robert mueller. >> in his take home forms that his lawyers filled out for him. >> yes, and it just continues and the court battles involving tax returns, chief justice roberts provided a stay for a few days which was really people overplayed that yesterday. that was administrative decision, but a lot coming at this president. >> a lot coming at this president, and i think a lot coming at the republican party this morning. ari, the testimony of colonel vindman, the cross-examination will be interesting to see how far they go in trying to demean vindman in front of a national tv audience. >> i think that is a precarious place for them and if you want to put aside the obvious ethics of it, that these are people that serve, diplomatic or military, there is also a a problem with going against a witness when is there are not many facts known to the witness. so if you want to look bad by exploding someone. it doesn't buy you much if two or three other people can basically testify to the same material. i think that is the pickle that these hearings show this week. there is a lot of backtracking. initially the argument of it should be public or private, the veterans, laying it out and then you have some folks walking it back saying gosh, can't dwe do this in private. >> thank you so much. we'll be hearing from you today, it is just after 9:00 on capitol hill. members on both sides are starting to take their seats and we're anticipating another very eventful day in president trump's impeachment inquiry. and the witnesses are lining up -- a lot of people are talking about sondland tomorrow, clie clint, but as we discussed earlier, kurt volker has some explaining to do. he was in legal jeopardy. he said things that have been contradicted by 11 other witnesses, contradicted by text messages, he will have to backtrack significantly or he could be found to be guilty of perjury. >> i don't understand the sondland volker plan of action. a chain of command. they are going to be fascinating how they try to weave this. every witness that comes up will tell a different story. what did they state, but it is also just remarkably done. this is what you could see unfold. witnesses who ask questions. none of the witnesses here know the alternative story that is being advanced. this is a parallel process that they were not involved in. often times you will see people in the media and they say they didn't know the plan, how would they say anything different than what they were going to say. >> and they didn't understand it would all be exposed. they thought it would ball a repeat of the mueller investigation where he would be backtracking and covering their tracks and lying. in this case, everything is getting exposed bit by bit. the witnesses are about to enter the room. i want to underline again that jennifer williams is a very interesting witness. they will try to find a quote from his past or do whatever they do, how do you do that to jennifer williams who works for vice president pence, she is an aid to the vice president of the united states. how could she be a never trumper. >> it doesn't matter if it is total nonsense, anyone that says anything that contradicts what his official narrative is, the forever changing testimony, he will say they're a never trumper. she wrote buresma in her notes, and that didn't make it in the transcript they released. and he said buresma himself. >> while you're talking the lieutenant colonel entering the room. >> you know what is kind of interesting is how many people were indeed in on that call. i think it is unusual, the number of people who were on that call. i'm wondering if it is because president trump is so irrational sometimes that they have multiple numbers of people as opposed to president obama or president bush on the line and there would be three or four. >> and how remarkable that he thought he could lie about the call, they could put out an incomplete transcript, and they could lie their way through it, what is so fascinating as we're awaiting key witnesses for the third day of public testimony, let's frame it. 70% of americans think that it is wrong that donald trump used his position to hold up military aide for a democratic ally invited by vladimir putin for his own political gain. >> to the point you just raised, isn't it remarkable that president trump thought he could get away with lying like that. he has paid no price for his entire life for his lies. he is president of the united states today, he has not paid a price for his lies. >> if i could push back just a little bit, this will not be run by devin nunez, it will be run by adam schiff because actually republicans did pay a pretty stiff price for the lies. if you look at vote total, donald trump's party loss by a larger tally than anyone else in the history of the united states. >> and we even have evidence from justice this past weekend in the louisiana governor's race that donald trump went to louisiana multiple times to try to help the republican candidate get a trump bump, and coming in in a red state and actually galvanized reporters against them. >> and we're looking now at plz williams and lieutenant colonel vindman. this is probably a position that ms. williams never expected herself to be in or attacked by the president of the united states for simply stating the obvious. so we're awaiting the twos testimo testimony. >> this is the third in a series of public hearings for the house representati representative. there is a quorum present. ly make an opening statement and then ranking member nunez will have an opportunity to make a dayti statement. then our witnesses will give opening statements and then questions. audience members we welcome you and respect your interest in being here and we ask for your respect as we proceed with today's hearing. it is the intention of the committee to proceed with no interruptions. i will ensure that the committee is run in accordance with the rules. last week we heard from three experienced diplomats who testified about president trump's scheme to condition official acts, a white house meeting, and hundreds of millions in u.s. aid. made unglif rabble to politically motivated investigations. one of those investigations involved the bidens. and the other involved a discredited conspiracy theory that you craukraine and not rus involved in our 2016 election. immediately after speaking to the president, trump did not give a expletive about ukraine. he cares about big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation. to press a foreign leader to announce an investigation into his political rival, president trump put his own personal and political interests above those of the nation. and under cut u.s. anti-corruption efforts in you crane. how could they urge them to refrain from investigations of their own citizens if they were surged to participate in the corrupt investigations of our own citizens. president trump through his acting chief of staff, gordon sondland, and rudy jougiuliani pushing the odds. lieutena lieutenant colonel alex vindman, he is a career army officer, an iraq war veteran, and an expert on ukraine. in july 2018 hi we was detailed the white house in part to coordinate policy on ukraine. jennifer williams is a career foreign service officer who is assigned to the office of the vice president. following these initial and congratula congratulatory phone call, the president asked vice president pence to attend the inauguration. vice president pence would have been an important attendee. rudy giuliani had planned to go to ukraine to pursue interest in having the bidens investigated but had to call off of the trip after it became public. jou giuliani blamed people around zelensky saying they were antagonists. ambassador sondland and ambassador kurt sondland said that johnson and vindman would also attend. several members debriefed president trump on their interactions with zelensky. but trump, instead criticized y ukrained instructed them to work with rudy. a few weeks later on july 10th, ambassador sondland met with officials including colonel vindman and said the white house meeting sought by the president with trump would happen if ukraine undertook certain investigations. national security advisor bolton abruptly ended the meeting and said that he would not be part of whatever drug deal they're cooking on this. they came to another part of the white house and they were more explicit. they needed to investigation the ukraines or buresma. they went to the top lawyer to report the matter. he was told to return in the future with any concerns. he would soon find the need to do so. a week later, the representative of the office of management and budget announced on a video conference dhaul mmulvaney was g nearly 400 million in military assistance to ukraine. and one week after that, trump would have the now infamous call with zelensky. he said the relationship had not been reciprocal. he thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and says that ukraine was ready to purchase more javelins. trump's immediate response "i would like do you do us a favor, though." trump requested that zelensky investigate the 2016 theory and look into the bidens. they were in donald trump's interest and the interest of the 2020 campaign. sondland and others had been presdsi pressing ukraine for weeks. indm vindman said that due to the unequal bargaining position of the two leaders, the favor that trump asked was really a demand. after the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the national security council's top lawyer. it was the second anytime two weeks that vindman raised concerns with nsc lawyers. for her part, asking zelensky to under take these investigations was inappropriate, and it also made her aware of the hold on the aid to ukraine. she also took note of the word buresma, a fact left out of the record of the call now locked away on an ultra secure server. in the weeks that followed the july 25th call, colonel vindman continues to push for a release of the aid. more disturbing, it became public. they asked why the united states was withholding the aid. vindman didn't have an answer, but he it explicit to republicans in warsaw. they needed to publicly commit to these two if to get the aid. the insults huwere hurled last week, you're here today and we're grateful. vindman, we have attacks on your character and watched personalities on fox question your loyalty. i note that you have shed blood for america and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude. i hope no one on this committee will become part of those vicious attacks. today's witnesses like they testified were temperatursubpoe here, not because they were for or against impeachment. that question is for congress not the fact witnesses. if the president abuses his power and invited foreign interference into the election if they are conducting investigations to aide his reelection campaign and by doing so with official acts, or hundreds of mp millions in military aid, it will be up to us to decide if those acts are compatible with the office of the presidency. i know recognize member nunez for the remarks he would like to make. >> i would like to address a few brief words to the american people watching at home. if you watch the impeachment hearings last week you may have noticed a disconnect between what you saw and the main stream media accounts describing it. three diplomats that dislike president trump's ukraine policy discussing second and third hand conversations about their objections with the trump policy, meanwhile, they said they had not talked to the president about these matters. the acts are shocking and damming and it fully supports the and this is the same preposterous reporting, on a nearly daily basis, the top news outlets in america reported breathlessly on the newest bomb shell revelations showing that president trump and everyone surrounding him were russian agents. it really wasn't long ago that weer with reading these headlines. the "new york times" trump campaign aids had repeated contact with agents. a trump server was communicating with russia. this was false. new york magazine, will trump be meeting with his counter part or his handler, this was false. the guardian, manafort held secret talks with assage in ecuadorian embassy, false. all of these were false. there is no objectivity or fairness in the media's russia stories, just a rush to remove it and the media pretending they're different than what they really are, puppets of the democratic party. because they refuse to acknowledge how badly they botched the story, they have learned no lessons and believe that america will believe them as they stoke another partisan frenzy. i have outlined three questions that democrats don't want asked or answered. the media are trying to senator and disz miss them. what is the full extent of the prior coordination. the media has accepted the reversal for the need for them to testify to this committee. it became clear that they would have to answer problematic questions. what is the full extent of the prior coordination of his staph and the other people that he cooperated with. what are the whistle-blower's political biases and connections to the political camp suggestions. what contact did the whistle-blower have with the media that appears to be ongoing. what are the sources of the whistle-blower's information, who did he talk to, and was it prohibited by law to convey any of that investigation. the media have joined the democrats in dismissing the importance of cross examining this impeachment process. my second question, what is the full extent of the meddling against the trump campaign. there has been numerous attempts to oppose the trump campaign. many of these were included. since the democrats switched from russia to ukraine for their impeachment crusade, the reports on buresma and hunter biden, it has been inconvenient for the democrat party. they said they would conduct a review of the reporting. the decision comes just three days after this committee told a hill writer that she would stop speaking to the hill because they ran soloman's stories. now that the reporting is a problem for the democrats, it is a problem for the media as well. i would like to submit for the record the october 31st story entitled debunking some of the scandal about biden and election interference. i encourage viewers today to read this story and draw your own conclusions about the evidence that solomon has gathered. i ask for consent in a we put this in the record. the attempt to discredit and disown some of their colleges is shocking and we see it again in the denunciations of ken vogel after he covered similar issues including ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfire. my third question, why did buresma hire hunter bidebiden? what did he do for them. we have now heard testimony from the democrats own witnesses that diplomats were concerned about a conflict of interest involving huntter bide. he got a well paid position despite having no experience, and his father was charged with the overseeing ukrainian issues. the democrats have recently settled on briar ri. they replaced their quid pro quo allegation because it was not polling well. but the democrats in the media are suddenly so worried about bribery, you would think they would take interest in buresma paying hunter biden $83,000 a month. and you think they would be interested in joe biden threatening to withhold u.s. loan guarantees. that would be a textbook example of bribery. the media are fee to act as democratic puppets. they are free to lurch at the direction of their public masters, but they cannot expect to do so out alienating after of the country. americans learned to recognize fake news when they see it and if the main stream press won't give it to them straight they go elsewhere to find it. that is exactly what the american people doing. that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman today we're joined by lieutenant colonel vindman is an active duty officer. he served in south korea, germany, and iraq. he was deployed to iraq at a time of heavy fighter and received a purple heart after being injured by a roadside bomb. he served both at home and in u.s. embassies in ukraine and russia. he served as a military affairs officer for russia for the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he joined the trump administration. jennifer williams started her career in 2005. it was a political appointee in the administration, and after working on the 2004 bush and chaney administration. prior to joining the office of the vice president, she served at the u.s. embassy in london as an affairs officer. think was detailed to the office of the vice president mike pence where she is an advisor. in that capacity she keeps the vice president aware of foreign policy issues in ukraine and russia. first witness depositions as part of this were unclassified in nature and all open hearing wills be held at the unclassified level. any information deemed classified will be covered at another time. if you both would please rise and raise your right hand,ly begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you and you may be seated. the microphones are sensitive, please speak directly into them. ms. williams you're recognized for your opening statement and when you have concluded, l lieutenant vindman, you will be recognized. >> thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to provide this statement today. i am prepared to answer your questions to the best of my abilities. i have had the privilege of working as a foreign service officer for nearly 14 years. working for three different presidential administrations, two republican and one democratic. i joined the state department in 2006 after serving in the department of homeland security. it was with great pride and convicti conviction. add min stirr administered by a personal hero of my, former officer condoleezza rice. in support of the president's foreign policy objectives. i have been inspired and encouraged in that journey by the thousands of other dedicated servants that i'm proud to call colleagues across the foreign service, civil service, military, and federal law enforcement agencies. i served overseas tours in jamaica, lebanon, and the united kingdom. i worked to implement humanitarian assistance programs. and served as an advisor on middle east issues to the deputy secretary of state. and this spring it was the greatest honor of my career to be asked to serve as special advisor to the president for europe and russia. i have been privileged to work with the dedicated and capable men and women to advance the administration's agenda. i also worked closely with talented and committed colleagues at the national security council. the agencies to advance and promote foreign policy objectives. i advised and prepared the president for engagements related to ukraine. as you're aware on november 7th, aappeared for a closed door deposition. i would like to take this opportunity to briefly summarize some of the things i may be here to talk about. on april 23rd, the president called to congratulate president elect zelensky. during the call the vice president accepted an invitation to attempt the upcoming inauguration provided that the scheduling worked out. he had only a narrow opening in may, and they would not meet to decide a date until may. and we may only preliminary trip preparations in early may. an assistant to the vice president's chief of staff called to inform anyway president trump decided that the vice president would not attend the inauguration in ukraine. she did not provide any further explanation. i replayed thlayed that instruc others involved and i informed the nfc that the vice president would not be attending so they could identify a head of delegation to represent the united states at president elect zelensky's inauguration. i learned that there was a hold put on security assistance for ukraine. omb was reviewing whether or not the funding was in line with the administration's priorities. i attended meeting where the hold on the security assistance was successed. in those meetings, representatives of the state and defense departments advocated that the hold should be lifted and omb reported that the white house chief of staff directed that the hold should remain in place. on september 11th i learned that the hold on security assistance for ukraine had been released. i have never learned what prompted that decision. on july 25th, along with several of my colleagues, i listened to a call between president trump and president zelensky. the content of which has been publicly reported. i participated in roughly a dozen other calls. during my closed door deposition, members of the committee asked about my personal views and if i had in concerns about the july 25th call. as i testified then i found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls i observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. after the july 25th call, i provided a update indicates that president trump had a dhacall t day with president zelensky. a hard copy of the memorandum was also involved. i did not discuss the july 25th call with vice president or any of my colleagues in the office of the vice president or the nsc. on august 29th i learned that the vice president would be traveling to poland to meet with president zelensky on september 1st. at that meeting, president zelensky asked the vice president about news articles reporting a hold on ukraine security aid. he said that they had their unwaivering support and promised to relay the concern. that night neither president or vice president mentioned what was discussed in the july 25th phone call. thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman, ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to address the house permanent select committee on intention with respect to the activities in ukraine and my events involved in the investigation. i dedicated my entire professional life to the united states of america. for more than two decades, it has been my pleasure to serve as as an officer of the army, and i was deployed to iraq for combat operations. since 2008 i have specialized in the affairs. in washington dc, i was the political military affairs officer, where i drafted the global campaign plan to counter the influence. in july 2018 i was asked to serve at the white house national security council. at the nsc i'm the advisor to the national security advisor for ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. i implement the full range of l diplomatic and core functions. the committee heard from many of my colleagues about the strategic importance of the work against russian adepression if is important to know -- promoting ukraine prosper si and strengthening a free and democratic ukraine as a counter to russian aggression has been a consistent bipartisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations both democratic and republican. and president zelensky's election created an unprecedented opportunity to recognize our strategic objectives. i became aware two disruptive actors. former mayor rudy gulli ygiulia promoett -- promoting an incorrect policy. >> on april 21st 2019, zelensky was elected president of ukraine on a land slooid victory on an anti-corruption platform. president trump called president zelensky to congratulate him on his victory. i listened to the call. the call was positive and president trump expressed his desire to work with president sdprks zelensky and extended an invitation to come to the white house in may i attended the presidential delegation lead by secretary perry. following the visit, the members of the delegation offered a positive assessment of president zelensky and his team. the president signed a let tore president zelensky. the ukraine national security advisor visited washington dc for a meeting with national security advisor volker. i attended the meeting with dr. hill. we anticipated they would raise the issue of a meeting between the presidents. ambassador bolton cut the meeting short when they started to speak about the requirement that ukraine deliver investigations for trump. i stated to ambassador sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. dr. hill also said his comments were not proper. we agreed to report the incident to mr. john eisenberg. on july 21st, 2019, president zelensky won in another victory. the nsc suggested that the president call him to congratulate him. on july 25th, i listened in on the call in the situation room with white house colleagues. i was concerned by the call. what i heard was inappropriate and 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 a political opponent. i was also clear if you crane pursued an investigation, it was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation, the bidens, and buresma is would be interpreted as a partisan play. it would result in undermining the support of ret john. i want to emphasize to the committee that when i reported my concerns on july 10th and july 25th, i did o so out of a sense of duty. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. i never thought that i would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american public about my actions. when i reported my concerns my only thought was to act properly and carry out my duty if following each of my reports i returned to work to advance the president's and our country's foreign policy objectives. i focused on what i have throughout my career, promoting america's national security interests. i want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues that appears before this committee. the attacks on these public servants is reprehensible. it is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, and this has been our country's founding since the time of our founding fathers but we're better than personal attacks. the uniform i wear today second-degree that of the united states army. the members of our all volunteer force are made up of a patch work of people from all et knit ethnicities. we do not serve the political party, we serve the nation. i'm humbled to come before you today as one of those that serve in the most established in the world. i decided i wanted to spend my life and gave my family refuge. for the last 20 years, to country. next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the united states as refugees. when my father was 47 years old, he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the united states so his three sons could have a better and safer life. his kocourageous decision inspid gratitude in myself and instilled in us duty and service. all three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. my little brother is behind me here today. our collective military service is a special part of our family's history, a story in america. i also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues that have also truthfully testified before this committee would not be tolerated in many other places in the world. in russia, my act of expressing concern to a chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe and personal repercussions and offer testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. i'm grateful for my father's brave ak of hope 40 years. the fear for mine and my family's safety. dad, i'm sitting here in the u.s. capitol talking to our elected professionals is prove that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union and come here to the united states of america in search of a better life for our family. do not worry, i will be fine for telling the truth, thank you for your consideration, i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, colonel and ms. williams. your brother and family are more and this welcome here. we're grateful to have them with us. we'll proceed in the first round of questions. there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or majority council, followed by 45 minutes for the ranking or majority council. following that, unless i specify additional equal time for extended questioning, we'll proceed under the 5:00 rule and every member will have a chance to answer questions. i now recognize myself for the first 45 minutes. before we get into the substance of your testimony, ms. williams, i want to ask you about a phone call between vice president pence an president zelensky. were you on that call? >> i was. >> did you take notes of the call? >> yes, sir. >> is there something about that call that you think may be relevant to the investigation? >> mr. chairman -- as we previously discussed with the committee, the office of the vice president has taken the position that the september -- >> sir, could you move the microphone closer to you. >> as we previously discussed with both majority and minority staff. the committee of the office of the vice president has taken a position that the september 18th call is classified. with respect to the call, i refer to the committee to the public record that including her november 7th testimony that has been publicly released as well as the public readout of that call that has been previously issued by the white house. ye beyond that, given the position of the president's office, i have advised her not to answer further questions about that dmaul an unclassified setting. >> thank you, council. i will only ask if you think there is something relevant to the inquiry in that call and if you would make a classified submission to the committee. >> i refer to my testimony in the closed session and i'm happy to appear for a classified discussion setting as well. >> it may not be necessary for you to appear if you will submit the information in writing to the committee. >> happy to do so. >> thank you. >> colonel vindman, if i could turn your attention to the first call between president trump and president zelensky. did those talking points include rooting out corruption in ukraine. >> yes. >> that is something that the president was supposed to race in the conversation with president zelensky. >> those were the recommended talking points cleared through the nsc staff for the president, yes. >> did you listen in on that call? >> yes, i did. the white house has now released the record of that call. did president trump ever mention corruption in the april 21st call? >> to the best of my recollection he did not. >> on the april 21st call, president trump told president zelensky that he would send a high level delegation to the inauguration, was it your understanding that the president wants the vice president to attend the inauguration in kiev? >> that was my understanding. >> and did he tell the vice president not to attend the administration. >> i was advised that the president told the vice president not to attend. i did not witness that conversation. >> and am i correct that you learned this on may 13th, is that right? >> that is correct. >> am i correct that the inauguration date had not been set by may 13th? >> that is correct. the preside instruct the vice president not to attend? >> i do not. >> colonel vindman, you were a member of the u.s. delegation to the inauguration on may 20th, is that correct? >> yes, chairman. >> and during that trip did you have an opportunity to offer any advice to president zelensky? >> yes, chairman. >> and what was the vice that you gave him? >> during a bilateral meeting in which the whole delegation was meeting with president zelensky and his team, i offered two pieces of advice, to be particularly cautious with regards to ukraine -- to be particularly cautious with regards to russia, and its desire to provoke ukraine, and the second one was to stay out of u.s. domestic policy. >> politics? >> politics, correct. >> why did you feel it was necessary to advise president zelensky to stay away from u.s. domestic politics? >> chairman, in the march and april timeframe, it became clear that there were actors in the u.s. -- public actors, non-governmental actors that were promoting the idea of investigations in 2016 ukrainian interference, and it was consistent with u.s. policy to advise any country, all the countries in my portfolio, any country in the world, to not participate in u.s. domestic politics. so i was passing the same advice consistent with u.s. policy. >> and mr. goldman will have more questions about that when i turn to him. let me turn, if i can, to the hold on security assistance, which i think you both testified you learned about in early july. am i correct that neither of you were provided with a reason for why the president put a hold on security assistance to ukraine? >> my understanding was that omb was reviewing the assistance to make sure it was in line with administration priorities. but it was not made more specific than that. >> and colonel vindman? >> that is consistent. the review was to ensure it remained consistent with administration policies. >> and colonel vindman, you attended a meeting in john bolton's office on july 10th where ambassador sondland interjected to respond to a question by a senior ukrainian officials about a white house visit. what did he say at that time? >> to the best of my recollection, ambassador sondland said that in order to get a white house meeting, the ukrainians would have to provide a deliverable, which is investigations, specific investigations. >> and what was ambassador bolton's response or reaction to that comment? >> we had not completed all of the agenda items and we still had time for the meeting and ambassador bolton abruptly ended the meeting. >> did you report this incident to the national security council lawyers? >> yes, i did. >> based on ambassador sondland's remark at the july 10th meeting, was it your understanding that the ukrainians understood they had to commit to investigations president trump wanted in order to get the white house meeting? >> it may not have been entirely clear at that moment. certainly ambassador sondland was calling for these meetings and he had stated that he had this -- this was developed per a conversation with the chief of staff, mr. mick mulvaney, but the connection to the president wasn't clear at that point. >> but the import of what ambassador sondland said during that meeting was that there was an agreement with mick mulvaney that zelensky would get the meeting if they would undertake these investigations? >> that is correct. >> about two weeks after that july 10th meeting, president trump and president zelensky had their second call, the now infamous july 25th call. colonel vindman, what was your real-time reaction to hearing that call? >> chairman, without hesitation, i knew that i had to report this to the white house counsel. i had concerns and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper people. >> and what was your concern? >> well, chairman, as i said in my statement, it was inappropriate, it was improper for the president to request -- to demand an investigation into a political opponent, especially a foreign power where there's, at best, dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation, and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge and it would be perceived as a partisan play, it would undermine our ukraine policy and it would undermine our national security. >> colonel, you've described this as a demand, this favor that the president asked. what is it about the relationship between the president of the united states and the president of ukraine that leads you to conclude that when the president of the united states asks a favor like this, it's really a demand? >> chairman, the culture i come from, the military culture, when a senior asks you to do something, even if it's polite and pleasant, it's not to be taken as a request, it's to be taken as an order. in this case the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the white house meeting, president zelensky would have to deliver these investigations. >> ms. williams, i think you described your reaction in your deposition as -- when you listened to the call as you found it unusual and inappropriate. but i was struck by something else you said in your deposition. you said that it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold. what did you mean by that? >> mr. chairman, i was asked during the closed-door testimony how i felt about the call. and in reflecting on what i was thinking in that moment, it was the first time i had heard internally the president reference particular investigations that previously i had only heard about through mr. giuliani's press interviews and press reporting. so in that moment, it was not clear whether there was a direct connection or linkage between the ongoing hold on security assistance and what the president may be asking president zelensky to undertake in regard to investigations. so it was noteworthy in that regard. i did not have enough information to draw any firm conclusions. >> but it raised a question in your mind as to whether the two were related? >> it was the first i had heard of any requests of ukraine, which were that specific in nature. so it was noteworthy to me in that regard. >> both of you recall president zelensky in that conversation raising the issue or mentioning burisma, do you not? >> that's correct. >> correct. >> and yet the word burisma appears nowhere in the call record that's been released to the public, is that right? >> that's right. >> correct. >> do you know why that's the case, why that was left out? >> i do not. i was not involved in the production of that transcript. >> i attribute that to the fact that this transcript that is being produced may have not caught the word burisma and it was in the transcript that was released, it was released as the company, which is accurate. it's not a significant omission. >> colonel, you pointed out the fact that that word was used, did you not? >> correct. >> and yet it was not included in the record released to the public? >> that's right. i would say it's informed speculation that the folks that produced these transcripts do the best they can and they just didn't catch the word, and that was my responsibility to then make sure that the transcript was as accurate as possible. and that's what i attempted to do by putting that word back in, because that was in my notes. >> i think, colonel, you testified in your deposition that you found it striking that