Latest Breaking News On - Family cabin - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
giuliani. mr. giuliani said they thought ukraine should make a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermac provided me a draft statement and i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem being that he's getting bad set of information. a statement like this could potentially correct that. >> so was mr. giuliani satisfied with this statement? >> no, he was not. >> why not? >> he believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything. >> so in fact mr. giuliani wanted a statement that referenced burisma and 2016 elections explicitly. one that would benefit
essentially president trump. mr. ambassador, here's the text you sent to the ukrainian official august 13th. you said hey andrey good talking, following are the two items. those two items were specific reference to burisma and the 2016 election. >> that is correct. >> did he take those two items to you, sir? >> as you see i just had a conversation to describe to him the conversation we'd just had with mr. giuliani. mr. giuliani said that it would need to include these things for it to be convincing to him. i put them in so we understood what he was talking about and i shared it with andrey to say this is what he was talking about. >> and you included them in the
proposal to the ukrainians? >> i put it back in to be clear to the ukrainians this is what the conversation was. >> mr. ambassador, if you believe the statement giuliani dictated in august was not a good idea, sir, why were the ukrainians still considering giving an interview with the same things in september? >> if i may, congressman, i conveyed this to the ukrainians in order to be clear so we knew what the conversation was about. so this was following up on his prior conversation. the crukrainians then said they had reasons not to do that and they described those reasons and i agreed with them, and we agreed to just scrap the statement. from that point on i didn't have any further conversations about this statement. so i don't know how it came up or why it came up that there would be a possibility of president zelensky doing an interview with u.s. media later saying something like this and in the end he didn't do that either. >> thank you, sir. mr. morrison, you said that the
president's requests during the july 25th call were not consistent with u.s. policy. i emphatically agree with you, sir. yet these six messages show that ambassador volker spent much of august pressing ukraine to meet those requests. we can only be grateful i guess that the president essentially got caught. and congress passed a law to ensure the funding was released to ukraine before it was too late. i thank you both for your service. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. both of you gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. i want to start if i can with you mr. morrison discussing the 7/25 phone call and the concerns lieutenant vindman had, lieutenant vindman came to you with edits for the transcript and you stated that you accepted all of his edits, is that correct? >> i would have accepted all the
edits i believed were faithful to what was actually discussed. >> did he come to you with an edit that said the word "demand" should be in there? >> i don't recall that specifically, sir. >> he didn't either. how soon after the phone call did he meet with you on that particular issue? >> we got the draft as was normal fairly quickly after the call, that same day. >> that same day. so today he said i reported my concerns to mr. eisenberg, it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and political opponent. now, he was going to mr. eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation. yet he did not at any point on the edits say that there should be a demand. and, you know, he didn't do that, but he did say that he didn't come to you with his concerns because you weren't available, but that same day he
came to you with edits. is that correct? >> i believe that's generally correct, yes, sir. >> he said you weren't available and you didn't hear the president make a demand, did you? >> no, sir. >> so some time between the call and today lieutenant colonel vindman must have been hearing some voices, and he heard demand at the time. but he didn't hear it that day, and he didn't make it an issue that day, but today he does. i think that's pretty bizarre. when lieutenant colonel vindman went to legal mr. eisenberg do you know if he was advised not to speak to you? >> i don't have any first-hand knowledge of that, no, sir. >> do you know if he was advised to contact the igic. >> no, sir, i have no first-hand knowledge of that. >> so you don't know what he was advised when he went to legal? >> no, sir, i do not.
>> thank you. i appreciate that. mr. volker, i want to tell you i really enjoyed your opening testimony today taking us through that. i appreciate it. you talk about letters signed and sharing concerns about leadership in your assigned country, about agreeing with and sometimes disagreeing with the leadership of your own country when you felt it was appropriate. you're the boots on the ground for the administration. let's face it, you're part of that team who's the there to serve the country in that way. and that all to me sounded like the work of a very good diplomat, and i want to thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> corruption was a concern legitimately in ukraine and in many ways. and mr. jordan pointed out some of the things that were done by ukrainians in plain sight. i might use that term, in plain sight by putting op-eds in our newspapers. and it's certainly more than one
country can be trying to influence our elections, would you agree with that? >> i agree with that. >> and we keep hearing that whole thing about ukrainians, that's all been debunked. it was just the russians. you know that comes from an ic community that some of the people that have come up with those conclusions are some of the very same people we're going to find out if we haven't already were deeply involved with this whole russian collusion hoax. but i want to say you did a great job. you vetted zelensky's intentions, what he intended to be as a president. would you say that's accurate? >> yes, that was in fact one of the key objectives of -- to take on judgment and report back to the president. >> and you became comfortable with this president, correct? >> yes, i did. >> and you worked to assure our president that you were comfortable with this president, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and in some ways you have to work sometimes through any means available. and that might include working
with rudy giuliani if it could be helpful to you to get that message and advice to the president, would that be correct? >> i believe that the messages being conveyed by mr. giuliani were a problem because they were at variance with our official message to the president was and not conveying that positive assessment we all had. so i thought it was important to try to step in and fix the problem. >> and in that i think you turned out a useful barometer of where things were. >> yes. >> so those useful barometers i think can come in a lot of different fashions. if they can help the cause. and in that situation it's not illegal. good job, ambassador. thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and thank you both for your participation here today and for your service. i want to take us out some 30,000 feet for a minute and talk about cover-ups.
but for the fact that the whistle-blower came forward we wouldn't know anything ability this. but for the fact that the inspector general of the cia found it to be both urgent and credible we wouldn't know anything about it. mr. morrison, you said that after you heard the call you went directly to the attorneys in the national security council and recommended that they be limited access and they were subsequently put into a special server. the white house has not released any documents whatsoever to this committee. so do you, mr. volker -- thank you. but for the fact you as a private citizen with your own personal phone and your text messages with mr. giuliani and mr. sondland and whoever else, but for those text messages that
we've been putting up on the screen all day, we would have nothing, nothing. and this cover-up would be complete. that's something we should think about. now, on july 19th you have breakfast with rudy giuliani at the trump hotel, correct? >> that's correct. >> and in that conversation at one point he brought up mr. and you said whatever he's saying is not correct. >> yes. >> and then you brought up mr. biden and i'm going to quote you here, i've known him for a long time, he's a person of integrity. to giuliani, simply not credible to me. joe biden would be influenced in his duties as vice president by money or things for his son or anything like that. now, we've had many discussions
over the last few days about these investigations into burisma and biden and the 2016 crowd strike server. and you in that conversation with mr. giuliani basically debunked all of that. now, at that time -- at that breakfast who else was with you at that breakfast? >> there was someone that mr. giuliani brought along. i later learned this was lev parnas who we've learned a lot about since then. >> so mr. lev parnas was at that breakfast that mr. giuliani had with you. and we now know that mr. parnas has since been indicted for foreign campaign contributions to president trump's political action committee. is that correct? >> i have seen that. >> all right. on may 23rd, you were in that discussion with the president and at one point he referred to
zelensky having terrible people around him. who do you think he was calling terrible people around him? >> there were two people that came to mind. one of them was a former investigative journalist and parliamentarian. he's someone seen as bringing forth a black ledger related to paul manafort's activities in ukraine. that was one person. the other person i thought it could refer to was the person being named as president zelensky's chief of presidential administration. he was known as a lawyer for one of the main oligarchs in ukraine. and there's a lot of controversy at the time about him being appointed to the administration. >> do you think of them as terrible people? >> i don't think either one of them is terrible people, no. >> all right. thank you. mr. morrison, earlier in tome
that was solicited from our colleagues from the other side of the aisle you said others represented to you that some had been leaked. would you therefore want to maybe rearrange your comments about the rerchs you made to colonel vindman? >> no, ma'am. >> so even though under oath he said that he has never leaked, you believe that he -- you're believing people who said to you that he may have leaked. >> miaa'am, i didn't believe or disbelieve them. i merely relayed what they told me. >> well, they told you and you decided to continue to put that forward even though you had no evidence. thank you, i yield back.
>> i'm sorry. chairman, if i could answer. that's incorrect. they, dr. hill, others in the nsc raised concerns about alex. those concerns were noted. i didn't take them for face value. i treated them as representation from others. i was on alert but i formed my own judgments. i took no action because of the statements of someone else that i couldn't independently validate. >> mr. stewart. >> thank you, gentlemen. welcome to impeacha palooza 2019 and it's been a long day. good news and bad news. good news is i'm going to be very, very brief. we're going on 10 plus hours of this. i will yield back some of my
time. the bad news is most of my colleagues after me won't so we've still got some time to go. ambassador volker, very quickly, do you think that someone should be immune from investigation of suspected ethical or criminal activity just because they were a candidate for office, even for office of the president of the united states? >> i don't think anyone should be above the law. >> well, of course not. that would be absurd to suggest that. what if somebody's alleged ethical or criminal allegations occurred overseas, occurred in another country, would it be improper to seek the host country's help such as we do with interpol or other law enforcement agency snz. >> there are channels for doing that for citizens who may have committed crimes abroad. >> and to seek their government's help is not unusual at all? >> that is correct. and we often have treaties for that. >> again, that's painfully
obvious. and to me that's exactly and the only thing the president was doing there. mr. morrison, i wondered just briefly to lieutenant vindman's testimony where he described the six people -- i believe there were five or six people, in the situation room listening to this phone call between the two presidents. colonel vindman described these individuals as exceptional. he stated there was no reason to question their integ tale or professionalism. this is an exkpachg he and i had in closed door testimony. do you agree with the description as national security staff as exceptional people? >> sir, they're patriots, yes. >> people of great integrity and professionalism. >> yes, sir. >> do any of these -- i'm sorry, did any of these exceptional individuals, people of unquestioned integrity and professionalism indicate to you they had thought that the president of the united states engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior as a result of this phone call? >> not that i'm aware of, congressman. >> did any of them suggest to
you in any way they thought the president was involved with bribery or any such thing associated with that? >> not that i'm aware of, congressman. >> it only leaves two possible explanations. either these individuals of what we described of great integrity, either that's not true which i don't believe, or they just interpreted a conversation very differently than colonel vindman. and one last thing as an aside as an air force officer, i never understood why president obama was against providing lethal aid to ukraine. >> i would only point to the statements from the administration at the time. there was a perception that our allies would oppose it, that germany would oppose it. there was a perception that germany should be in the lead. there was a perception it could be provocative to russia or escalate the conflict. as i've said expensivetensively
time i don't agree with those arguments. >> i agree with you, ambassador. i think you got it right and i think president trump got it right. and with that i yield back. >> mr. quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, i want to direct your attention to a meeting you had with ambassador taylor and mr. yermac september 14th in kiev. >> i believe we had dinner. it was around the time of the yes conference. >> do you remember discussing ukraine's intent to investigate the former president? >> i remember iraising the issue of the possibility of prosecutions? >> you raised it and they talked about their intention. >> to be clear, there was a lot of talk in kiev at that time about whether the new team would
be prosecuting the former president. and i had met with the former president and met with others in the opposition as well. i wanted to call mr. yermac's attention to the possible problems with this. these have created deep divisions in society. so i cited president zelensky's inauguration speech -- i'm sorry, his national day speech from august 24th that was all ability uniu.n.ifying the country. and i cautioned mr. yermac to say pursuing prosecution of the former president risks deepening the corruption in the country exactly opposite what zelensky said he wanted to do. >> it's fair to describe you discouraged him from such action. >> i discouraged him and raised
concerns about when potential impact would be. >> and what was his response sph. >> i believe i'm refreshed in this by seeing the testimony of others -- >> ambassador taylor and mr. kent. >> right. and where believe on that testimony mr. yermac said you mean us investigating clinton and biden? >> it was something along the lines of it's okay for you to ask us to investigate in the manner in which you are, these so-called investigations, but you don't want us to investigate our own president? is that a fair way to describe this? >> well, i didn't quite understand what he was referring to because to my knowledge we weren't asking to investigate clinton or biden. and so i was kind of puzzled by the remark, and that's why i didn't respond. >> did you go and investigate what he might have meant or ask anybody? >> i took as a deflection from the point i was making about
unifying ukraine. >> in all this time -- mr. giuliani in this time in may and september he mentioned biden in the investigation in relation to ukraine. none of that stirred you're curiosity? you just now finally come to this point? >> as i testified i met with mr. giuliani once and he did bring up mr. biden and i pushed back on that. and i maintained a clear distinction ukraine investigating its own citizens and corruption is fine. to go beyond that and say we're going to investigate the vice president is not fine. >> did you have any discussions with anyone in the state department or anywhere else about concerns about the investigation into -- >> yes. i know we'd been in the same meetings some of the same team there. i don't know whether i raised it
with george kent or phil or not. but it's something we'd discussed as part of our meetings in kiev at that time. >> i yield to the chairman. >> when you had this conversation and you urged ukrainians not to investigate or prosecute the former presidents, their response was oh, you mean you're asking us to investigate the clintons and bidens, that was their response? >> that's what i recall from seeing ambassador taylor's testimony. >> you didn't understand that at the time but at the time had you read the call record? >> no. >> if you'd read the call record, that makes a little more sense, doesn't it? >> yes. >> i was curious about something you said earlier when you said that the 2016 conspiracy theory of -- had no merit but you didn't see any harm in ukraine investigating if they wanted to investigate it, is that right? >> yes. >> don't they have enough legitimate corruption to
investigate without spending time investigating a debunked conspiracy theory? >> there's all kinds of corruption to investigate in ukraine. >> but nonetheless you proposed they go ahead and do this investigation with something you thought was thought merit because this was part of an effort to fix the problem giuliani was creating? >> i did not propose it. >> well i think you said you were okay with it or you amended statements to include it because if it would help fix the giuliani problem, was that the thinking? >> yes, that's correct. if it threads the needle between what is reasonable for ukraine to do, and if resets the negative perceptions held by mr. giuliani and then the president, then why not? >> this is part of what udescribed yoyou described in your opening statement when you see a problem to fix it. is it clear based on the 25th call, you were not able to fix it? >> based on the transcript that was released on the 25th i can
see now there was a lot else going on that was about vice president biden that i knew at the time. and the efforts that i was making were clearly not in the context of what had already been discussed by the president on july 25th. >> so it's fair to say you were not able to fix the giuliani problem. >> that's correct. >> thank you ambassador volker and mr. morrison, for your years of service and professional expertise and leadership on national security issues and i want to particular thank mr. morrison for his great work on the armed services committee of which i serve. i wanted to start on the july 25th call. mr. morrison, you were on that call and there was no mention of withholding aid on that call, correct? >> that is correct, congresswoman. >> and there was no quid pro quo. >> correct. >> no bribery? >> correct. >> no extortion. >> correct. >> and ambassador volker, i
presume you got a read-out of the call, is that correct? >> a very terse read out, but that's correct. >> was there any reference to withholding aid? >> no, there was not. >> any reference to bribery. >> no there was not. >> any reference to quid pro quo. >> no there was not. >> any reference to extortion? >> no, there was not. >> i presume you also got feedback from your ukrainian counter parts as to how the call went. did they mention any withholding of aid? >> no, they did not. >> did they mention any quid pro quo. >> no, they did not. >> did they mention any bribery? >> no, they did. >> and a day after the call you mentioned zelensky, and in that meeting he made mow meng of quid pro quo. >> no. >> he made no mention of withholding the aid? >> and in the coming weeks you were in touch with ukraines as part of your official duties, and this included talking to
ukrainians over the phone, in person, on text and the ukrainians never brought up an investigation into the bidens, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> they never brought up the withholding of the aid? >> that's correct. >> they never brought up quid pro quo or bribery? >> let me bring up the aid -- they did bring that up after the politico article appeared -- >> i'm going to get to that but until the political article, they did not bring it up. and you said in your closed door deposition, quote, it never came up in conversation with them and i believe they had trust in me that they would have asked if that was really what they were worried about, is that correct. >> that's correct. and as you pointed out the ukrainians never even knew their foreign aid was on pause until the article was published in august. >> that is correct. >> and they didn't go about the call? >> that's correct. >> and you said to correct chairman schiff. the chairman of this committee asked you, quote, when they became aware that military
assistance was being withheld for a reason you couldn't explain, no one could explain, weren't they under even greater pressure to give the president what he asked for on the call? and you answered, quote, to my knowledge the news about a hold on security assistance did not get into ukrainian government circles as indicated to me by the current former minister then diplomatic advisor until the end of august. is that your testimony? >> yes, it is. >> and chairman schiff also got the facts wrong again when he asked you this, quote, at the point they learned their aid was paused, wouldn't they -- wouldn't that give them at an urgency to meet the president's request on the bidens? and you answered, ambassador volker, quote, i think the ukrainians felt they were going in the right direction and they had not done anything, they had not done anything on an investigation, end quote. isn't it the case, ambassador volker, at one point chairman schiff said to you when you were truthfully testifying, quote,
ambassador you're making this much more complicated than it has to be, end quote. it's page 127 from the deposition, is that correct? >> i remember that. >> but the truth is the facts are indeed not complicated, and i'm going to closeout with two questions for the both of you. did ukraine open an investigation into the bidens? mr. morrison? >> not to my knowledge, ma'am. >> ambassador volker? >> not to my knowledge either. >> did either of you ever have any evidence of quid pro? mr. morsen? >> no, ma'am. >> mr. volker? >> i did not. >> any evidence of bribery? >> no, ma'am. >> no, ma'am. >> any evidence of treason? >> no, ma'am. >> no evidence of treason. >> with that i yield back. >> mr. swalwell. >> thank you. mr. morrison, did ambassador bolton want the security aid hold lifted? >> yes, congressman, he did. >> you testified he had a late
one-on-one meeting in august, is that right? >> can you point to where i testified to that. >> on page 266 you said a meeting but the president was not ready to approve the release of the assistance. 266 and 268. but i'm asking you did that happen or did it not? >> sir, i want to be clear in characterizing it. okay, yes, sir, i see. >> you testified to that. what was the outcome of that meeting between ambassador bolton and president trump? >> ambassador bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the assistance. >> did ambassador bolton inform you of the ongoing hold that stemmed from this meeting? >> no, sir. >> mr. morrison, do you consider
yourself loyal to the president? >> yes, sir. >> and the president executes the foreign policy of the united states, is that right? >> well, sir, i would say he decides. >> he sets it. >> yes, sir. >> and as a staffer on the national security council and even someone who serves in the military, it's your job to faithfully execute the foreign policy priorities of the president, is that right? >> sir, my oath is to obey all lawful orders. >> on july 25 you listened to the president of the united states talk to the president of ukraine? >> yes, sir. >> irregardless of what you had prepared as far as talking points in that call for the president, you heard the president of the united states ask the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens, is that correct? >> yes, sir. he made a request. >> and after the july 25 call between president trump and the ukrainian president, fair to say that you talked to your ukrainian counter parts a number
of times? >> yes, sir. >> how many times when you talked to your ukrainian counter parts did you ask them to investigate the bidens? >> never, sir. >> why not? >> sir, it was not a policy objective that i was aware of. >> but with all due respect, mr. morrison, you're not in the white house to carry out your policy objectives. you just testified that the president sets the foreign policy objectives for the united states. and the one call you listened to between the president of the united states and the president of ukraine, the president of the united states priorities were to investigate the bidens. and i'm asking you, sir, why didn't you follow up on the president's priorities when you talked to the ukrainians? >> sir, i did not understand it as a policy objective. >> mr. morrison, i know that you put that conversation in the server because as you said you feared the political
consequences and some other reasons that you gave. but you also chose to defy the president's request to not come here as others have like mr. mulvaney and mr. bolton, and you have come here. and you've been truthful, and i appreciate that. and mr. morrison, whether you acknowledge it public laely or i believe you knew what the president asked the ukrainians to do was wrong. and as you just described, your duty is to follow the foreign policy priorities of the president but to also only follow something that is a lawful order. and i don't think you believed that was a lawful order, and that's why you did not follow-up on those priorities. mr. volker, we've heard a lot today about this president being such an anti-corruption president. you really cared about fighting corruption. is russia a corrupt country? >> we're talking about president zelensky? >> no, president trump. is russia a corrupt country?
>> yes, it is. >> and president trump has met a number of times in person with president putin, is that right? >> yes, a few times. >> and he's had a number of phone calls with president putin, is that right? >> yes. >> is turkey a corrupt country? >> yes, i believe so. >> and just last week despite their corruption at the white house president erdogan had an audience with the president of the united states, is that correct? >> yes, he did. >> finally, mr. giuliani, on may 9th told "the new york times" president trump basically knows what i'm doing as his lawyer. are you familiar with that statement to "the new york times"? >> no, i am not. >> but you agree that a lawyer acts on a client's behalf and only on a clients behalf, is that right? >> i believe that a lawyer acts on his clients behalf. i'm not sure on only on a clients behalf because i think as i understood mayor giuliani in this case, he was doing a lot that i considered to be on his
own. i did not believe he was a always instructed. >> and when you said not medding in apinvestigation, or meddling in an investigation, he did not say i but we, is that correct? >> i'm taking that from the statement. >> yield back. >> mr. morrison, my colleague from california suggests he knows your opinions and your thoughts better than you do. he didn't give you the opportunity to respond. do you have a response or want to give a response? >> no, sir, i heard the president make a request. i received no direction at any time to attempt to leave a policy process different from what i laid out in my deposition. i was directed to launch an interagency process to ensure a opinion as to the importance of continuing security sector assistance, and that's what i did. i acted upon the direction i was given. >> good copy. while we're with you, mr.
morsen, thanks for your toil, you're clear and sober testimony today. did you participate or hear any conversations how political information collected by ukraine on the bidens would be used for political gain? >> no, sir. >> ambassador volker, same question. did you participate in or overhear any conversations about how potential information collected by ukraine on the bidens would be used for political gain? >> no, i did not. >> there's been a lot of discussions about a text exchange you had with mr. yermac on august 12th at talked about this proposed statement, and mayor giuliani provided some feedback on what he thought needed to be included in that. did mayor giuliani get feedback from the president on what should go into that proposed statement? >> i had no reason to believe that he had discussed it with the president. >> based on your recollection, ambassador volker, who within
the zelensky regime has mayor giuliani interacted with? now in addition to mr. yermac, which we've already talked about and also the former general mr. lushenco. >> i'm aware he met with him as the prosecutor general -- >> but that's not under the machine in which we're talking about. >> i don't know who else he would have met with. >> in as few words as possible what was your understanding of ambassador sondland's role in ukraine? >> he cared about ukraine. he wanted to see u.s. support for ukraine increased. he wanted to see european union support for ukraine increased including maintenance of sanctions and he wanted to be helpful. >> was ambassador sondland having conversations with senior zelensky officials without letting other people know?
>> i don't believe he was not letting people know. i believe he may have had some conversations, but i think he was just acting, you know, and i think we circled back quite frequently with myself, ambassador taylor and others. >> can you say that you have a clear understanding of what ambassador sondland and mayor giuliani were doing in all their interactions with ukrainian officials? >> i can't say that i had a clear understanding. i thought that ambassador sondland and i were working on the same objective which was getting a meeting between president zelensky and president trump, and that a statement as i understood it that mentioned burisma in 2016 would be potentially helpful. i didn't know anything more about their interactions or what their thoughts were. >> if you didn't have a clear understanding as the special representative to ukraine, do you think the ukrainians had a clear understanding? >> no, i don't. >> you thought there was a difference between burisma and biden and the 2016 elections, is
that correct? >> that is correct. >> do you think the ukrainians had similar understanding? >> yes, i do. there's also a perception that when ambassador yovanovitch, who we've all, you know, heard 33 years of being an awesome ambassador, that when she left kiev that the u.s. position on corruption would weaken. that's kind of a narrative that's floating around. who was the person that took over for her in the interim? >> immediately after masha was joe penningten. >> was this individual strong or weak on corruption? >> i would say in line with all the rest of our policy. >> and after that individual, who was that person replaced with? >> and that was bill taylor. >> who you suggested for the position, correct? >> yes. >> was ambassador taylor strong or weak on corruption? >> very strong. >> mr. morrison, on my last 23 minutes who sets official
policy? >> sir, the president. >> not some other staffer within the nsc process? >> it exists to make sure the president has the full array of options for his decision. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. is it correct to say both you gentlemen were either appointed or hired by the white house, by the trump administration? >> yes, sir. >> in my case by secretary tillerson. >> but part of the trump administration? >> yes. serving in the same administration. >> sure. ambassador volker, you previously testified that ambassador gordon sondland, quote, i just know that he had a relationship with president trump that i did not have. in fact, in one text message dated july 26, you wrote to ambassador sondland quote, great photo sondland can you get this to potus without intermediary.
july 26th was the day the president spoke. were you wear of that call? >> no, i was thought. >> this committee certainly is aware of it now as we all are. were you aware ambassador sondland had a direct line to the president? >> he claimed he spoke to the frequently. >> did you have reason to doubt that? >> ambassador sondland's a big personality and sometimes says things that may be a bit bigger than life -- >> he too was a political appointee and was hand picked by the president or someone with the president to serve in the administration he also had been a large done door president trump's campaign committees, is that correct? >> i have learned that. >> mr. morrison, you stated in your testimony when you met ambassador sondland for the first time he represented that, quote, his mandate from the
president was to go make deals. and in fact you testified between july 25th and september 11th of this year you learned or heard that ambassador sondland and president trump spoke on several occasions. is it accurate that every time you checked you were able to confirm that ambassador sondland had in fact spoken to the president? >> yes, congressman. >> mr. morrison, you also testified that ambassador sondland e-mailed you and several white house staff to say that he briefed president trump in advance of his july 25th call with the ukrainian president, is that correct? >> yes, congressman. >> did ambassador sondland tell you what he briefed the president on? >> it was -- he sent me an e-mail, sir. it was a very succinct.
>> and you testified ambassador sondland and the president had spoken before the july 25th call? >> that is correct. >> and presumably the white house situation room keeps a record of those calls. >> sir, that was how i was able to confirm it. >> you testified your staff prepared a briefing memo with suggested points for the president to raise on july 25th, points that were consistent with u.s. policy, is that correct? >> that's correct, congressman. >> but the president didn't use those points, did he? >> no, sir, he did not. >> so you prepared materials for the president. your prepared materials did not include references to biden or the 2016 election, is that right? >> correct, congressman. >> and ambassador sondland, the guy who's the gordon problem, the guy who's got a direct link to the president, the guy who's talking about making deals briefed president trump, is that right in. >> correct, congressman. >> and then president trump raised the 2016 election and vice president biden and his son
to the ukrainian president after he was briefed by ambassador sondland. is that right? >> correct, congressman. >> it sounds like ambassador sondland and the president were on the same page. they both were working to benefit the president's personal political interests even when that undermined u.s. foreign policy. i want to ask you in the short time that i have, both you vaem w gentlemen who served the united states government, whether putting president trump aside -- whether you believe that it's proper for any president now or later to ask a foreign government to investigate a u.s. citizen and specifically a u.s. citizen that could be a political rival? ambassador? >> i don't believe it is appropriate for the president to do that. if we have law enforcement concerns with a u.s. citizen generally there are appropriate channels for that.
>> mr. morrison? >> i agree with ambassador volker, sir. >> thank you, chairman. i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, i appreciate both of you being here today. i know it's been a long day for you. mr. morrison, i'm going to try to summarize some of what we've heard to shorten this. you were on the july 25th call. colonel vindman was on the july 25th call, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> and i will tell you he testified earlier today that he heard what he thought was a demand on that call that was improper and felt that he had a duty to report that. i think we've established already that he did not discuss or report any of that to you, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> but you did have a discussion with colonel vindman about other concerns that he had with the call, and i believe you said the fidelity of the translation and the fact that you both shared a
discussion about not -- there not being a full throated embrace of the ukrainian reform agenda. is that fair? >> yes, congressman. >> okay. but with respect to his concern about something improper, specifically at no point did he come to you and say i heard something that i thought was improper and was a crime. >> sir, i have no recollection of him doing that. >> no bribe, no extortion, no quid pro quo? >> no, sir. >> all right. and as you were listening, did you hear president trump make a demand of anything that would constitute a crime? >> sir, i've been trying to stay on the same side of making legal conclusions, but no, sir i did not hear him make any sort of demand. >> you have a law degree. >> i do, sir. >> so you're familiar with bribery and extortion generally. >> i'm not a lawyer for the united states, sir. >> but is it fair to say as you
were listening to the call you weren't thinking wow the president's bribing the president of ukraine. >> that never crossed your mind. >> it did, not sir. >> or that he was extorting the president of ukraine. or doing anything improper. >> correct, sir. >> have you read where president zelensky agrees with you and said repeatedly and consistently he didn't hear any demand, he didn't hear any conditions, he didn't feel any pressure, he didn't experience anything improper or corrupt on the call? >> sir, i attended the bilat in new york in the general eassembly and he made clear at the time he felt no pressure. >> so did anyone on the national security council after this call express to you that some crime, bribery extortion, quid pro quo, anything had occurred? >> no, sir. >> i want to ask you, mr. morrison, about the whistle-blower complaint. i don't want to ask you to speculate as to the identity,
but i want to ask you about the accusations that started this as to their voracity. first of all, the whistle-blower who apparently was not on the call advised the icig that he or she was concerned that the president's conduct constituted under title 50 usc section 3033 quite a serious problem abuse or violation of law and executive order, end quote. again, to be clear you didn't hear a violation of law or executive order as you listened to the call? >> sir, i made no judgment about any illegal conduct occurring. >> the whistle-blower also reported in starting this inquiry asserted that president trump, quote, sought to pressure the ukrainian leadership to take actions to help the president's 2020 re-election bid. president trump does not mention
2020 during the call. does he? >> no, sir, i don't believe he did. >> president trump doesn't mention his re-election bid during the call, does he? >> sir, i don't believe he did. >> and you did not hear president trump pressure or have a demand of any kind as we've already established, correct? >> correct, sir. >> whistle-blower like colonel vindman also uses the word demand -- >> when you say whistle-blower like colonel vindman i don't think that's the fact. >> counsel, you should use the microphone. >> i'm sorry. with all due respect i believe you just said a whistle-blower like colonel vindman. >> i'm sorry. the whistle-blower like colonel vindman also uses the demand. on page 4 the whistle blow asserted, quote, ambassador volker and sondland prortedly provided advice to ukrainian leadership on how to navigate demands the president had made
of mr. zelensky, end quote. again there were no demands from your perspective, mr. morrison. >> that is correct, sir. >> speculation of the whistle blow aside and motivations the fact is the whistle-blower was wrong about many of the facts as well, correct? >> sir, i'm not intimately familiar with the whistle-blower complaint, but i did not hear a demand in that call. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. heck. >> thank you, chairman. ambassador volker, i want to thank you for being here today and i frankly found some of your opening statement to be not just genuine but down right eloquent. in particular i noted the passages on pushing back on russian aggression and supporting the development of a strong resilient democratic and prosperous ukraine, one that overcomes a legacy of corruption and that this is critically
important for u.s. national security. some of us believe that we're not pushing back strongly enough on russia. some of us believe we're not being supportive enough of the ukraine, but one of our challenges is to go home for the people for whom we work and help explain to them why it is in our national security interest. you have an audience like you'll never have again to look into the camera and tell the american public why it is important to support ukraine, why it should matter to them if the biggest issue in their life is getting their kids off to school, paying their bills and the like, sir. >> thank you so much, congressman. i agree with you completely that we are not pushing back hard enough on russia and that we owe ukraine a great deal of support. >> why does it matter? >> russia is trying to upend
security in europe. it has led to war in europe. the war in ukraine has left more people dead in europe in the european war since the balkens. these are people who stand up for freedom, for democracy. they want reform. they want to see their country be successful like germany and like sweden and like us. and they are fighting a war of aggression against them designed to hold them back. and if we want to live in a world of freedom for the united states, we ought to be supporting freedom for people around the world. >> thank you for that. so we're heart in part under concern for general corruption when there wasn't, in fact some of us believe there weren't a concern for general corruption. but reviewing a regard on that,
sir, is it not true in march this year the department of defense certified ukraine as having made sufficient progress to continue to receive military assistance? >> i don't know the details of that i but i believe that to be correct. >> is it not true that president zelensky with an overwhelming mandate based largely on his effort and advocacy for anti-corruption. >> that is correct. >> is it not true when his party won one party control. >> that is correct. >> he enacted sweeping reforms to combat anti-corruption, is it not? >> that is true. >> is is it not true everyone on the ground had optism ukraine was getting serious about combating corruption. >> that is correct. >> did you know one of the very first anti-corruption measures passed in ukraine was a law to provide for the piechlmeimpeach
the president? >> i did not know that. >> it's true because he thought he should start with himself. i raise that because by friends on the other side of the aisle keep characterizing this impeachment inquiry as inherently wrong and i'm quoting them, it'll overturn an election. well, impeachment is an anti-corruption tool. and for my friends on the other side of the aisle, yes, it does overturn an election. by definition it overturns an election. i don't know if they've got our problem with our constitution and its provisions for impeachment but i recommend they reread the relevant passages in article 1 sections 2 and 3 and some of the history about how we got there. look, none of us wants to be here despite what's being said. none of us came to this easily. i didn't. i will recall for the rest of my life the 48 hours i spent at our family cabin literally plunged in self-reflection. and literally prayerful
deliberation about this whole matter. collectively we're going to have to grapple with this very grave decision. it's weighty, and it's going to get hard. and it's hard in proportion to its importance to our great republic. a republic if we can keep it. i yeield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador volker in the now famous transcript at the bottom of page 3 president trump said this, i heard you had a prosecutor and he was shutdown, that's really unfair. just for clarification, do you believe president trump was talking about losenko or shulkin. >> shulkin. >> you testified you had issues with colonel vindman's judgment is that right? >> it is, sir.
>> you said specifically you had problems with him exercising appropriate judgment as to what and you testified hill had concerns about colonel vindman's judgment, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and you testified colonel vindman did not always adhere to the chain of command. yes, sir. >> i testified he had issues accessing information outside his lane. >> i believe i stated there were those who were concerned about that, yes, sir. >> you testified colonel vinldman was not ifcluded on certain trips, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and you testified colleagues expressed concerns to you about colonel vindman leaking information, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> when i asked colonel vindman why he didn't go to you with his concerns about the call, even though his boss had no concerns about anything -- i think your language was nothing improper, anything illegal on the call. i asked colonel vindman why he
didn't go to you and instead talked to the lawyers, his brother, secretary kent and one person he wouldn't tell us and chairman schiff wouldn't allow him to tell us. when i asked him we he did that, he indicated the lawyers had infrastructured him to do that and he tried to get ahold of you. is that fair in. >> i watched part of the proceedings this morning. i heard him say that, yes, sir. >> he pointed out that you, colonel vindman's boss, also went to lawyers. but your reason for going to it lawyers was a little different, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> yeah, i think you had a few things you and mr. caster talked about earlier at today's hearing. but i think at the top of your list you were concerned about the content of the call leaking out, is that fair? >> yes, sir. >> and that's exactly what happened, isn't it? >> sir, i don't know -- i don't
know that the contents leaked out. there was a whistle-blower complaint. the president chose to declassify the memcon. >> it seems to me you were profphetic mr. morrison because you stated i feared how the disclosure of the contents of the call would play in washington's political climate. my fears have been realized. it seems to me you saw what might happen, and it sure enough did. fair to say? >> yes, sir. >> and we get all this, we get all this, and that's the part that gets me. we get all these hearings these weeks, a bunker in the basement of the capitol, and four facts that we keep coming back to have never changed, will never change. we've heard from both of you today and confirm said these
fundamental facts. we've got the call trianscript s you both said no linkage to security sutistance in the transcript. we've got the two individuals who were on the call. they've both said no linkage, no pressure, now pushing and the fact ukrainians didn't even know the aid had been withheld until august 29th. and most importantly the ukrainians did nothing as promising to start, announcing they were going to start the investigation. did nothing and the aid got released. and i believe it got released because of what we've been talking about the good work of mr. -- excuse me, ambassador volker, and others. i believe that's why it happened. and yet here we are. you called it all. you saw this coming. that's why you went to it lawyers. that's why you wanted to -- that's why the concern was there. and that's the part that's most troubling. i yield to the gentleman from
ohio. >> ambassador volker, on daily mail they currently have this headline. it says ukraine special envoy kurt volker walks back his closed door testimony and says, he, quote, has now learned there was a link between u.s. military aid and a biden probe. that's not your testimony today, is it? >> i don't believe that's in my testimony. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. welch. >> thank you. just following up on mr. jordan, the easiest way to avoid an investigation is to not do anything wrong. i want to talk a little bit about why we're here. official government actions can't be traded for help in a political campaign. let me give an analogy and ask each of you if you agree. could a mayor of a city with hold funding for the police department budget unless the police chief agreed to open up
Rudy-giulianiMrStatementAnythingFactElectionsReferenced-burismaOne2016TrumpAmbassadorTexttonight in washington, former senator and longtime democratic majority leader harry reid is being remembered as a skilled deal maker, a friend, and above all, a fighter. president biden called him a man of action and a man of his word. reed died last night after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. he was 82. flags over the capitol are now flying at half-staff in his honor. a quiet back-bencher at first, harry reid earned a reputation later as one of the most tenacious lawmakers in congress. >> i didn't make it because of my athletic prowess. i didn't make it because i'm a genius. i made it because i worked hard. >> reporter: a form amateur boxer, reed was willing to draw partisan blood. his motto, "i would rather dance than fight but i know how to fight. reid grew up in searchlight, nevada. the family cabin had no indoor plumbing. reid hitch hiked 40 miles to high school.
BidenHarry-reidAllFriendWordDemocraticManSenatorDeal-makerFormerFighterMan-of-actionhis girlfriend says he suffers from depression and ptsd. he told police he was high on drugs. officials say there is no evidence of a connection between viely and the victims. >> a new development in the mission tri of a prominent south carolina legal family. alex murdoch shot in the head three months after his wife and son were gunned down at their family cabin. murdoch's attorney said he was shot on a back road while changing his tire saturday. he dialed 911 himself to say he was shot by a passing vehicle, then made a call to his brother. authorities say he suffered a superficial head wound. he is expected to fully recover. police have not named a suspect. there still have been no arrests in the shooting deaths of his wife and son. at the time of paul's death, he was awaiting trial for a 2019 boat crash that left one person dead. ashley: california governor newsom's critics say soft on
FamilyVictimsOfficialsPoliceAlex-murdochDrugsHeadEvidenceDepressionPtsdVielyConnection