Happened in the past and apply its own laws. Concerning the allegations, i have stressed that no one in the new team governing ukraine had anything to do with anything that may have happened in 2016. They were making Television Shows at the time. I also said that it is not credible to me that former Vice President biden would have been influenced anyway by financial or personal motives 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 as possible. But the accusation Vice President biden acted inappropriately, did not seem credible to me. I connected them by text and later by phone. They met in person on august 2nd 2019. In conversations with me
following that meeting, which i did not attend, mr. Giuliani said that he stressed the importance of the ukraine conducting investigations of what happened in the past. And he said it is the Governments Program to root out corruption and implement refor reforms. They will be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. Mr. Giuliani said he believed the ukrainian president needed to make a statement about Fighting Corruption and that he had discussed this. I said, i did not think this would be a problem since that is the governments position anyway. I followed up. He said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. He said it would reference 2016 in a wider context of bilateral nations of rooting out corruption anyway. There was no mention of Vice President biden. Rather, it was clear to me that he was only talking about whether an eight 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 believed that their doing so would overcome the chronically negative view President Trump headed toward ukraine. I was seeking to solve the problem is solved when i 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 good faith to President Trump a more positive assessment in the new leadership. On august 16th, he shared a draft with me which i thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention him or 2016 elections, but was generic. We had a further conversation with mr. Giuliani that said in his view, in order to be convincing that this government
represented real change in ukraine, the statement should include specific reference. There was no mention of Vice President biden these conversations. We discussed these points and i added the statements to include these points to see how it looks. I then discussed it further. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that he was still officially the Prosecutor General, they do not want to mention 2016. I agreed. The idea of putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations i had about this statement, which were on or about august 17th18th. My last contact according to my records was on august 13th. Until he tried to reach me on September 20th after the Impeachment Inquiry was launched. At this time, that is to say in the middle of august, i thought the idea of issuing the
statement had been definitively scrapped. In september, i was surprised to learn that there had been further discussions with the ukrainians about president s pay 25 possibly making a statement in an interview similarly to what we had discussed in august. Since these events and since i gave my testimony on october 3rd, a great deal of Additional Information and perspectives have come to light. I have learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question. First, at that time, i was connecting them and discussing a possible statement that could be made by the ukrainian president. I did not know of any linkage between the holland security of assistance and Ukraine Pursuin pursuing i opposed the hold on u. S. Security systems as soon as i learned about it on july 18th. I thought that we could turn it around before the ukrainians
ever knew or became alarmed about it. I do not know the reason for the hold, but i viewed it as a u. S. Policy problem that we needed to fix internally. And i was confident that we would do so. I believe the ukrainians be aware of the hold on august 29th and not before. That date is the first time any of them asked me about the hold by forwarding an article that have been published. When i spoke to the ukrainians about the hold after august 29th, instead of telling them that they needed to do something to get the hold released, i told him the opposite. That they should not be alarmed. It was an internal u. S. Problem, and we were working to get it fixed. I did not know others were conveying a different message to them around the same time. Second, i did not know about the strong concerns expressed by National Security advisor john bolton to members of his nsc staff regarding the discussion of investigations. I participated in the July 10th Meeting between National Security advisor both in and
then ukrainian chairman of the National Security and defense counsel. As i remember, that meeting was essentially over when ambassador sondland made a general comment about investigations. I think all of us thought it was inappropriate. The conversation did not continue. And the meeting concluded. Later on, i may have been engaged in a side conversation or had already left the complex because i do not recall for the discussion regarding investigation. Third, i did not understand that others believe that any investigation of the Ukrainian Company which had a history of accusations of corruption. I drew a sharp distinction between the two. It has long been u. S. Policy under multiple administrations to urgent ukraine to investigate and fight internal corruption. I was quite comfortable with ukraine making its own statement about its own policy of investigating or Fighting Corruption at home. After one inperson meeting i had on july 19th, they are giuliani raised and i rejected the computer see the theory that biden would have been influenced in his decision as Vice President by money paid to his son. I have known Vice President biden for 24 years. Hes an honorable man. I hold him in the highest rega regard. At no time was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate Vice President biden. From the documents are provided, he was not a topic of discussion. I was not on the july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky. It was not made aware of any reference until the transcript of that call was released on september 25th, 2019. Throughout this time arrears an important distinction. I urge the ukrainian to maintain such a distinction. I did not know that President Trump or others
completed the investigation of possible corruption with investigation of the former Vice President. In retrospect, for the ukrainians, it clearly would have been confusing. In hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption is equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them as very different. The former being appropriate to unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. I should have seen that connection differently. Had i done so, i wouldve raised my own objections. Fourth, much has been made of the term. Ive never used that term, and frankly cringe when i hear about it. It will always refer to senator mccain, Senator Lieberman and senator graham in reference to their work to support the surge in iraq. Moreover, i was never aware of any designation by President Trump or anyone else putting ambassador sondland or the three of us as a group in
charge of ukraine policy. As i understood it, each of us in our own respective official capacities continued to Work Together after her attendance of president zelenskys inauguration to push for greater u. S. Support of ukraine. Leading the policy around the ukraine negotiations had long been my official responsibility. The added support and influence of a Cabinet Member and our e. U. Ambassador. Fifth, i was not aware of ambassador sondland spoke with President Trump. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, allowed me to thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I believe that u. S. Foreign policy and National Security interests are of critical importance. I will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen for your Opening Statements. As detailed in the memo provided by the Community Members of the 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or
majority counsel followed by 45 minutes by the Ranking Member of minority counsel. Following that, unless i specify additionally, questioning will proceed under the five minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. I now recognize my cell for counsel for the first round of questions. Ambassador kurt volker, there are a couple of points that you made in your Opening Statement that i wanted to ask about. First you said that no former internally general it was not credible. He is the author of a number of allegations against ambassador yovanovitch come out the number of allegations that were shared with the hill and repeatedly brought up by my republican colleagues. Why is it that you found him 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 me to be credible at all. I know her to be an incredibly competent professional, someone i have worked with for many, many years. The suggestions that she was acting in some inappropriate manner were not credible to me. I have known Vice President biden for a long time. Those accusations were not credible. Separate from that, i was also aware of the political situation in ukraine. We had a situation where president appeared to not be in a favorable position going into elections where it was increasingly apparent candidate zelensky was going to win. As is often in the case of ukraine, a change in power would mean a change in prosecutorial powers as well. There have been prosecuting the previous government. In my estimation, and i said this to mayor giuliani, it was interested in preserving his own position. He wanted to avoid being fired by a new government in order to prevent prosecution of himself, possible prosecution of himself. Possibly also this is something that the president would have welcomed as well, because he probably wouldve avoided any efforts to prosecute him as we well. By making allegations like this and making sure they were reaching u. S. Media, i think he was trying to make himself appear to be an important and influential player in the United States. Let me also ask you about the allegations against joe biden. That has been a continuing refrain. Why was it that you found the allegations against joe biden related to his son not to be believed . Simply because i have known
former Vice President biden for a long time. I know how he respects his duties of higher office. Its just not credible to me that a Vice President of the United States is going to do anything other than act as how he sees best for the national interest. And finally, ambassador, before i turn it over, i was struck by something you said on page 8 of your statement which reads in hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian Company is equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them different from what the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, you said i should have seen It Connection differently. Had i done so, i wouldve raised my own objections. What is it now in retrospect that you recognized that you didnt at the time that led you
to conclude that you would or should have raised these objections . Others did not see the distinction between these things as i saw it. As i said, there is a history of Corruption In Ukraine. Theres a history with the company that has been investigated. That is well known. There is a separate allegation about the Vice President acting inappropriately. His son was a board member of this company. Those things i saw as completely distinct. What i was trying to do in working with the ukrainians was to thread a needle and see if there are things that they could do that are appropriate and reasonable as their own policy of Fighting Corruption that helped clarify for our president that they are committed to that very effort. There is a way to thread the 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 did not see or didnt consider this distinction. For them, it was synonymous. One of those people who saw it as synonymous turns out to be the president of the United States. I take it that you do not know until the call record was released at the president and that call does not raise he asks for navigation of the bidens. Is that correct . I take it that it you say you called 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. Just one followup on the ambassador volker. When you say thread the needle, you mean that you understood the relationship between Vice President bidens
son but you are trying to separate the two of them in your mind . I believe that they were separate. The conversation that i had with mayor giuliani as well. The allegations against Vice President biden are selfserving and not acceptable. The second is where it is possible to investigate against ukrainians that have tried to corrupt or investigate. They are very different things. I think the former is unacceptable. I think the latter you understood the relationship between hunter biden i knew that he had been a board member of the company. That is why it is so important to maintain the distinction. Lets focus on the july 25th call. And mr. Morrison, Black 25th Wednesday number 1 for you as a senior director overseeing ukraine. I officially took over on the 15th approximately ten days, very few days in the office. You testified that you received an email on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sondland shortly before the call. Is that right . Yes. I believe in that email, ambassador sondland told you that he had briefed President Trump in advance of the call . Yes. Your testified that on another occasion that he could call the president whenever he wanted. Is that right . Yes. And on july 25th, did you have facts make an effort to confirm whether or not the phone call between ambassador sondland and president s between a four actually occurred . I did. Did it happen . Yes. On other occasions when
ambassador sondland told you that he spoke with president s between four, did you also seek confirmation of that fact . On some, it has. When you did seek to confirm that they had spoken, what did you find . They had. I want to pull up a text message on the morning of jul of july 25th. Ambassador sondland, with you, ambassador volker. At 7 54, ambassador sondland said call asap. At 9 35, ambassador volker, you respond. Is this green working in front of you, or just to the side . If you could go ahead and read what you said at 9 35. I say hi, gordon. I got your message. Had a great lunch and passed
your message to him. He will see you tomorrow. I think everything is in place. Who is yermak . Yermak is the Senior Advisor to preside. What was the message that you had received . Thought president zelensky should be clear, convincing, forthright with President Trump about his commitment to Fighting Corruption, get to the bottom of things, whatever there is. If he does that, President Trump was prepared to be reassured that he would say yes, come on, lets get the date for this visit scheduled. Did you understand from that message that he had spoken to President Trump . It wasnt sure whether he had or not. As mr. Morrison just said, he
does speak with President Trump. I knew that he had conversations in general. I did not know specifically about one leading up to this. On the screen in front of you is another text message from you that same morning. At 8 36 in the morning to yermak. Because of the time difference, this is actually in the afternoon in ukraine. In ukraine, and east coast time. This is less than a halfhour between the call between President Trump and president zelensky. After the lunch, good lunch, thanks. Heard from the white house, president zelensky will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. We will nail down the date for their visit to washington. Good luck, see you tomorrow. Does this accurately relay the message that you received from ambassador sondland . Yes. Did the National Security council prepared Talking Points
for President Trump for this call . The staff did commit yes. Per usual custom, where these Talking Points based on the official United States Policy Objectives . They wear. Since there has been a little bit of dispute about what that means, can you explain how official u. S. Policy is determined through the inner Agency Process . We operate under what is known as National Security president ial memorandum four. Its on the internet. It lays out how the president wants to be provided options for his decision. And there is an extensive process to finalize any policy . Is that right . Sometimes. Mr. Morrison, you listens to this call on the 25th . I did. Where did you listen from . The white house situation room. Use of the call is not what you are hoping to hear. What did you mean by that . I was hoping for a more full throated statement of support from the president concerning president Zelenskys Reform Agenda Given where we were at the time with respect to the overwhelming mandate president Zelensky Servant of the party people received in that election. That is the ukrainian parliament. It occurred four days earlier . That sounds correct. At the party won nl in a landslide, correct . 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 zelensky a chance. That point, he had shown that he was he had at least put his money where his mouth was for the three months that he had been in office. Is that right . Approximately three months, yes. Im going to show a couple of excerpts from this call gregor 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 chaplains. President trump says, i would like you to do us a favor. Our country has been through a lot. Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowd strike, i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it. If you go to the next absurd where President Trump says the other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son that he
stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General it would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stop the prosecution, so if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Now, mr. Morrison, where these references to crowd strike, the server in 2016 election, and to Vice President biden and his son, where they included in the president s Talking Points . They were not. Are they consistent with what you understood at that time to be official u. S. Policy . I was not aware of much of this at the time. In fact, subsequent to this call, you did nothing to implement the investigations that President Trump implement the request for the investigations that president s for 24, xp 24 act for . I was not aware of any request. Youre not aware of anyone
else that was doing that either . Correct. You testified in your deposition that hearing this call confirmed what you called a parallel process that your predecessor had warned you about. What did you mean by that . During the period and which dr. Hill and i were conducting Handoff 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 traditional and spm 4 process. In the contest, contacts, she discussed issues like bursisma which were noteworthy to me at the time because id never heard of them before. And upon hearing them in the call, it wound up confirming that there is something here. Who did she inform he was involved in his parallel proce process . It was definitely ambassador sondland and mr. Giuliani. After she inform david this company bursisma, what did you do if anything to determine what that was . I proceeded to look it up on the internet. Did you find that it had some association with hunter biden . Yes. You did not listen to this call, but you testified that you were surprised and troubles when you read the call record after it was released on septembe september 25th. You also said that after reading a call record it was clear to you that the bidenburisma at 2016 Election Investigations that president s between if were discussed on the call were designed to serve the president s political interests, not the national interest. What did you mean when you said
that . I dont recall that language from my october 3rd testimony. What i do mean by that, and i would like to phrase it in my own words now. I dont think that seven or these things i consider to be Conspiracy Theories that had been circulated by ukrainians particularly at the former Prosecutor General they are not things that we should be pursuing as part of our National Security strategy with ukraine. We should be supporting ukraines democracy, reforms. In its own fight against corruption domestically. Its struggle against russia. Its defense capabilities. These are the heart of what we should be doing. I dont think pursuing these things serves a national interest. Mr. Morrison, shortly after you heard the july 25th call, you testified that you alerted the Legal Advisor, John Eisenberg pretty much right away. Is that right . Correct. You indicated in your Opening Statement at least from your deposition that you went to mr. Eisenberg out of concern for the potential political fallout if it 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 an appropriate, you not . Is not what we recommend to the president to discuss. In a second meeting with mr. Eisenberg, whatd you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking . I recommended that we restrict access to the package. Have you ever done before . No. Did you speak to your supervisor before you went to speak to John Eisenberg . No. Did you learn that the call record had been put in a highly classified system . I did. What reason did he give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system . It was a mistake. He said it was just a mistake . It was an administrative error. Isnt it also true that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to . I believe i could have extracted the appropriate staff to do so, yes. Why did you go to the Legal Advisor to recommend that . I was also concerned based on the participants and the Listening Room that day i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the Legal Advisors office as they were often on head of state
calls but not always. I wanted to make sure that John Eisenberg, his Legal Advisor, and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. You wanted them to review it because you are concerned about the political potential political consequence, not that anything was wrong . Political consequences was an Umbrella Term and my statement to describe a series of effects. I feared about what would happen if and when the content of the transcript of the content leaked. Just to make sure that i understand this correctly, mr. Morrison, you heard the call, you recognize that President Trump was not discussing the Talking Points that the nsc had prepared and was instead talking about the investigations that fiona hill had warned you about. Then and you it immediately to the nsc Legal Advisor . Is that the correct chain of
events . That is correct. Ambassador volker, in the july 25th call, president s pay 25 volunteers to President Trump that Rudy Giuliani had already spoken to one of his associates and president zelensky hopes that for 23 will come to ukrai ukraine. President trump proceeds to mention giuliani on three occasions on this call. You testified on about May 23rd Meeting on the oval office where the president spoke quite negatively about ukraine and how it would try to take him down. And he also repeated some of the allegations that mr. Giuliani was making. Is that correct . Yes. Those allegations were in the media, with an odd . Yes. During that meeting, President Trump told you to talk to giuliani, is that correct . I did not take it as
instruction. I want to be clear about that. He said, that is not what i hear. We were giving him our assessment about president zelensky, i hear terrible things. Hes got terrible people around him. Talk to rudy. I understand in that context, that is where he hears it from. I did not take it as an instruction. When he said talk to rudy, you did not take him to mean for you to talk to talk to rudy . I did not take it that way. I took it as, just part of the dialogue. I hear other things. I hear them from Rudy Giuliani. I hear them from other people. He is surrounded by a terrible people. Talk to rudy. It seemed like part of the dialogue. After that meeting, did you infect talk to rudy . After that meeting, not immediately, no. This was may 23rd. They continued to proceed with our effort to get the
white house visits for president Zelensky Scheduling keep wrapping up the support for the ukrainian president and the ukrainian government. I did however on july 2nd as i was becoming concerned that we were not succeeding at this tell president zelensky that i think we have a problem. That problem being this Negative Seat of information from mr. Giuliani. Ultimately as you testified, you introduced mr. Yermak to mr. Giuliani and they eventually met, is that correct . Thats correct. Into early august when they met, ukraine desperately wanted that Oval Office Meeting from president zelensky. You also wanted that. Is that right . That is correct. Why was that meeting so important . I think that he felt that he was not well understood by President Trump. He is a charismatic leader who ran a Remarkable Campaign in
ukraine against the legacy of corruption and political malaise that had been there. He had a massive showing at the president ial election, 73 support for it he believed that he was leading a movement of major change in ukraine. And that President Trump did not see that or didnt 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. I agree with that. That was certainly your assessment. It was my assessment and also watch president zelensky believed. You understood from your experience and ukraine that there would be a significant boost and legit as me at home if there are photos of him in the oval office et cetera. That is correct. You testified in your Opening Statement that mr. Giuliani and mr. Yermak met on august 2nd. Where did they meet . They met in madrid. Did you learn that mr. Giuliani requested anything of the ukrainians at that meeting . Only when i spoke with mr. Giuliani afterward. He said that he thought ukraine should issue a statement. I spoke with mr. Yermak after that. He said yes, we are prepared to make a statement. That kicked off a series of discussions that i say at the end of my testimony. We will get into that and a second. Mr. Giuliani did not explain to you what needed to be included in that statement . He said something more general as i recall. I recall him saying, fight corruption, that there were commitments being different. Mr. Yermak told me when i spoke with him as i recall that the statement will include specific mention of burisma and 2016. Lets go through some of the Text Messages so that we know exactly who that was. At first, lets start on august 9th. This is a Text Exchange between you and ambassador sondland
where ambassador sondland right at the top morrison ready to get dates as soon as possible stinking firms. What did you respond . I said excrement with two exclamation points. Not sure i did. I think potus really wants the deliverable. Whatd you say to that. But how does he know that . He said yep, clearly lots of combos going on. You are referenced in this text message. Have you discussed confirming a date for a white house visit for president zelensky with ambassador sondland around this time . I likely would have. Did you have any discussions with him about a statement that ukraine that they were trying to get ukraine to make . I did not. Where you are aware do you
yourself know what ambassador sondland meant by the deliverable . I did not at the time. I think i have an Understanding Out. And what is your Understanding Out . There seems to have been discussions about a statement which have been discussed in various proceedings. But this to your knowledge was part of a parallel process that youre talking about . Yes. If we could go to the next exhibit which is another Text Exchange just a few minutes later between ambassador sondland and you, ambassador volker where ambassador sondland says, to avoid misunderstandings, it might be helpful to ask andre for a Draft Statement so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover. Even though zelensky does a live presser, they can still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts . How did you respond . Agree this refers to the statement
that giuliani wanted . It refers to the statement that he and yermak discussed. A text message between you and mr. Yermak who is the same aide that giuliani met in madrid. If you could read what you wrote at the top at 5 02 00 p. M. . I wrote that i agree with your approach. Use that to get the date and president zelensky can go forward with it. Once we have a date, we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visits and outlining vision for the reboot of u. S. Ukraine relationship including other things burisma and election meddling investigations. What did you respond . Sounds great that is the date for the
white House White House visit . Thats correct. Two days later you receive another text message from mr. Yermak, which reads special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We tend to initiate a completed transparent and unbiased investigation of all facts and episodes which in turn will prevent the reoccurrence of this problem in the future. Ambassador volker, this was a draft, was it not, of the statement that you had mr. Giuliani at mr. Yermak and ambassador sondland have been discussing . If this is the first draft of mr. Yermak after the conversation that we had. It is not mention burisma or
elections . Thats correct. You had a conversation about this draft after you received it. Is that right . Thats correct. Mr. Giuliani said if the statement does not include burisma and 2016 election, it would not have any credibility. Is that right . Thats correct. Now, this was the same Rudy Giuliani that President Trump was discussing and that May 23rd Meeting and ask you and the others to talk to. Correct . That is the same mr. Giuliani. At may 23rd you are aware of these investigations that he was publicly promoting, correct . I knew that he had adopted or was interested in all those Conspiracy Theories that had come. Back in may you knew that . He was insisting on a public commitment from
president zelensky to do these investigations, correct . What we mean by these investigations, burisma in 2016 elections. Yes. At the time that you are engaged in creating for the statement, that you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a Public Statement from president zelensky to carry out the investigations that the president was seeking . I did not find it that unusual bit i think when youre dealing with a situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about president Zelensky Being committing to changing after his entirely negative view of the country that he would want to hear something more from president zelensky to be convinced that he will give this guy a chance. And perhaps he also wanted a Public Statement, because it would lock president zelensky to do these investigations that saul might benefit him . Again, when we say these
investigations, what i understood us to be talking about as ukrainian corruption. We are talking about burisma and the 2016 elections. Isnt it clear that it would be important to mr. Giuliani because it was politically useful to the president . The way i saw at is that it would be helpful. It would be a way of being committing to mayor giuliani and also the president that this team in ukraine is serious about Fighting Corruption reform. At that would be helpful in getting a more positive attitude and the white house meeting scheduled, then that would be useful. And i will be helpful to get that white house meeting . It was a necessary condition as you understood it at that point . When it became clear later that we were not able to agree on an agreement that the ukrainians were comfortable with, its not worth it. I understand that. Is it your testimony that based on the text that you wrote linking the investigations on the 2016 election on july 25th to the white house meeting, you are saying by this point in august with this backandforth that you are unaware that this Public Statement was a condition for the white house meeting . I wouldnt have called it a condition. It is a nuance, i guess, but i viewed it as very helpful. If we could get this done, it would help improve the perception that President Trump and others had, and we would get the date for a meeting. If we didnt have a statement, i was not giving up and thinking that we will never get a meeti meeting. Lets go to the next day where there is another Text Exchange. At the top, could you read the first text there . Is as good talking, following his text with insert at the end for the two key items, we will work on official request. You will see the highlighted
portion of the next text. The other is identical to your previous one. It adds including the burisma and the 2016 elections because quote. That is what mr. Giuliani insisted on adding to the statement. He said thats what he insisted on adding in order for that to be credible. The ukrainians did not issue the statement. Thats correct. He did not get the Oval Office Meeting . Not yet. I want to move forward to september. Early september when the Security Assistance begins to more about the use as pressure for the ukrainians conduct these investigations that President Trump wanted. Mr. Morrison, you accompanied him to warsaw when he met with president zelensky, yes . I was an warsaw when Vice President was designated as
the president s representative. I was accompanying and rasir bolton. You are at the bilateral meeting . I was. In that meeting, where the ukrainians concerned about the hold on Security Clearance . Military assistance, rather . Yes. What they say . It was the first issue that president zelensky raised with Vice President pence. They were very interested. They talk about its importance to ukraine come out their importance to the relationship. What was Vice President pences response . The Vice President represented that it was a priority for him and that we were working to address any characterized President Trumps
concerns about Corruption In Ukraine and the president s prioritization of getting the europeans to contribute more to Security Sector assistance. That he directly explain to the ukrainians that those were the actual reasons for the hold . Was he commenting on general concerns of the president . I dont know that he necessarily acknowledged the hold. He mentioned that we were reviewing the assistance. That is the way that i herded. Thats the way i would characterize it. And those of the points that he raised to help president zelensky understand where we were in our process. To your knowledge, on the staff level as the coordinator of all of the interAgency Process, you are not aware of any review of the ukraine Security Assistance money, or you . Well, we had been running
review. Weve been running an energy Agency Process to provide the president with the information that i had been directed to generate for the president s consideration as to the state of interagency support for continuing assistance. The agency supported the continuation of the assistance. Thats correct. After the larger meeting with Vice President pence and president zelensky, you testified that you saw ambassador sondland and Wheatley Go Over and pull yermak aside and have a conversation. Is that right . President zelensky left the room, Vice President pence left the room. An ambassador sondland and president wilpresident ial ambask had a conversation. What did he tell you that he told mr. Yermak . That the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor
general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the lifted. You testified that you are not comfortable with what ambassador sondland had told you. Why not . Well, i was concerned about what i saw as essentially an additional hurdle to accomplish what i have been directed to help accomplish, which was giving the president the information he needed to determine that the Security Sector systems could go forward. So now there is a whole other wrinkle to it, right . There was an appearance of one based on what ambassador sondland represented. You told ambassador taylor about this as well . Are probably represented to ambassador taylor about up phone call. The testimony other than one small distinction between president zelensky and the Prosecutor General was accurate as to what you told him. Is that correct . About that conversation is. You confirmed everything that ambassador taylor told you weeks over that one thing in a small other at ministerial matter relating to a location of a meeting . Correct. Did you tell ambassador bolden about this meeting as well . I reached out to him as well and requested his availability for a secure phone call. What was his response when you relate to him what ambassador sondland had said . Tell the lawyers. Did you tell the lawyers . When i returned to the state. On september 7th, you spoke again to ambassador sondland who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with President Trump. Isnt that right . That sounds correct. What did he tell you that President Trump said to him . The conversation correctly, this is when ambassador sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but president zelensky
had to make the statement and he had to want to do it. And by that point, did you understand that the statement related to the biden in 2016 investigations . I think i did, yes. And that was essentially a condition for the Security Assistance to be released . I understood that that is what ambassador sondland believed. After speaking with President Trump . What he represented. You said it gave me a sinking feeling. Why was that . If we are all on september 7th, the end of the fiscal year, september 30th, these are one year dollars. The dod and the department of state funds. We only had so much time. In fact, because Congress Imposed a 15day Notification Requirement on the State Department funds, september 7th, september 30th, that really mean
september 15th in order to secure a decision from the president to allow the funds to go forward. Did you tell ambassador bolden about this conversation as well . Yes. What did he say . He said to tell the lawyers. Why did he say that . He did not explain his direction. He didnt say that because youre running at 18day deadline . Again, i dont know how you directed that, but it seemed reasonable and consistent with what i was going to do that. You are going to tell that because of the concern. You are going to say because youre concerned about what ambassador sondland relate to you. Correct. So we are clear, he reported two concerning conversations to the lawyers in Early September in which you understood from him that the president was withholding Security Assistance as additional leverage to get ukraine to publicly announce the specific political investigations that President Trump had discussed on
the july 24th call. Is that accurate . I was concerned about what ambassador sondland was saying is requirement. You understood that they were at the two that President Trump referenced on the call . By this point, yes. Did you have any conversations with ambassador volker about this . I believe we had one conversation. What do you recall about that conversation . I believe ambassador volker was in town to provide an update on some of his activities. And he provided that update. We had a oneonone conversation about this track come with a separate process. What do you recall saying to him about this separate process . I think i was interested in understanding his understanding of events. Did you explain to him what
your understanding of events w was . I think it was primarily on receipt mode. Do you recall this conversation . Thank you. I do remember a conversation with him. Im not sure about the timing. I left around that time to go on a trip. And it may have been a little bit earlier. Im not sure about the timing. And what i do remember the Discussion Being is him asking me, what is my impression of the role that ambassador sondland plays . I response to that was, i find it helpful that he has political context in the white house. I dont have those contexts. Work in the National Security and diplomatic fronts. But dont have the political contacts. And so hes able to use those to support the same goals that we are working toward. I view that is helpful. Thats a good segue to our next exhibits, which is that September 8th texas change. With you and ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland. At the top, ambassador sondland says, guys, multiple converts with zelensky, photos, lets talk. And ambassador taylor about 15 or 16 minutes later he says, gordon and i just spoke. I can brief you commit meeting you, ambassador volker if you and gordon dont connect. Approximately one hour later, ambassador taylor says the nightmare is they give the interview and dont get the Security Assistance. The russians love is, and i quit. And then at the bottom about five hours later, how do you respond . Im not in the loop. Talk monday . You are not in the loop in terms of all of these conversations that ambassador taylor come up mr. Morrison, and ambassador sondland were having . Thats correct. Ultimately the hold was lifted on September 11th . That is my understanding. Mr. Morrison, where you are aware that prior to
September 11th, the white house that there was a whistleblower complaint circulating around the white house . I dont believe so, no. You were aware of a record to preserve records . We received a number of those requests. I have a general regulation as one related to ukraine. When was the whole lifted . As i understand it, the president gave the were you aware of that . I believe i was familiar with the letter. Ideals. That concludes the majority of the 45 minutes. Are you okay or do you need a break . You are recognized for ambassador, mr. Morrison, i have some bad news for you. Tv ratings are way down. Dont hold it personally, i dont think it is you guys. But whatever drug deal the democrats are cooking up here on the dais, the American People are not buying it. I know you both answered this in your Opening Statements, but i just want to bring a little bit more clarity to it, mr. Morrison, i will start with you. Did anybody ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during her time in the white house. No, sir. And you were the top person for ukraine in the white house . I would argue ambassador bolden would be. According to ambassador bolden . Ambassador volker, you have a storied career, and you are the Special Envoy to ukraine . That is correct. Did anyone at the white house ever ask you to bribe or extort anything out of anyone at any
time . No, sir. Thank you. I want to thank you both to being here. And i will yield to mr. Castor. Thank you mr. Nunez, thank you both for being here today and for the lengthy depositions. You are the first one on octobeu are with us on halloween. So thank you for your participation. Mr. Morrison, i also want to thank you, you are a long time hill staff. I have an appreciation for that nearly 20 years. So thank you. And ambassador volker, pennsylvania resident . An incredible part of the country. I just want to walk through some of your positions. If you were Senate Confirmed ambassador for nato for a stand . That a scribe. And you were at the State Department and your portfolio spans what george kent has currently . I was a deputy assistant
directory, so i had 40 Assistant Secretaries in eurasia, and for nato and the european union. And then you were involved with the National Security council, you were the direct owe for nato and Western Europe . That is correct. And you were the senior official for European Affairs . I was acting for six months or so. Much like mr. Morrison had. And we will note that all of the witnesses that we have interacted with and ambassador yovanovitch said you were a brilliant diplomat. That is very high praise. And for over two years you served at the special administrative for the ukraine that is correct. Use observed for free on a voluntary basis . That is correct. I did. You put a lot of time and effort into that job . Yes, i did. That taxpayers got their moneys worth, didnt they . Not for me to say. You believe americas policy on the ukraine has been strengthened as to your tenure . Absolutely when i look back at the record i think we did an awful lot to support ukraine. This is in fair part due to President Trump . He approved each of the decisions made along the way. Providing lethal defensive equipment and the nonrecognition statement on crimea, two of the most important ones. And for many years there had been an initiative in the Interagency Advocating for lethal defensive weaponry for ukraine, correct . That is correct. It was not until President Trump and his administration went in that that went through . That is correct. The delegation to president zelenskys exaggeratio inauguration in mt
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.