That it indicated to you that he had been prepped for the call, to expect this issue to come up. What led you to that conclusion . It seemed unlikely that he would be familiar with a Single Company in the context of a call that had that was on the broader bilateral relationship, and it seemed to me that he was either tracking this issue because it was in the press or he was otherwise prepped. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to both of you. Good morning. On july 25th at approximately 9 00 a. M. You both were sitting in the situation room, probably not too much further away than you are right now, and you were preparing for a longawaited phone call between President Trump and president zelensky. Now, Colonel Vindman, in advance
of this phone call, did you prepare Talking Points as you did for the april 21st call . Yes, i did. What were those Talking Points based upon . They were so this is not in the Public Record and i cant comment to deeply, but what is the areas that weve consistently talked about in public, it was cooperation on supporting reform agenda, anticorruption efforts, and helping president zelensky implement his plans to end russias war against ukraine. In other words, theyre based on official u. S. Policy . Correct. And is there a process to determine official u. S. Policy . Yes, that is my job is to coordinate u. S. Policy. So throughout the preceding year that i had been on staff, i had undertaken an effort to make
sure we had a cohesive, coherent policy. And as you listened to the call, did you observe whether President Trump was following the Talking Points based on the official u. S. Policy . Counsel, the president could choose to use the Talking Points or not. Hes the president. But they were not consistent with what i provided, yes. Lets take a look at a couple of excerpts from this call. Right after president zelensky thanked President Trump for the United States support in the area of defense, President Trump asks president zelensky for a favor and then raises this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. He says in the highlighted portion, i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out
what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it. Colonel vindman, was this statement based on the official Talking Points that you had prepared . No. And was this statement related to the 2016 ukraine interference in the 2016 election part of the official u. S. Policy . No, it was not. Now, at the time of this July 25th Call, Colonel Vindman, were you aware of a theory that ukraine had intervened or interfered in the 2016 u. S. Election . I was. Are you aware of any credible evidence to support this theory . I am not. Are you also aware that Vladimir Putin had promoted this theory of ukrainian interference
in the 2016 election . I am well aware of that fact. And ultimately which country did u. S. Intelligence services determine to have interfered in the 2016 election . It is the consensus of the entire Intelligence Community that the russians interfered in u. S. Elections in 2016. Lets go to another excerpt from this call, where President Trump asked president zelensky to investigate his political opponent, Vice President joe biden. Here President Trump says the other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Was this included in your Talking Points. No. Is such a request to investigate a political opponent consistent with u. S. Policy . It was not consistent with the policy as i understood it. Now, are you aware of any credible allegations or evidence to support this notion that Vice President biden did something wrong or against u. S. Policy with regard to ukraine . I am not. Ms. Williams, are you familiar with any credible evidence to support this theory against Vice President biden . No, im not. Now, ms. Williams, prior to the July 25th Call, approximately how many calls between the president of the United States and foreign leaders had you listened to . I would say roughly a dozen. Had you ever heard a call like this . As i testified before, i believe what i found unusual or different about this call was the president s reference to
specific investigations and that struck me as different than other calls i had listened to. You testified that you thought it was political in nature. Why did you think that . I thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President biden and his son struck me as political in nature, given that the former Vice President is a political opponent of the president. And so you thought that it could potentially be designed to assist President Trumps reelection effort . I cant speak to what the president s motivation was in referencing it, but i just noted that the reference to biden sounded political to me. Colonel vindman, youve said in your deposition that it doesnt take a Rocket Scientist to see the political benefits of the president s demands. For those of you who are not Rocket Scientists, can you explain what you meant by that . So my understanding is that
the connection to investigate into a political opponent was inappropriate and improper. I made that connection as soon as the president brought up the biden investigation. Colonel vindman, you testified that President Trumps request for a favor from president zelensky would be considered as a demand to president zelensky. After this call, did you ever hear from any ukrainians, either in the United States or ukraine, about any pressure that they felt to do these investigations that President Trump demanded . Not that i can recall. Did you have any discussions with officials at the embassy here, the Ukrainian Embassy here in washington, d. C. . Yes, i did. Did you discuss at all the
demand for investigations with them . I did not. Did you discuss at all at any point their concerns about the hold on Security Assistance . To the best of my recollection, in the august timeframe the Ukrainian Embassy started to become aware of the hold on Security Assistance and they were asking if i had any comment on that or if i could substantiate that. And that was before it went it became public, is that right . Yes. And what did you respond . I believe i said that I Dont Recall, frankly. I dont recall what i said. I believe it may have been something along the lines of im not aware of it. You testified that one of your concerns about the request
for investigations related to u. S. Domestic politics, was that ukraine may lose bipartisan support. Why was that a concern of yours . Ukraine is in a war with russia, and the Security Assistance that we provide ukraine is significant. Absent that Security Assistance and maybe even more importantly, the signal of support for ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, that would likely encourage russia to pursue, potentially escalate and pursue further aggression, further undermining ukrainian sovereignty, European Security and u. S. Security. So, in other words, ukraine is heavily dependent on United States support, both diplomatically, financially, and also militarily. Correct. What languages do you speak. I speak russian and ukrainian, and a little bit of english. Do you know what do you recall what language president zelensky spoke on this july 25th phone call . I know he made a valiant effort to speak english. He had been practicing up his english. But he also spoke ukrainian. I want to look at the third excerpt from the July 25th Call, and chairman schiff addressed this with you in his questioning. You see in the highlighted portion, it says specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. Is that the portion of the call record that Colonel Vindman, you thought president zelensky actually said burisma . Correct. And you testified earlier that his use of or his understanding that when President Trump mentioned the
bidens that that referred to the company burisma, sounded to you like he was prepped or prepared for this call, is that right . That is correct. I want to go to the next slide, if we could, which is actually a text message that neither of you is on. This is from Ambassador Kurt Volker to andre yermak. Hes a Senior Adviser to president zelensky. This text message is less than a half hour before the call on july 25th, and since neither of you were on it, ill read it. It says from ambassador volker good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house. Assuming president Z Convinces Trump he will investigate, quote, get to the bottom of what happened, unquote, in 2016, we
will nail down date for visit to washington. Good luck. See you tomorrow, kurt. Is this the sort of thing you were referring to when you said it sounded like president zelensky was prepared for this call . This would be consistent, yes. Turning to the fourth excerpt from the July 25th Call, where ukraines president zelensky links the white house meeting to the investigations that President Trump requests, president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically washington, d. C. On the other hand, i also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. When president zelensky says on the other han, would you agree that hes acknowledging a linkage between the white house
visit that he mentions in the first sentence and the investigations that he mentions in the second sentence . It could be taken that way. Im not sure if i it seems like a reasonable conclusion. And if that is the case, that would be consistent with the text message that ambassador volker aend to Andriy Yermak right before the call, is that right . Seemingly so. Youve testified in your deposition that a white house visit, an oval office visit, is very important to president zelensky. Why is that . The show of support for president zelensky, still a brand new president , frankly a new politician on the ukrainian political scene, looking to establish his bona fide as a
regional and maybe even a world leader, would want to have a meeting with the United States, the most powerful country in the world, and ukraines most Significant Ben factor in order to be able to implement his agenda. It will provide him with additional legitimacy at home . Yes. Just to summarize in the July 25th Call between the president of the United States and ukraine, President Trump demanded a favor of president zelensky to conduct investigations that both of you acknowledge were for President Trumps political interest, not the national interest. And in return for his promise of a muchdesired white house meeting for president zelensky. Colonel vindman, is that an accurate summery of the excerpts that we just looked at . Yes. Ms. Williams . Yes. Colonel vindman, you immediately reported this call
to the nsc lawyers. Why did you do that . So at this point i had already been tracking this initially what i would describe as alternative narrative, analysfalse narrative, and i was certainly aware of the fact that it was starting to gain track, the fact that in the July 10th Call ended up being pronounced by a public official, ambassador sondland had me alerted to this and i was subsequent to that report, i was invited to follow up with any other concerns to mr. Eisenberg. And were going to discuss that July 10th Meeting in a moment. But when you say alternative false narrative, are you referring to the two investigations that President Trump referenced in the call . Yes. Now, at some point did you
also discuss how the Written Summery of the call record should be handled with the nsc lawyers . Following the report, there was a discussion in the legal shop on the best way to manage the transcript, yes. What did you understand they concluded . My understanding is that this was viewed as a sensitive transcript and to avoid leaks, and if i recall the term properly, something along the lines of preserve the integrity of the transcript, it should be segregated to a Smaller Group of folks. To preserve the integrity of the transcript, what does that mean . Im not sure it seems like a legal term. Im not an attorney. But i didnt take it as anything nefarious. I just understood that they wanted to keep it in a Smaller Group. If there was real interest in preserving the integrity of the transcript, dont you think they would have accepted your
correction that burisma should have been included . Not necessarily. The way these edits occur, they go through like everything else, an approval process. I made my contribution. It was cleared by mr. Morrison. Then when i returned you know, sometimes that doesnt happen. There are administrative errors. I think in this case when i first saw the transcript without the two substantive items that i had attempted to include, i didnt see that as nefarious. I just thought no big deal. You said two substantive issues. What was the other one . There was a reference in a section on page 4, the top paragraph, let me find the right
spot. You can look into it, there are videos or recordings. Instead of an elipses, what you heard is there are recordings . Correct. Did you ultimately learn where the call record was put . I understood that it was being segregated into a separate system, separate secure system. Why would it be put on a separate Security System . This is definitely not unprecedented. At times if you want to limit access to a Snaumaller Group of folks, you put it on the secure system to ensure that a Smaller Group of people with access to the Security System have it. Cant you also limit the number of people who can access it on the regular system . You can do that, but to the
best of my recollection, the decision was made, frankly, on the fly after my after the fact after i conveyed my concerns to mr. Eisenberg, mr. Ellis came in and he hadnt heard the entire conversation. And when it was mentioned that it was sensitive, it was kind of an on the fly decision to segregate it into the other system. Mr. Eisenberg and mr. Ellis are the nsc lawyers . Correct. But it was your understanding that it was not a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right . Im not sure i understand. Was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers or was it a mistake that it was put there . I think it was intended, but again, it was intended to prevent leaks and limit access. You testified both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier, and Colonel Vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking
points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption, but that President Trump did not mention corruption. I want to go to the white house readout from the april 21st call, and im not going to read the whole thing. Do you see the highlighted portion where it says root out corruption . Yes. So in the end, this readout was false, is that right . Maybe thats a bit of its not entirely accurate, but im not sure if i would describe it as false. It was consistent with u. S. Policy and these items are used as messaging tools, so a statement that goes out in addition to reading out the meeting itself, is also a messaging platform to indicate what is important with regards to u. S. Policy. So it is a part of u. S. Official policy that ukraine
should root out corruption, even if President Trump did not mention it in the april 21st phone call, is that right . Certainly. And