Concerning the allegations, i stressed that no one in the new team governing ukraine had anything to do with anything that may have happened in 2016. They were making Television Shows at the time. I also said that it is not credible to me that former Vice President biden would have been influenced in any way 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 would buy influence. That is at least plausible given ukraines reputation for corruption. But the accusation that Vice President biden acted inappropriately did not seem at all credible to me. After that meeting, i connected mayor giuliani and mr. Yermak by text and later by phone. They met in person on august 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which i
did not attend, mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past and mr. Yermak stressed he told mr. Giuliani it is the Governments Program to root out corruption and implement reforms and they would be conducting investigations as part of the process any way. Mr. Giuliani believes the ukrainian president needed to make a statement about Fighting Corruption and that he had discussed this with mr. Yermak. I said i did not think this would be a problem since that is the governments position anyway. I followed up with mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. He said it would reference burisma and 2016 in a wider context of bilateral relations and rooting out corruption anyway. There was no mention of Vice President biden. Rather in Referencing Burisma in 2016 Election Interference it was clear to me that he, mr. Yermak was talking about whether
any ukrainians had act the 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 had toward ukraine. I was seeking to solve the problem i saw when we met with President Trump in the oval office on may 23rd. As a professional diplomat, ip was comfortable exploring whether there was a statement ukraine could make about its own intentions to investigate possible corruption that would be helpful and in convincing mr. Giuliani to convey to President Trump a new Positive Assessment of the leadership in ukraine. On august 16th mr. Yermak shared a draft with me which i thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. Ambassador sondland and i had a further conversation with mr. Giuliani who said that in his view in order to be convincing that this government represented
real change in ukraine the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. Again no mention of Vice President biden in these conversations. Ambassador sondland and i discussed these points and i edited the statement, drafted by mr. Yermak, to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that mr. Lut sunko was still the Prosecutor General they didnt want to mention burisma or 2016 and a greed and putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17 to 18. My last contact with mr. Giuliani 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 this
statement had been definitively scrapped. In september i was surprised to learn there had been further discussions with The Ukrainians about president zelensy possibly making a statement in an interview with u. S. Media similar 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. Ive learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question. First, at the time i was connecting mr. Yermak and mr. Giuliani and discussing with mr. Yermak and ambassador sondland a possible statement to be made by the ukrainian president i did not know of any linkage between the hold on Security Assistance and ukraine pursuing investigations. No one had ever said that to me and i never con sayed such a linkage to The Ukrainians. I opposed the hold as soon as i learned about it on july 18th and thought we could turn it around before The Ukrainiansever knew or became alarmed about it. I did 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 we would do so. I believe The Ukrainians became 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 had been published in politico. When i spoke to The Ukrainians about the hold after august 29th, instead of telling them they needed to do something to get the hold released, i told them the opposite. That they should know be alarmed, it was an internal u. S. Problem and 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 then National Security adviser john bolton to members of his nsc staff regarding the discovery of investigations. I participated in the July 10th Meeting between National Security adviser bolton and then
ukraine chairman alex den illuck and the meeting was over when sondland made a comment about investigations. I think all of us thought it was inappropriate. The conversation did not continue and the meeting concluded. Later on in the room i may have been engaged in a side conversation or already left the complex because i do not recall further discussion regarding investigations of burisma. Third, i did not understand that others believed that any investigation of the Ukrainian Company burisma which had a history of accusations of corruption was tant amount to investigating biden. It has long been u. S. Policy under multiple administrations to urge ukraine to fight internal corruption. I was quite comfortable with ukraine making its own statement about its own policy of investigating and Fighting Corruption at home. At the one inperson meeting i
had with mayor giuliani on july 19th, mayor giuliani raised and i rejected the Conspiracy Theory that jd biden would have been influenced as Vice President by money paid to his son. As i previously testified, ive known Vice President biden for 24 years and he is an honorable man and i hold him in the highest regard. At no time was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate former Vice President biden and from the extensive documentation Vice President biden was not a topic of discussion. I was not on july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky and not made aware of any arisen until the transcript was released on september 19th, 2019. I understood there was a distinction between burisma and biden and i didnt know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President biden with ukrainians or conflated the
investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President. In retrospect, for The Ukrainians, it would clearly have been confusing. In hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian Company burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden, i saw them as very different. The former being appropriated unremarkable and the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raised my own objections. Fourth, much has been made of the term three amigos in reference to Secretary Perry and ambassador sondland and myself. I have never used that term and cringe when i hear it because that will refer to Senator Mccain and lieberman and fluts wore the surge in iraq. I was never aware of any designation putting the three of
us as a group in charge of ukraine policy but even in our own capacity continued to Work Together after our attendance of president zelenskys inauguration to push for greater u. S. Support for ukraine. Leading the diplomacy around ukraine negotiations had long been my official responsibility but i welcomed the added support and influence of a Cabinet Member and our eu ambassador. Fifth, i was not aware that ambassador sondland spoke with President Trump on july 26th, while ambassador taylor and i were visiting the conflict zone. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, allow me to thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I believe that u. S. Foreign policy and National Security interests in ukraine are of critical importance and i would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen for your Opening Statements. Well proceed to the first round of questions. As detailed in the memo provided Committee Members it will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or majority
counsel followed by 45 minutes for the Ranking Member or minority counsel and unless i specify extended questioning well proceed under the fiveminute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. I recognize myself or counsel for the first round of questions. Ambassador volker, i was just going to yield to the minority counsel but there are a couple of points you made in your Opening Statement that i want to ask about first. First you said that now former attorney general lutsenko was not credible. Mr. Lutsenko is the author of a number of allegations against ambassador yovanovitch, allegations shared with John Of The Hill and brought up by my republican colleagues. Why is it that you found mr. Lutsenko not credible and told mr. Giuliani so . Thank you, mr. Chairman. First off 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 ive worked with for many years. The suggestion that she was acting in some inappropriate manner were not credible to me. Ive known Vice President biden for a long time. Those accusations were not credible. And then separate from that, i also was aware of the political situation in ukraine. We had a situation where president porro senko appeared to not be in a favorable position going into the elections where it was increasingly apparent thencandidate zelensky was going to win. As is often the case in ukraine, a change in power would mean change in prosecutorial powers as well and there have been
efforts in the past at prosecuting the previous government. I think mr. Lutsenko in my estimation and i said this to mayor giuliani when i met with him, 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 president poroshenko would have welcomed because he probably would have avoided any efforts to prosecute president poroshenko as well so making allegations like this and Making Sureer that reaching u. S. Media, think mr. Lutsenko was trying to make himself be an important and influential player in the United States. Ambassador, let me ask you about the allegations against joe biden because that has been a continuing refrain from some of my colleagues as well. Why was it you found the allegations against joe biden related to his son or burisma not to be believed . Simply because ive known
former Vice President biden for a long time. I know how he respects his duties of Higher Office and it is 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 eight of your statement which reads in hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian Company burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them as different. The former being appropriate and un unremarkable and the lateral being unacceptable and should have raised my own objections. What is it now, ambassador, in retrospect that you recognize that you didnt at the time that leads you to conclude that you
would or should have raised these objections . Yeah. That others did not see the distinction between these things as i saw it. As i said, there is a history of Corruption In Ukraine. There is a history with the company of burisma in a has been investigated. That is wellknown. There is a separate allegation about the Vice President acting inappropriately. His son was a board member of this company. But those things, i saw, as completely distinct. And what i was trying to do in working with The Ukrainians was to thread a needle so see whether things they could do that are appropriate and reasonable as part of ukraines own policy of Fighting Corruption that help clarify for our president that they are committed to that very that very effort. If there is a way to thread that needle, i thought it was worth the effort to try to solve that problem. As it turns out, i now
understand that most of the other people didnt see or didnt consider this distinction that for them it was synonymous. Well one of the people who saw synonymous turns out to be the president of the United States. I take it you didnt know until the call record was released that the president in that call doesnt raise burisma, he asked for an investigation of the bidens, is that right. That is correct. I take it since you say that you acknowledge that asking for an investigation of the bidens would have been unacceptable and objectionable, that had the president asked you to get ukraine to investigate the bidens you would have told them so. I would have on theed to that, yes, sir. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just one followup on that, ambassador volker. When you say thread the needle, you mean that you understood the relationship between Vice President bidens son and
burisma but you were trying to separate the two of them in your mind, is that right . Well i believe they were separate. That and this references the conversation i had with mr. Giuliani as well where i think the allegations against Vice President biden are selfserving and not credible. Separate question is whether it is appropriate for ukraine to investigate possible corruption of ukrainians that may have tried to corrupt things or or buy influence and to me they are very Different Things and as i said i think the former is unacceptable and the latter is understood. But you understood the relationship between hunter biden and burisma. I knew he was a board member of the company. That is why it was so important to maintain a distinction. Lets focus on the July 25th Call for a moment. And mr. Morrison, july 25th was day number what for you as the senior director overseeing
ukraine . I officially took over on the 15th approximately ten days, very few days actually in the office. You testified in your deposition that you received an email on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sondland shortly before the call, is that right . Yes. And i believe in that email ambassador sondland told you that he had briefed President Trump about an a