An investigation on a political rival . Mr. Morrison . In that hypothetical, no, i dont think he should do that. Yeah. And ambassador volker, im sure you agree. Yes. And the same would be true if it were a governor withholding the budget requests of the state police unless the state police agreed to conduct an investigation on a political rival. You would agree . Correct. Yes, sir. In your view is it any different for a member of congress . Of course not, right . Would you agree that the president has the same obligation as the mayor, as the governor, as the member of congress to not withhold aid unless he gets an investigation into a political rival, mr. Morrison . Yes, sir, i would agree with that hypothetical. I would agree. And were having a debate here both sides as to how to
read whats plainly before us. The president ial phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisers and the National Security council of Talking Points and instead chose to talk about the bidens and talk about hunter biden and ask for an investigation. So we are just going to have to debate that. But isnt the principle that no person including the president is Above The Law absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain we continue to guarantee ambassador morrison . Im sorry, ambassador volker. Pardon me. Yes. And mr. Morrison. The rule of law of is essential to our democracy. Its so true. You know, weve had some discussions and challenge from the other side that the
president has authority in Foreign Policy to do what he likes. And in fact he does. You know, a recent precedent by President Trump to take our troops out of syria and allow the Turkish Norsforces to go in literally meant that some kurdish families went to bed Saturday Night and woke up sunday morning, packed their kids and fled for their lives. A lot of people including both sides of the aisle totally disagreed with that. But the president has the authority to do it impulsive as that decision may have been, as unwise as it may have been and threatening to our National Security. Were not talking about that here. And ambassador volker, ive listened to your testimony and i take it and thank you for Making Efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan ukraine policy, help ukraine get rid of
corruption, help resist russian aggression. But what you came to learn painfully is that there was a Sidebar Ukraine Policy with giuliani as the advocate and it appears ambassador sondland is very much involved, is that correct . I dont know everything about that, sir. You dont. But as you have been involved and with the benefit of hindsight, while you were working on what you thought was stopping aggression and eliminating corruption, there was a side deal here to get investigations going, correct . So yes. So my Oive Wbjective was Purelys On Support for ukraine. And ive learned through other time about the president s statement about investigating biden and other conversations i did not know about. Thank you for that and thank you for your candor about Vice President bidens integrity and
service. But the bottom line here is at the end of the day were going to have to make a judgment what the president was up to with respect to a request for a favor and how it repudiated the policy that was the bipartisan effort in ukraine and raises questions about he in the hypothetical example i gave of the mayor, held himself to be Above The Law. I yield back. Mr. Maloney. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Ambassador volker, i was struck by your Opening Statement, moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in october. And i know you gave a reason for that, which is that you were in the dark about a lot of these things. Is that fair to say . That is one thing is that i learned a lot out of the testimony you learned a lot. And what you said on page 8 im
referring to your statement that you gave this morning excuse me, this afternoon. That i did not know this is quoting. I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President biden with the ukrainians or had conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President biden, right . Correct. You Didnt Know Burisma meant biden . I had separated the two. Yagi got it. You didnt know. You were on may 23rd with the meeting with the president when the president said talked to rudy and you now know meant biden but you missed it on may 23rd . No, sir. I understood at the time hunter biden and Vice President bidens son had been a board member i understand. But you didnt read tathat as a request to investigate the bidens at that time . I you were at two meetings at
the white house where ambassador sondland raised the investigations but you didnt know it was about the bidens, and thats your testimony at the time . I didnt think he was talk about anything specific. You heard him talk about investigations, and you thought it was inappropriate, but i didnt know it was the bidens, i just thought it was inappropriate. And i guess when they were in the ward room and ambassador sondland and burisma raised biden in 2016 you misunderstood that. That is correct. And in august you spent a good part of this time with this statement with rudy giuliani. You were the Guy Making The Change and interacting with the ukrainians. You were putting in rudys changes which called for Investigating Burisma and the 2016 elections. Which you now know meant bidens, right . You didnt know it at the time but now we know it. And September 1st you were in w
warsaw, and you were there when ambassador sondland told Andrey Yermac he wasnt going to the get the aid unless he investigated the bidens it was some time later. I got it. But now we know, right . Now you know what it meant. And you said in retrospect i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raised my own objections. That is correct. What are the objections you would have raised, sir . What i would have raised is that people are conflating investigating the bidens with investigating this Ukrainian Company but if you had checked with the president asking for investigations of the bidens as you sit here now you said i would have raised my own objections if you knew it was the bidens. If i knew we were talking about investigating the vice
president and the bidens and i would have objected to that. You heard it on the call and you said in Ret Row Spect it would have been confusing, correct . Correct. I think confusing is the right word because they were clearly hearing Something Different from the president in one conversation and different from me as a u. S. Special representative maybe they understood that Investigating Burisma and investigating 2016 in fact plent the bidens even though you didnt. At the time you were talking to yermac, hed talked to sondland at the same time and so the point being they were put in an impossible position. They were being asked to do something inappropriate, and you now know that, right . And you would have raised your own objections. I know they would have asked in the phone call to do that. In the Phone Conversations i had with ukrainians we were not asking to do that. And even at that point the ukrainians perhaps with knowledge of this phone call said we just dont want to go there. Right. So in Ret Row Spect, though, you would have raised objection. You would have said it was inappropriate for the president to do this. Right. And mr. Morrison, can i just ask you, sir, so im stuck on this issue of you didnt see anything wrong with the call but you went straight to nsc legal to report it. Is that your testimony to us today . Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrison, and to both of you thank you so much for your service. Thanks for being here. Its been a long day. Mr. Morrison, just to follow up with the question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call and basically saw nothing wrong with it. Yet you skipped your chain of
command to go to Legal Counsel i guess to find out what to do because you were concerned about the political fall out, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct . Maam, i dont agree with the premise, no. Could you tell me why you felt the need you saw nothing basically wrong with the call yet you skipped your Chain Of Command to go to counsel because of what . What was the reason for that . I dont know that i again, i dont agree with the premise, maam. I dont think i did skip my Chain Of Command. If i did see Something Wrong i would have and who is your direct report . The deputy National Security advisor. And the name of the person . Dr. Charles cupperman. Did you speak with him before you spoke with Legal Counsel . No, i did not. But you dont think you skipped your chain of kmancomman
going directly to counsel . I viewed my focus as one of administrative matters. I was involved in locking down the transcript. Thats an administrative matter. I was interested in making sure that the Legal Advisor was aware of the call because i didnt see anybody from the Legal Advisors office and why were you so concerned about the Legal Advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or content of the call . Because i did not see anybody in the 4r50e8 Advisors Office in the Listening Room and i wanted to make sure it was a senior person. And what is it you wanted the emto be aware of specifically . I wanted them to be aware of the call because i wanted them to know what had transpired. What concerned you to the point where you wanted them to know what had transpired that you went directly to Legal Counsel to inform them of . My equivalent of the head of
nsc legal was and is john eisenberg. He was my equivalent in that position. I wouldnt go to Somebody Subsordinate to him didnt you testify ural you were concerned about the political fall out based on the Political Climate in d. C. . Yes, maam. Okay, all right. And how long have you supervised Lieutenant Colonel vindman . Maam, approximately i guess not approximately. July 15th to october 31 or so. Okay. Ambassador volker, you testified you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the Security Assistance being released. Do you still standby that Testimony Today . I believe it was important. I met with Staff Members of the Senate Armed Services committee. I had then solved a letter the
senator signed and sent to Chief Of Staff mulvaney and i was briefed on a couple of phone calls from some Senate Members as well. Mr. Chairman, i yield the reminder of my time. Ambassador volker, i want to followup up on a couple of questions of ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. Youre aware im sure of the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel vindman that he was contacted by someone within the Ukrainian Embassy concerned about it prior to its becoming public . I was not aware of that but i take that. Are you aware of ms. Crofts testimony and transcripts being ereleased that in fact ukrainians found out quite quickly after the hold being placed in july and the ukrainians kept it a reason to keep it secret. So the ukrainians did find out
before it was public at least according to these two witnesses. But nevertheless the ukrainians certainly found out it was public when it was published in the newspaper, right . That is correct. On august 29th. And at the time they found out from the newspaper, they still hadnt had the white house meeting, and they still didnt have the aid. And at that point they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the bidens, correct . That is correct. Good evening to both of you and thank you for your service. Ambassador volker, on page 7 of your Opening Statement today you said since events surrounding your earlier testimony, october 3rd, quoteunquote, a great deal
of Additional Information and perspectives have come to light. I have learned many things i did not know at the time in question, correct . Yes, that is correct is. That includes conversations that occurred as well as meetings that occurred of which you werent a part . Correct. Thats correct. Sir, you obviously were not a part of the July 25th Call, is that right . That is correct. You were not aware that ambassador sondland according to your Opening Statement had a call with President Trump on july 26th, correct . That is correct. On September 1st you werent present for the Sidebar Meeting between ambassador sondland and special advisor yermac, isnt that right . That is krektd. And you certainly werent part of the phone call between ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland in which ambassador sondland according to multiple people now said that everything,
a white house meeting as well as military aid were dependent on public announcements of investigations, isnt that right . That is correct. And certainly, sir, you werent part of the phone call on September 7th between ambassador sondland and President Trump in which President Trump insisted that president zelensky go to a mic and publicly announce investigations of President Trumps domestic rivals, isnt that right . That is correct. And certainly you werent part of the September 8th phone call between ambassador sondland and ambassador im sorry, President Trump. Where President Trump again insists that these announcements have to happen, isnt that right . That is correct. Sir, you say you werent a witness to any kind of quid pro quo or conditionality between Military Assistance and investigations, what someone called missiles for
misinformation today. Isnt that right . That is correct. But, sir, you werent present for many if not all of the phone calls and conversations where these alleged instances of quid pro quo occurred. Isnt that right . That is correct. Sir, let me turn your attention to another topic thats come up today. Or actually came up last friday. You have high regard for ambassador yovanovitch, correct . Yes, i do. I apresume you were aware as the ambassador was testifying President Trump actually tweeted very disparaging remarks about her, right . I saw that moment. And i presume you disapprove of those type of tweets, correct . I dont think thats appropriate. Youve supervised many, many people over the years during your career in the Foreign Service, right . Yes, i have. And you would never do that to one of your direct reports or
anybody who worked in your organization, right . No, i would not. Its just wrong. I believe even when you feel you need to criticize, criticism is private, praise is public. And i also believe youre a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran merchandise you would not attack someone who is currently serving in the military whos doing their duty, correct . I respect the service of our members in uniform. In fact, theres a certain man that we both admire, the late senator john mccain. Yes. Who unfortunately was attacked not only when he was alive but after he died by the current president. Isnt that right . That is true. And i presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain, right . Yes. I knew john mccain very, very well for a very long time. He was an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country. Well, today, sir, asLieutenant Colonel vindman was testifying our president used the official twitter account of the office of the president to attack Lieutenant Colonel vindmans credibility. I presume you dont approve of those types of tweets either, do you . I was not aware of that. And as with ambassador yovanovitch, its not appropriate. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. And thank you mr. Morrison, for yours as wel