Concerns and if im forgetting one, please remind me, but the two concerns i had, was one i did not see representatives of sc legal on the call and i wanted to make sure that the Legal Adviser and his deputy were aware of the call and i was also concerned about taking steps to protect the memcon limited disclosure for fear of the consequences of it leaking. And you were concerned about it leaking because you were worried about how it would play out in washingtons polarized political environment, correct . Yes. And you were also worried how that would lead to the bipartisan support here in congress of towards ukraine, right . Yes. And you were also concerned that it might affect the ukrainians perception negatively. Yes. And in fact all three of those things have played out. Havent they . Yes. You didnt ask the lawyers to put her on the code word system, correct . I want to be precise about the lexicon here. I did not ask for it to be moved to a compartmented system. Okay. You just wanted the transcript to be controlled. I wanted access to be restricted. Okay. And when you learned that the transcript had been stored on the compartmented server, you believe that was a mistake, correct . Well, it was represented to me that it was a mistake. I was trying to pull up that memcon because we were in the process of pulling together ambassador boltons materials and the president s materials for what was a planned bilat 21 potus and president zelensky and when i went to do that i could not pull up the package in our system and i did not understand why. I spoke with the nsc executive secretariat staff, asked them why and they did their research and they informed me that it had been moved to the higher classification system at the direction of John Eisenberg whom i then asked why. If that wases judgment he made that wasnt necessarily mine to question and i didnt understand it and he said i gave no such direction. He did his own inquiry and he represented back to me that it was his understanding was that it was an administrative error that when he also gave direction to restrict access the secretary of state understood that as an a prehedge that there was something in the content of the memcon that could not exist on the lower classification system. To the best your knowledge, theres no malicious intent in moving the transcript to the compartmented server . Correct. Do you know anybody on the nsc staff that needed for the official duties and always was able to access it, correct . People that had a need to know and a need to access it . Once it was moved to the compartmented system . Yes. The memcon of the july 25th call was, in your experience, prepared normally . Yes. That there isnt an exact transcription of whats said on the call, correct . Correct. That theres no takers and the situation room and then they prepare a draft and theyre circulated among irrelevant parties . Essentially. Yes. You have responsibility for coordinating any edits . Yes. We look at the the shorthand well call it a transcription and we make sure that that transcription is close to accurate as possible given our confidential records act. Okay. Colonel vindman testified that he thought it was very accurate. Did you, as well . I viewed it as complete and accurate. Colonel vindman did articulate he had a couple edits and he wanted burisma inserted, i think it was page 3 or 4 in place of the company in one of the sections where president zelensky was talking . Are you aware of that edit request . I understand that he said in either this proceeding or the deposition that he wanted that request, yes. At the time did you understand that he had asked for that . I i dont recall that. It was my practice if i waived an edit. I would accept it. If i didnt hear it in the call, if i didnt exist in my notes i wouldnt have made the edit. On page 4 he wanted to swap out the word company for burisma. And when that edit from colonel vindman was not installed did he give you any negative feedback that it was crucial that that edit get in the document . Not that i can recall. Okay. Did he ever raise any concerns about the accuracy of the transcript . Not that i can recall. Did he ever raise any concerns to you generally about the call . When we were discussing the the track changes version of the memcon. I believe he had some concerns about the call. I believe we both agreed we wanted that more fullthroated embrace of president zelensky and his reform agenda and we didnt get it. Okay. You indicated in your deposition that when you took over the portfolio for dr. Hill july 15th you were alerted to potential issues in colonel vindmans judgment . Yes. Did she relay anything specifically to you . Why she thought that . Not in such. It was more of a overarching statement from her and her deputy who became my deputy that they had concerns about judgment. Okay. Did any other nsc personnel raise concerns with you about mr. Vindman . Yes. All right. Im sorry, colonel vindman, and what were some of those concerns that were brought to your attention . There were im sorry. We are not going to im going to instruct him not to answer. Im going to instruct him not to answer because i think that its beyond the scope of what youre asking for. These concerns, mr. Castor, predated any involvement with ukrainian secretary assistance. Well, during the deposition i asked you, mr. Morrison, whether others raised the concern that colonel vindman may have leaked information . You did ask that, yes. And your answer was . Others had represented that, yes. And i asked you whether you were concerned colonel vindman did not keep you in the loop at all times with his official duties . Yes. And, in fact, when he went to the National SecurityCouncil Lawyers following the july 25th call, he did not first come to you, is that correct . Correct. And you were his supervisor in the chain of command, correct . Correct. In hindsight, did you wish that he had come to you first before going to the lawyers . Yes. And why is that . One, if he had concerns about something, about the content of the call thats something i would expect to have been notified of and i also think just as a matter of practice since we both went to the lawyers we didnt both need to and the economy of, fort may have prevailed. Okay. At any point subsequently, did he become frustrated that he felt cut out of the ukraine portfolio . Yes. And what was the nature of his concerns . Well. He he was concerned with the ukraine trip that he did not go. He asked me why its my practice to have the conversations with ambassador taylor oneonone and there were certain other matters. Okay. Did you ever get a sense that you absolved his concerns or did they linger . I explained to him my thinking, and that was that. Okay. Before my time expire, ambassador volker i want to turn quickly to the what ambassador taylor describes as the irregular channel. He he was a participant with you and ambassador sondland with hundreds of Text Messages, correct . Correct. Did he ever raise concerns about what was going on during the time period during the early august time period . Only as you saw reflected in the Text Messages themselves where he said is this now a linkage or are we doing this . He had a concern about a concern of just in general with Rudy Giuliani and all of us had and the issue is what do you do about it, about the role that hes playing and as you note, we were in frequent contact, near daily contact throughout the entire period. Did he ever engage you on a oneonone telephone calls . He did not raise those concerns that way, no. Okay. And this i mean your experienced at one point in time and ambassador sondland is the ambassador to the European Union and secretary perry is the secretary of energy, certainly not and it didnt sound like an irregular bunch. Did he ever articulate that he thought that the three of you working on the ukraine policy was a problem . No, he did not. Were you surprised during his testimony when he came in for the deposition when he sort of established these two tracks that one was a regular channel that he was in charge of and the other was a yes. I dont agree with his characterization of that because i had been in my role for a couple of years. Id been the lead on u. S. Ukraine negotiations and negotiating with russia and the inner agency work and the work with our allies and we have a secretary of energy which is a cabinet official and having support from various u. S. Officials for our strengthening our engagement with ukraine i view as a very positive thing, and if the concern is not us so much then because were all u. S. Officials, but mayor giuliani, i dont view that as a channel at all because hes not a representative of the u. S. Government. Hes a private citizen. I viewed him as perhaps a useful barometer in understanding what may be helpful communication from the ukrainian government, but not someone in a position to represent the u. S. Govern the at all. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Why dont we take a five or tenminute break. If i ask the audience to allow the witnesses to leave the room first. We are in recess. As it relates to v. A. , that was not a direct thave came from the Vice President or the president. I think the testimony, mr. Morrisons testimony, where the Vice President of the United States has a meeting with president zelensky, doesnt raise any connection with the aid to any investigation. Are you aware 5 million of that aid is is it 35 million of that aid is still being with held . That happens all the time. Ive been [indiscernible] for my first three terms. Unobligated funds at the end of the fiscal year year happened not once, not twice, but dozens if not hundreds of times each and every year. So i just want to show you generally speaking, youll have anywhere from a 17 7 to 14 unobligated funds at end of the time. Its so people dont overspend. Dont read too much into that. Because of the delay, all of the funds were not going to be able to be obligated in time. Thats because of the c. R. That we passed. Any funds that didnt get obligated are not a function of the whole because what is that function then . Its the way that business is normally done. What happens is when you get an appropriated amount, you cant overobligate the u. S. Federal government because then you run into a problem with [indiscernible] so thats why generally you appropriate 400 million and figure less than that actually gets obligated. You appropriate 400 million and less than that [ inaudible question ] i certainly wasnt party to every single conversation so ambassador sondland by his own admission with conversations with the president of the United States and perhaps other people were not privy. [ inaudible question ] ambassador sondland and his testimony, and not only has he given his deposition after reviewing it, and that is consistent with what hes already testified under oath behind closed doors. That being said, i dont know that theres a whole lot of new questions that come to light from in the minority of trying to verify the questions. Oftentimes occasionally and today is one of those examples where some of the questions that actually do get asked as it relates to other testimony, for example. Asking the witnesses which just came out and we didnt have the means to do that. Released. Becae didnt have an opportunity to ask him. Come to order. We are not going to proceed to a 15minute round by either chair majority or minority. Mr. Goldman you would be gold gold you were right to point out if a quote i represented that you made in the deposition was your words. Nt oud if a quote that i represented you made in the deposition was your words and i actually read the wrong part of the quote. What you actually said was, it creates a problem again where all of the things that we are trying to do to advance the bilateral relationship strengthen our support for ukraine, strengthen our position against russia, it is now getting sick sucked into a domestic political debate. A domestic political narrative that overshadows that. You are right to point out, i apologize for the mistake. I want to go back to a couple of things you said during the minorities around. Can you repeat again, the readout that you got of the july 25th call. I received a readout from both the ukrainian colleague as well from a u. S. Person, i cannot remember if it was my staffer, and the read out was that it was a good phone call, that was a congratulatory phone call for the president s win. The president zelensky did reiterate his commitment to fighting corruption and advancing reform in ukraine. And that President Trump renewed his invitation for zelensky to come to the white house. I believe you said that readout was exactly as you expected the call to go. Was that right . I just want to show you once again the july 25th taxed that you wrote to Andriy Yermak which was the message you are relating to him so that he could prepare president zelensky. You will recall this, right . Where you said this was the message, good luck thanks. Assuming president zelensky convinces trump will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for a visit to washington, that is what you expected from the call, right . I expected that president zelensky would be convincing in his statements, comments on President Trump, that he was exactly that. That he would investigate, get to the bottom of things that had happened in 2016. And that he was strong in conveying who he is as a person, in doing that, that President Trump would be convinced and renew the invitation to the white house. You do not mention corruption in this text. This is the word corruption is not in this taxed. The word corruption is not there. Investigating things that have happened in the past that would be corrupt would be investigating corruption. You say a couple times in your Opening Statement and you said it again, he is investigating things that happened in the past, you are aware of course that most investigations relate to things that happened in the past, right . Yes. So that doesnt move the needle. Whether its current or past. In terms of the subject of the investigation. Yes an investigation is saying that happened in the past. You also talked a little bit about the meeting that you had on july 26th where the president zelensky and ambassador sondland in kiev, is that correct . It on the 26th . We had a meeting with president zelensky. Yes. And i believe you testified that the topic of investigation, did not come up at all, is that correct . I do not recall them coming up. Just the general phone call. You did not take notes of that call, of that meeting, right . There were staffers there to do that. So if there are two staffers who took notes of that meeting and testified that the subject of either sensitive topics or investigations came up, are we better off taking their word for it then yours . I have no reason to doubt their notes. If there were notes taking. Another witness testified before us, laura cooper, about a meeting that she had with you on august 20th. Do you recall having that meeting with her . You did not mention it in your deposition. I did mention that i had been making the rounds to weigh in on lifting the hold on Security Assistance to do that with all of our agency players. She recalled with some specificity at that meeting, which i believe was also based on her, notes that you described the statement that you were trying to get president s lewinsky to make two, and i will quote what she said, disavow interference in u. S. Elections and commit to the prosecution of individuals involved in election interference. And if he were to agree to do that, she testified, then you thought it might help to lift the hold on Security Assistance. Is that your recollection of that conversation . How does yours differ . I recall talking about the state and we had discussed earlier. The one that had been the subject of these exchanges between mr. Yermak and myself, myself and ambassador sondland, giuliani, and then back to sondland. This is an effort we are doing that could be helpful in getting a reset in the thinking of the president. The negative view of ukraine that he had. If we did that, i thought that would also be helpful in unblocking whatever hold there was on Security Assistance. If there is this negative perceptions about ukraine getting this stuff on track would be helpful. Thats a different interpretation, you do not doubt that what she testified is inaccurate, do you . It i believe she accurately reflected what she understood from the conversation. You testified a little bit about the june 28th Conference Call that you had with ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor, im not sure if that was deputy was on the, line and secretary perry, before you moved in president zelensky, and i right about the participants in that . I am pretty sure that Deputy Assistant secretary cant was not on it. I dont remember whether secretary perry was on it. And i dont remember if i stayed on for president zelensky to join the call or not. Whether any Staff Members or no takers on the call . I dont believe. So why . We were having a call to talk about what the messages were that we thought we needed to convey. At that point we have that other testimony from people who did take notes that there was a discussion about the investigations. Or white president zelensky needed to do in order to get the white house meeting. Do you recall that . I recall seeing that in ambassador taylors testimony. There may have even been a text message that affect. Again it comes down to what are we talking about in terms of these investigations . Because what i certainly understood is we are talking about ukraine looking into and fighting corruption internally and being convincing about this, presenting the new president and new team as a change in ukraine. You understood that the investigations with bernie smollett in the 2016 election. Yes. You interpreted those to be okay because in theory they were looking into ukraine . Yes. And we can agree that the investigations were talking about today with burisma in the 2016 election . Correct. So then what you admitted in your testimony today is that in retrospect, if you did not realize that the purpose for mr. Giuliani and President Trump to want the burisma investigation was for political benefits in digging up dirt or getting information on Vice President biden. Tha