security lawyers, is it not . Yes, that is correct. And he said that your concern was not that it was unlawful, but that it might leak, is that correct . That is correct. The problem with it leaking is that what would be leaking as a president asking a foreign Head Of State to investigate mr. Biden, is another problem . Well, i believe that i stated i had three concerns about what the impact of the call leaking might be. If it was a perfect call, would you have concern of it leaking . No. Well, no, i would still have a concern about it leaking. Would you have thought it was appropriate if President Trump had asked zelensky to investigate john kasich or to investigate nancy pelosi or to investigate Ambassador Volker . Would that be appropriate . In the hypothetical cases, not appropriate. But you are not sure about joe biden . Again, i can only speak to what i understood at the time, and why it acted the way that i did at the time. Finally, my colleagues asked about, well, does an aide get held up for all kinds of reasons . Ambassador volker, have you ever seen military aid held up because his president wanted a Rival Investigative . No, i have not seen that. Have you seen that, mr. Williams . Mr. Morrison, im sorry. You took two additional minutes, are you giving our sites have eminence . Of course. I recognize mr. Turner. Mr. Morrison, good to see you again. I appreciate your service to your country and your service and government. Our country is safer today because of the work of both of you men. During all of the testimony that we have had, no one has ever alleged that either of you have done anything inappropriate or improper. And everyone has spoken of both of you as having a high level of professionalism and a high degree of ethical standards. Ambassador volker, i appreciate it in your Opening Statement to your work to focus on russia as an invasion of ukraine and an occupation and her work on Legal Defense of arms. That would include the javelins, would it not . Yes, thats right. That made a big difference . A very big difference. Ambassador volker, tell us about your Military Experience . Mr. Turner, i am a u. S. Naval reserve officer. I am an intelligence officer. Where did you go to law
school . George washington university. Gentlemen, there has been a lot of talk about a lot of people, and we are going to have to pick up the pace, because the are short period of time that we have for these questions. A lot of people talking about these perceptions, their beliefs, their feelings on what they heard and their understandings and their thoughts. Ambassador taylor, mr. Kent, Ambassador Volker, and Lieutenant Colonel vindman had conversations with each other and a whole lot of hearsay. I can assure you this boils down to one thing. This is an impeachment inquiry concerning the president of the United States. And so the only thing that matters besides all of the people talking to each other and all of their feelings and all of their thoughts on understandings, it really only comes down to what did the president of the United States intend, and what did he say, and what did the ukrainians understand or hear . Ambassador volker, you are one of the first people in the open testimony that has had conversations with both. So i get to ask you. You had a meeting with the president of the United States, and you believe that the policy issues he raised concerning ukraine were valid, correct . Yes. To the president of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid to the United States to go to ukraine unless there were investigations into burisma, the bidens or the 2016 elections . No, he did not. Did the ukrainians tell you that they did not understand that they would not get 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, the bidens, or the 2016 elections . No, they did not. You just took apart their entire case. The president of the United States is not believed or intended, and the ukrainians do not understand it, and you are the only one who actually stands in between them. Now, Ambassador Volker, the three amigos thing or whatever they are trying to disparage you
with, you are not part of an irregular channel, arent you the official channel . That is correct. Explain how you are the official channel . I was appointed by the Secretary Of State. A Secretary Tillerson in july 2017 to be the u. S. Special representative for the ukraine negotiations. That is different from executive Secretary Of State or different from ambassador in ukraine. That role is particularly focused on the diplomatic activity surrounding the efforts to reverse russias engagement of ukraine. It is a minced agreement, implementation. It is the normative process with france and germany. It is support from nato. It is support for sanctions from european union, it is the osc and the monetary missions. It is the efforts of individual allies like poland, like the u. K. Like canada that are supporting ukraine. It is work at a senior level in the inner agency was secretary im going to cut you off there. Ambassador volker, you are also
one of the few people that has spoken to giuliani, the regular channel, all of these other people have feelings and understandings about what giuliani was doing. Did he ever tell you that United States aid or a meeting with the president of the United States would not occur for the ukrainians until they agreed to an investigation of burisma, the bidens or the 2016 election . Everything i heard of giuliani was his opinion. Excellent. So the ukrainians never told you that giuliani told them in order to get a meeting with the president , phone call, military, foreign aid from the United States that they would have to do these investigations . No. Mr. Morrison, you testified that you spoke to ambassadors to ambassador sondland, and he told you about a conversation he had with the president of president of the United States. On page 128 of his testimony, he
relates the content of a conversation he had with the president , and he was asked about it. Its the only one he relates. Any sudden he was asked whether or not there was a quid pro quo. I do not frame the question to the president that way is a link. I did not frame it that way. I opened the question what do you want . Mr. Sondland and his testimony asking this question to the president of the United States. And this is what he posts from the president of the United States. He said i want nothing. I dont want to give them anything. I dont want anything from them. I want zelensky to do the right thing. Thats what he, handicap repeating, no quid pro quo over and over again. Do you have any reason to believe that mr. Sondland is not telling the truth with his conversation with the president the president of the United States . No, congressman. Do either of you have any information or evidence that anyone who has testified in this committee in the secret dudgeon testimony is or the open testimony as has perjured
himself or lied to this committee . Ive no reason to think that. No, sir. Mr. Morrison, Lieutenant Colonel vindman reported to you, is that correct . He did, sir. You have a legal background, he said that he listened to the phone call that you said you saw nothing that had occurred illegally, and he said that he believed that the president of the United States demanded to president zelensky that these investigations move forward. He was only telling us his opinion, do you believe in your opinion that the president of the United States demanded the president zelensky take these investigations . No, sir. To both of you, the ukraine is an aspirant to the e. U. Ambassador sondland is the ambassador to the e. U. It is the and the ambassadors portfolio . Yes. Also because they e. U. Sanctions on ukraine are incredibly
important. Mr. Morrison . I agree, sir. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. President trump has described his july 25th phone call with president zelensky as perfect. He has done that on twitter not once, not twice, but by my 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 is just normal course of business, pursuing anticorruption. And ive been concerned from the start that this is not about going after corruption, it is about naming corruption at the Vice President. Mr. Morrison, he listened in on the call on the white house situation room, did you hear the company crowd strike and the server . I believe so, yes, sir. Did you hear President Trump mentioned the bidens . Yes, sir. Did you hear President Trump and the link of that phone call use the word corruption . No, sir well, sir, i dont believe he did. Was the requested that ukraine investigate crowd strike and the bidens consistent with what you understood to be official u. S. Policy towards combating corruption in the ukraine . Sir, it was the first i heard of a bunch of this. Infect in your deposition, you testified that he wanted to stay away from what you described as this bucket of investigations. Why did you want to stay away from those issues . That was what i was advised by dr. Hill. You also testified that the president s call was not and i am quoting yo you here the full throated investigation of the
ukraine policy that i was looking to hear. What did you mean by that . What we felt, Colonel Vindman, others when we prepared in the package we provided, the president was background on president zelensky, background on his positions about reforming ukraine, reforming the institutions, rooting out corruption. We were hoping we recommended the president very clearly support what president zelensky had run on his own election and what his people party had run on in its election where they received a majority mandate. That did not come up in the call, did it . No, sir. Are you aware of any discussion where the president raise those things with the new ukrainian president . Corruption reform . Yes. It has been sometime since i refresh myself on what took place at the u. N. General assembly. So i struggle to stay if he ever raised it, but not at the time of the 25 july phone call. Im switching gears a little bit. You strike me as a process guy. And it is nagging at me, because you characterized the ambassador Sondland Linking in whatever way it happened of aid to an investigation as the gordon problem. You said it caused you to roll your eyes. Ambassador volker said it was everybody in the July 10th Meeting felt it was inappropriate. John bolton characterizes it as the drug deal, so it seems like everybody in the room understands that there is a huge problem here. My understanding is that it would been normal course of business when you have in abbasid are out there going rogue as apparently there was consensus ambassador sondland was doing. That either john bolton or the Secretary Of State might bring them in. Why did that not happen . Sir, i cannot speak to that, but it would generally agree that ambassadors work for the Secretary Of State in the president. Do you have, you dont have any idea, you work for them. You dont have any idea why he would characterize what the ambassador was doing as a drug deal . But not raining men . Ambassadors dont work for the National Security advisor. But john bolton is the National Security advisor. Im just puzzled that everybody in the room is characterizing this as though gordon problem, or the drug deal, and the Secretary Of State does nothing. Sir, im sorry, was there a question . You dont have any insight . No, sir. You testified that you were troubled once you read the July 25th Call, you testified that asking the president of the ukraine would Work Together with the Attorney General to work on this, you can see that it has happen, this becomes explosive and our politics and in your new testimony, you
called us this unacceptable. What specifically in that call to the ukraine president to do you find unacceptable or troubling . It is the reference to Vice President biden. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Conway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This morning we heard much about July 25th Call in which the president asked for a favor, at least in Lieutenant Colonel vindmans mind, that was 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 particularly in favor of, and would like to stay there. And zelensky says, mr. President , no, since we have won the absolute majority in the parliament, the next will be my person, my candidate. Is that to either one of you a Head Of State who has been cowed or bleed and is under the thumb of the president of the United States . Not at all. No, sir. The impact of the pause that occurred the 55 day pause and Security Assistance, none of us understand what happened during that time frame. No one knew about it other than the internal u. S. Folks until late august. So the russians would not necessarily have known about it. At the potential impact and i agree on russias interpretation of the support for ukraine wasnt known until the last four days. But the impact of the lethal aid that they already had should russia have tried to move the line of contact further west with their tanks, with the assistance been available to them to push back on that . Yes, it would. Mr. Morrison . I agree with that, but i would add that the hold as i understood applied to Ukraine Security systems, ua si and aff. It did not apply to ams. And the javelins were provided
under fms. So the most Lethal Weapon that President Trump provided to the ukrainians that president obama in his Public National policy which he said was available to them should the russians have push their javelins . Yes, sir. Through that process. Even with the pause and all of the stuff going on . Yes, sir. Associated press is reporting that an Ambassador Volker, you said earlier. They took two gunships and a tug and 21 sailors last november. And the russians have now given the 24 sailors back in september and the Associated Press is reporting today that they have been given the gun votes in the tug back. Does that sound like the ukraine is inept at being able to negotiate with the russians because they are wounded by her actions . No, i would not say that the ukrainians are inept. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, i would like as a
personal request, request that you and or one of your lawyer members on the committee to put into the record the federal statute that provides for the absolute immunity, right to immunity that you exerted over and over and over. I dont think it is they are. But if it is in fact federal statute and or a brief that you can cite, put that into the record so that we all know that, and before you get mad and accused me of wanting to out the whistleblower, you get upset every time some of the accuses you personally of knowing who the whistleblower is, i get upset every time you anonymity, accuse me of simply because i want to know the whistleblower or what is going on that we want to out that interviewer. That is unfair for you to make that accusation. I get just as mad. This is about leveling the Playing Field between her two teams. Your team knows that whistleblower and they have knowledge of who he or she is. As i mention the biases coming your team fully understands
that. Our team should fully understand that. It is leveling the Playing Field. And i know that you have overrun my request for a closeddoor subpoena. I understand that. But i do think it is important that you put into the record the basis on which you continue to assert this absolute right to anonymity. I misspoke earlier, anonymity by the whistleblower. Also, the speaker On September The 23rd issued a Dear Colleague, that is a document that we all used to talk to each other. It is with the 334 members of congress, intended to be the truth, intended to be straightforward. She says in that Dear Colleagues that the whistleblower has by law is required to testify in the Senate Intelligence communities. You are identifying the speaker, i understand that is between you and her, but if she is correct and you are defying the law, if on the other hand, she misled us
into thinking something that was not true, then i think you need to tell the speaker that she needs to retract that Dear Colleague letter and set the record straight. Is the whistleblower required by law as the speaker said to testify to us or not . And what is the right to anonymity that you question. With that, i yield back. Time of the gentleman has expired. I would have be happy to return to the statute that allows the whistleblower to be anonymous. As well as the importance of anonymity whistleblowers. And i recognize miss sewall. Thank you, chairman. Ambassador volker, it seams by july it became pretty clear that mr. Giuliani has become a major problem for the u. S. Ukraine relations. Previously you testified that on july 2nd you met with the ukrainian president and his aide in toronto, is that right . I had a bilateral meeting
between the u. S. And ukraine delegations and a poolside meeting with the president and his chief of staff. There you express giulianis negative view of ukraine based on a Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election, right . I conveyed that he was repeating a negative narrative about to ukraine based on accusations of that then Prosecutor General lutsenko. Are you saying that you did not think they were negative views . No, that they were negative views. That was not your description. Im sorry, i lost the question. I was trying to get at who said the negative views . So the Prosecutor General of ukraine was putting out this series of Conspiracy Theories that i believe were selfserving and inaccur believe that he was at least affected by those and believe that they were
negative . And was conveying them to the president. So was it problematic that he believed they were negative views . Yes. The whole thing was problematic. Ambassador taylor testified that on july 2nd you told ukrainians that they needed to cooperate on investigations. You are now saying that you dont recall saying those words, is that correct . I dont believe that i said the words cooperate on investigations . Did you say investigations . I believe i did. What did you mean by investigations . Burisma and 2016 was in my mind. But he wanted to keep it general. And ukraine being convincing to giuliani and also the president that they were serious about that corruption would engage in whatever investigations necessary to clean up the country. Moving to july 10th, Ambassador Volker sent you a
text message to giuliani, and i think it is on the screen now. And you said, mr. Mayor, could we meet for coffee or lunch in the next week or so. I would like to update you on my conversations about ukraine. I think we have an opportunity to get what you need. Did you say that . That is an accurate text text message. What did you mean . The contact with the people that are representing president zelensky and his team. Later that day u. N. Ambassador sondland met with ukraine officials at the white house. We heard from several witnesses then ambassador sondland told the ukraine that they need to to cooperate with the investigations to get the Oval Office Meeting scheduled on the books. For these investigations are part of the official u. S. Policy towards ukraine . U. S. Policy towards ukraine was about Fighting Corruption. Was it specifically about these investigations . You said burisma . In order to for fight corruption, you need to see what ukrainian citizens are up to. What was the purpose of that . Was it because the president , you knew well, that the president wanted those investigations to be done as a condition for them to have information in the white house. First off, we have to be clear what we are talking about in terms of investigations. We are not talking about Vice President biden. Burisma has nothing to do with you are saying im saying ukrainians within the company of burisma had acted in a corrupt way, that is a legitimate thing for ukraine to investigate. If they can make a statement about their intentions on Fighting Corruption domestically, that is helpful in order to convince
President Trump ultimately that this is with all due respect, Ambassador Volker, we heard from two witnesses this morning that those investigations were not official u. S. Policy. Ambassador volker, i dont know if you understand what you are getting yourself into, but sitting here today, i trust you understand that pressuring ukraine to involve itself in u. S. Domestic policy is just simply wrong. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Turner. I yield my time to jim jordan. I think the gentleman. Ambassador volker, you are the Special Representative to ukraine, is that correct . That is correct. Prior to that you worked at the nfc, defense Secretary Of State, ambassador to nato, Senate Confirmed and in your established career. It may not bother you when you are referred to as the irregular channel, but it bothers Representative Turner and it bothers me. Youre the Special Envoy to the ukraine. And in that role you said in
your Opening Statement, you are the administrations most outspoken public figure highlighting russias invasion and occupation of ukraine and calling out russias responsibility in the war, is that right . That is correct. In that capacity you strongly advocated for lifting the ban on sales lethal defense of arms to ukraine, is that correct . Thats correct. And President Trump dated, didnt he . That is correct. But President Trump was still skeptical about giving hard earned tax dollars to ukraine. Yes. And because lets be honest, he does not like foreign aide. That is one reason, and ukraine is one of the most corrupt plate places on the planet. And the president s mind, he did think that ukraine was trying to influence the 2016 election. Because things happen. The democrats deny it, but when they write an oped on August 4th 2016 criticizing then candidate trump, that is certainly trying to influence the election when mr. Baca named
a key minister and their government saying all kinds of things about President Trump, that certainly looks like it is trying to influence the election. And when mr. Poroshenko lutsenko says that political figures want Hillary Clintons win, there pry sticks in a candidates mind. We all run campaigns when people say bad things about us in the course of the campaign, we dont necessarily think things about them. But you were commenced that zelensky was a real deal . That is correct. You spent a lot of time with the guy. And when aide was frozen, you know if you could get them together, it will work out. When aide was frozen, what did you say . You told ukrainians, dont worry about it. You said dont be alarmed, is that right . That is correct. Guess what happened, when aide was frozen and it was released, all kinds of interaction between president zelensky and senior u. S. Officials, right . Starts with the call, starts with a call from President Trump
and president zelensky. The next day you meet with president zelensky and ukraine. Then we have ambassadors bolton meeting with him. Then we have Vice President pence meeting with him. Then we have u. S. Senators johnston and murthy meeting with him. And guess what, and none of those meetings, not a single one did Security Assistance dollars in exchange for an investigation, not once did they come up. Did that conversation come up, is that right must mark that is correct. Not once. No discussion of aide or investigation, and as he testified, and never believed aide or investigation was ever being talked about either. In any of the conversations. That is correct. What happened in those meetings . They all became convinced, and the same thing that you knew. The same darn thing. He is the real deal pit he has a legitimate reformer. And they all came back. They all came back and told the president. Hey, mr. President , this guy is real. Go ahead and release the dollars. Oh, by the way, in the same time frame. You know what happened . There parliament. Their newly elected parliament has mr. Morrison testified stayed up all night to pass the Reform Measures to get rid of the prosecutor, to put in a supreme high anticorruption court, to get rid of this disability that no one in their congress and the parliament could ever be hit with a crime. I mean, that is unbelievable. All that happens on a come back and tell President Trump and he did it, right . Speak of the dollars were released. You did your job because the democrats are out to get this president. You did your job just like mr. Turner described. You have served our country wel well, the kind of diplomat we want serving. Here is the dash one of the
saddest things what the democrats are putting us through, you two guys who are here telling it straight, you both decided to step out of the government because of what these guys are doing and that is the sad thing. They are now stepping out of our government because of what these guys are doing and that is why mr. Turner got so fired up and why i am so fired up because we appreciate what you guys did. I yield back. Ambassador volker, i want to focus on the Press Statement that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani wanted to make announcing the investigations to benefit President Trump. On august 9th, ambassador and you had this exchange. Morrison, ready to get dates as soon and yermak confirms. He replied, excellent. How did you sway him . He says, not sure i did. I think potus really wants the deliverable. The deliverable was a public announcement that ukraine was going to conduct a public investigation into burisma and alleged interference by ukraine. Is that correct . Thank you, i understood the deliverable to be the statement that we have been talking about. On august 13th, you and ambassador sondland discussed an agreement with mr. Guiliani. Why did you address that with mr. Guiliani . It came up with a meeting with mr. Guiliani. Mr. Yermak asked me to connect him with mr. Guiliani. I did, we had a meeting, they both called me afterwards. Mr. Guiliani said he thought they should make a statement about Fighting Corruption, we should also say specifically, burisma in 2016