Does. But his aides and his campaign, the white house, they have been sending out very negative messages about Lieutenant Colonel vindman. They tried to use something morrison said behind closed doors when he said there were people that questioned vindmans judgment at nsc, specifically fiona hill that well hear from thursday. I his Opening Statement, i think he realized how much play that has got. He said he wasnt here to criticize his colleagues. Saw vindman prepared to address it as he was there to testify earlier. He brought a Performance Review from fiona hill, the official, that morrison had the conversation with, where it praised him multiple times and his performance in the job. You see tim morrison and kurt volker, beginning to walk back in. Theyll sit down and the hearing will resume. The next round will be the five minute sessions where all of the members, democrats and
republicans, they have five minutes to ask questions. It will start with the chairman, adam schiff, and devin nunes, Ranking Member. Theyll ask their questions, then it will go on presumably, mia, for at least another hour. Looks interesting to see schiffs position. He is a harvard trained lawyer and he has been i think very strategic in trying to advance the case in a way nunes isnt. Nunes seems to be directly talking to the president and the base. He addressed witnesses and said oh, im sorry to break the bad news but ratings are down for this, Which Isnt Helping build any case at all. It is sort of a Talking Point about whats happening. Thats been really interesting to see sort of the interchange between schiff, and the lawyer, daniel goldman. Here is schiff. Now going to proceed to a 15 minute round by either Chair Majority or Ranking Member minority. Mr. Goldman, youre recognized for 15 minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador volker, i want to correct the record from the first round. You were right to point out, you asked if a quote that i represented you made in the deposition was your words and i actually read the wrong part in the quote. What you actually said was it creates a problem again where all of the things that were trying to do to advanced bilateral relationship, strengthen our support for ukraine, strengthen the positioning against russia is now getting sucked into a domestic political debate in the u. S. , domestic political narrative that overshadows that. You were right to point that out and i apologize for the mistake. I want to go back to a couple of things you said during the minoritys round. Can you repeat the read youout got of the July 25th Call . Yes. I received the readout from both
ukranian colleague, andres yermak, i dont remember if my staff, someone from the embassy or where, and the readout was it was a good phone call. That it was a congratulatory phone call for the president s win in the parliamentary election, that President Trump renewed the invitation for se zelensky to come to the white house. I believe you said a readout was exactly as you expected the call to go, is that right . Thats what we were trying to. I want to show you the July 25th Text to yermak which was the message you were relaying to him so he could prepare president zelensky, and youll recall this, right, where you said this was the message, good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house, assuming
president Z Convinces Trump he will investigate, quote, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington. Thats what you expected from the call, right . I expected that president zelensky would be convincing in his statements and comments of President Trump, that he was exactly that, that he would investigate, git to t investigate, get to the bottom of things in 2016, and that if he was strong in conveying who he is in a person doing that, that President Trump would be convinced and renew the invitation to the white house. Right. But you dont mention corruption in this text, do you . This is the word corruption is not in this text. The word corruption is not there, investigating things that happened in the past that would be corrupt would be investigating corruption. You say a couple times in Opening Statement, you said it again, investigating things that happened in the past. You are aware most investigations relate to things that happened in the past,
right . Sorry, yes. That doesnt move the needle whether it is current or past in terms of the subject of the investigation, right . Subject of the investigation on things that happened in the past. You also talked a little about the meeting you had july 26th with president zelensky and ambassador sondland in kiev, is that right . On the 26th we had a meeting with president zelensky, yes. And i believe you testified that the topic of investigations did not come up at all, is that right . Yeah, i dont recall them coming up, just the general phone call. You didnt take notes of that call, of that meeting, right . I did not. There were staffers there to do that. Correct. So if there are two staffers who took notes of the meeting and testified that the subject of either sensitive topics or investigations came up, are we
better off taking their word than yours . I have no problem taking the notes if they were contemporaneous with the meeting. Another witness testified, laura cooper, about a meeting she had with you on august 20th. Do you recall having that meeting with her . You didnt mention it in the deposition. I did mention that in making rounds to weigh in on lifting the Security Assistance, met with the interagency players. Do you recall with some specificity that meeting which was mostly based on her notes, that you described the statement that you were trying to get president zelensky to make to, and ill 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 that it might help to
lift the hold on Security Assistance. Is that your recollection of the conversation as well . Not exactly. How does yours differ . I recall talking about the statement that we had discussed earlier, the one that had been the subject of the exchanges between mr. Yermak and myself, myself, ambassador sondland, and Rudy Giuliani, and back to yermak. So i discussed that this is an effort we are doing, that this could be helpful in getting a reset of the thinking of the president , the Negative View of ukraine that he had. And if we did that, i thought that would also be helpful in unblocking whatever hold there was on Security Assistance, if theres a negative presumption about ukraine, getting this stuff on track would be helpful. All right. Thats a different interpretation, but you dont doubt what she testified is inaccurate, do you . I believe she accurately reflected what she understood from the conversation. You testified a little about
the june 28th Conference Call you had with ambassador sondland, Ambassador Taylor. Not sure if Deputy Secretary kent was on the line, Secretary Perry, before you looped in president zelensky. Am i right about the participants of that . Or was Secretary Perry not on it . I am pretty sure that Deputy Assistant secretary kent was not on it. I dont remember whether Secretary Perry was on it. And i dont remember whether i stayed on for president zelensky joining the call or not. Were there any Staff Members or note takers on the call . I dont believe so. Why . We were having a call among ourselves to talk about what were the messages we thought we needed to convey. At that point we had other testimony from people that took notes there was discussion about investigations, what president zelensky needed to do 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 to that effect, and again, it comes down to what are we talking about in terms of these investigations because what i certainly understood as were talking about ukraine looking into, Fighting Corruption internally and being convincing about this, presenting the new president and the new team as they change in ukraine. You understood that the investigations were burisma and the 2016 election, right . Yes. And you interpreted those to be you interpreted those to be okay because in theory they were looking into ukranians . Correct. But we can agree, can we not, that the investigations, all of the investigations were talking about here today were burisma and the 2016 election . Correct. Now, and what you then amend amended your testimony today to say is if in retrospect, you didnt realize the purpose for
mr. Giuliani and President Trump to want the Burisma Investigation was tofor politic benefits, Digging Up Dirt or getting information on Vice President biden. Thats what you learned subsequently, right . It is correct i learned about the president s interest in investigating Vice President biden from the Phone Call Transcript that came much, much later. From giuliani, i didnt know that he was actively pursuing this. I know he raised this with me directly and i had pushed back on it. Well, you knew that ambassador sondland was pursuing this at the July 10th Meeting when he raised these investigations himself. Again, he didnt specify biden, he didnt specific burisma as i recall either. I understood it to be a generic comment and something not appropriate for that meeting. Right, i understand. But biden wasnt mentioned, but you do agree that when investigations are referenced in this context, it is burisma and
the 2016 election, no . Yes. Thats what i understand. Right. On that call, when ambassador sondland raised the investigation, he did that in response to a question from the ukranians about a white house meeting, isnt that right . Can you repeat the question . I didnt catch that. You said ambassador sondland mentioned the specific investigations at the July 10th Meeting in ambassadors office. Didnt he make that comment in response to a question from the ukranian officials about when they could schedule the white house meeting . That i am not sure about. I remember the meeting being essentially over and ambassador sondland bringing that up. In the july 2nd or 3rd meeting in toronto you had with president zelensky, you also mentioned investigations to him, right . Yes. Again, you were referring to burisma and the 2016
i was thinking burisma and 2016. You understood thats what the ukranians interpreted references to investigations to be, related to burisma and the 2016 election . I dont know specifically at that time if we talked specifically about burisma and 2016, thats my assumption they would have been thinking that too. Mr. Morrison, when did you have that conversation with fiona hill about burisma and the parallel process involving ambassador sondland and Rudy Giuliani. Do you recall . We had a number f handoff discussions between one july and 15 july. So in that period of time you were certainly aware of the effort to promote the Burisma Investigation that ambassador
sondland at least you heard about it from dr. Hill . I heard from dr. Hill. I want to pull up a the Wall Street Journal that quotes an email from july 13th that ambassador sondland sent to you. He wrote Quote Sole Purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. You responded tracking. What did you understand ambassador sondland to mean when he wrote to you any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently . I dont know that i had any understanding. These are emails, july 13th emails. I wasnt even in the seat yet, but i knew that among Head Of State Meetings we were attempting to schedule, there was one between the president and president zelensky. Right. But it was before this that dr. Hill had told you about burisma and ambassador sondland in particular his desire for the parallel process to investigate burisma, right . Yes. So you had that association when you received his email asking you about investigations, correct . Not necessarily. No . No. Why not . Because ambassador, among the discussions with dr. Hill were about ambassador sondland, she might have coined it the gordon problem, and i decided to keep track of what ambassador sondland was doing. I didnt necessarily always act on things gordon suggested he believed were important. So he wanted to get a meeting. I understood what the president wanted to do to get a meeting, i was tracking we needed to schedule a meeting. You were not endorsing the notion of president zelensky sending a message about investigations, is that your testimony . That is my testimony. Ambassador sondland, i want to jump ahead. After the aid was released, you went to the yes conference in ukraine, and are you aware that Ambassador Taylor who testified based on quite detailed notes indicated that earlier a few days before that, ambassador sondland had told him that President Trump is a businessman and so before he writes a check, he likes to see people pay up. Something to that effect. Youre aware of that . I am familiar with that testimony. And youre familiar that
Ambassador Taylor said that you said something very similar to him when you were in ukraine for the conference. Do you recall saying that to Ambassador Taylor . Yes, i do. I was repeating what Gordon Sondland said to me to explain to bill taylor what that understanding was. And in what context did ambassador sondland say that to you . I think we were talking about the release of the hold on Security Assistance, and he was saying that the president , he sees, hes already got a Negative View of ukraine, sees a check on his desk thats going to the ukranians, not sure about them. He wants to hold on to it until he is assured. And the pay up before he writes the check is to get the investigations he wants, is that right . That was not clear to me what did you think it meant . I didnt think it was a pay up. Language was similar, i agree with gordon, he wants to be sure
he has a deal with the ukranians. I didnt know specifically other than this generic formulation. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. 15 minutes to Ranking Member nunes. Parliamentary inquiry. Do you expect any more magical 15 minute motions you come up with in the back . I dont know how magical they are, they are prescribed by House Resolution 660, we can have successive rounds up to 45 minutes. This is part of the prescribed procedure under the House Resolution. Do you expect youre going to have more this evening . I do not expect more will be necessary. Thank the gentleman. So for everyone watching, this is another example of how out of control this process has become where the democrats just magically give themselves additional minutes, which theyre right, in the special rule they wrote they can do, but
you would at least think they would have the decembncy to tel us you have 15 minutes more. I would say you can go four hours, five hours. Well give you all you want. You can keep digging. Deeper the hole you dig, the more viewers turn off. People arent buying the drug deal you guys are trying to sell. I would add that since we are getting into prime time, these are two witnesses that were your witnesses that you called in to depose. We still asked for witnesses you did not depose, including the whistleblower who you and others claim not to know. Which we need to get to the bottom of that, the most important fact witness to how this mess began in the first place. Secondly, we have asked for the dnc operatives that were working with ukranians to dig up dirt
for what you call or what the left called Conspiracy Theories, which they are right, theyre Conspiracy Theories of dirt they dug up to spin their own Conspiracy Theories to attack the Trump Campaign in the 2016 electi election. So i have no more questions for these witnesses. I know our members do. Mr. Castror, you have any . I will try to be quick and yield time back. Ambassador volker are you aware of a statement from Prime Minister that said no one told the ukranians, certainly not him, that there was any link between the Security Assistance funds and investigations . I saw that statement, yes. Do you know the Foreign Minister . I do. And during the time thats relevant, did you have any discussions with him about the investigations and links . Not about investigations with him. I believe i kept that discussion
to being with mr. Yermak, and we did discuss with Foreign Minister and at the time his diplomatic adviser Security Assistance after it was raised, after august 29th. I did discuss that with him. Now, the primary person you worked with is mr. Yermak . Yes. And mr. Yermak also had some meetings with ambassador sondland. Did he ever did mr. Yermak ever give you any feedback from his interactions with ambassador sondland . I cant say if he did or didnt. We were in frequent contact and along. About issues as we went the episode at warsaw where ambassador sondland pulled mr. Yermak aside, did mr. Yermak give you feedback on that meeting . I did not get anything specific after that. This was around i believe September 1st or 2nd, and it was
at that time i had been i think texted by mr. Yermak and subsequently in touch with him and presh tiek a and told them both and the defense minister. Told them dont worry, we know about this, were trying to fix it. And i think i left the conversation at that. The ukranian officials to your knowledge trusted you . Very much so. We had a close relationship. When you made statements like that to them, do you think they believed you . I think they believed me. I think they would have other conversations and hear things from other people. I also think they knew i was sincere with them. And they trusted Ambassador Taylor . Yes. Like to demystify the mayor giuliani role. You met with him one time . Thats correct. And you exchanged Text Messages with him . Yes, between the 10th of july and around the 13th of august. During your deposition you
did an accounting of your communication with mr. Giuliani, and it wasnt there werent that many. We sort of accounted for them all, and then ambassador sondland when he came in, he didnt have any oneonone meetings with mayor giuliani to your knowledge, is that correct . I dont believe he did, but i dont know. I think ambassador sondland testified that there were a couple of Conference Calls that he may have been on with you. That is true. Okay. Just getting back to the regular channel that Ambassador Taylor coined in his deposition testimony, did you ever have an opportunity to close the loop with him about any concerns whatsoever or was it all just the specific instances raise in the text . Only the specific instances. Do you think Ambassador Taylor in your communication with him believed mr. Giuliani was in far greater communication with yourself, Secretary Perry, ambassador sondland . I dont know what he thought. Thats all i have, mr. Nunes. I have nothing more. Would the gentleman allow to let another member go . House rules dont permit that. Yield back. Five minute questions. I recognize myself for five minutes. Ambassador volker, i want to ask you about something in your Opening Statement with respect to the july 10 meeting, you testified i participated in the meeting between bolton and chairman of the National Security and defense counsel. I remember the meeting was over when ambassador sondland made a generic comment about investigations, i think all of us thought it was inappropriate. The conversation did not continue and the meeting concluded. Ambassador volker, we asked you about that meeting during your deposition and you told us nothing about this. I believe we asked you why the meeting came to an end, why you earlier indicated to Ambassador Taylor it did not go well, and your answer was that dan yuck was on the weeds on National Security policy. Why didnt you tell us about this . Because thats what i remembered from the meeting, what i provided in the october 3rd statement. I learned over things, including seeing statements from alex vindman and fiona hill, and that reminded me that yes, at the end of that meeting as was recounted in colonel vindmans statement, i did remember that, yes, thats right, gordon did bring that up, and that was it. So at the time we deposed you
for six or seven hours and asked you specifically what you knew about the investigations, you didnt remember that Gordon Sondland brought this up in the July 10th Meeting with ukranians and ambassador bolton called an end to the meeting, ambassador bolton described the meeting as some drug deal that sondland and mulvaney cooked up. You had no recollection of that . In terms of gordon bringing it up, no, i did not remember that at the time of my october 3rd testimony. I read the account by alex and that jogged my memory, yes, that did happen. I do not still to this point being an abrupt end to the meeting. The meeting was essentially over and we got up, went out to the little circle in front of the white house, took a photograph, it did not strike me as abrupt. Ambassador volker, you said in your testimony today i think all of us thought it was
inappropriate. Now, if as you say ambassador sondland only mentioned investigations in the Bolton Meeting, and you dont recall him being more specific, although others testified he was, why did you think it was inappropriate . I thought it was, put it this way, it was sort of an eye roll moment, you have a meeting, youre trying to advance the substance of the bilateral relationship, we have head of the National Security and defense counsel, it was a disappointing meeting because i dont think the ukranians got as much out of that in terms of their presentation as they could have, and then this comes up at the end of the meeting. It is like this is not what we should be talking about. You said you think it is appropriate to ask the ukranians to do investigations of 2016 and burisma, as long as burisma didnt mean the bidens,
something you have now understand you should have seen otherwise. Nonetheless, if it was appropriate, why are you saying all of us thought it was inappropriate . Because it was not the place or the time to bring up that. This was a meeting between the National Security adviser and the chairman of the National Security and defense counsel. First high level meeting were having between ukraine and United States after president zelenskys election. Is part of the reason it is inappropriate that it was brought up in the context of trying to get the white house meeting . Possibly, although i dont recall that being. I know this was the counsels question. I dont remember the exact context of when that came up. I viewed the meeting as having ended. I think you said in your testimony that you think it is objectionable to seek to get a Foreign Government to investigate a political rival, am i right . To investigate the Vice President of the United States or someone who is a u. S. Official, i dont think we should be asking Foreign Governments to do that. I would also say thats true of a political rival. And you recognized when you got the call record, when you finally saw the call record, thats what took place in that call, is that correct . Thats correct. Mr. Morrison, Ambassador Volker thinks it is inappropriate to ask the foreign Head Of State to investigate a u. S. Person, let alone a political rival, but you said you had no concern with that. Do you think it is appropriate . As a hypothetical matter, i do not. Not talking hypothetical matter. Read the transcript. In that transcript does the president not ask zelensky to look into the bidens . Mr. Chairman, i can only tell you what i was thinking at the time. That is not what i understood the president to be doing. But nonetheless, this was the first and only time where you
went from listening to a president ial call to the National Security lawyer, is it not . Yes, thats correct. And i think you said your concern was not that it was unlawful but that it might leak, is that right . That is correct. Now, the part with leaking is that what would be leaking is a president asking a foreign Head Of State to investigate mr. Biden. Isnt that the problem . Well, i believe i stated there are three concerns about what the impact of call leaking might be. There was a perfect call, would you have had concern of it leaking . No. I would say a concern about leak zblg would you say it was appropriate if President Trump asked zelensky to investigate john kasich or to investigate nancy pelosi, or to investigate
Ambassador Volker. In the hypothetical case, no, not appropriate. Youre not sure about joe biden . I can only speak to what i understood at the time and why i acted the way i did at the time. Finally, my colleagues asked about well, doesnt aid get held up for all kinds of reasons. Ambassador volker, have you ever seen military aid held up because the president wanted his rival investigated . No, i have not seen that. Have you ever seen that, mr. Williams . Mr. Morrison, im sorry . No, chairman. I yield to the Ranking Member. So you took two additional minutes. Are you giving our side seven minutes . Of course. I recognize mr. Turner. Thank you. Ambassador volker, mr. Morrison, good to see you again. I appreciate your service to your country and your service in government. Our country is safer today because of the work of both of you men. I want you to know during all of the testimony weve had, no one has alleged that either of you have done anything inappropriate or improper. And everyone has spoken of both of you as having high level professionalism and high degree of ethical standards. Ambassador volker, i appreciated your comments of work to focus on russia as invasion of ukraine and occupation and work on Legal Defense of arms, including the javelins, would it not, Ambassador Volker . Yes, sir. That made a big difference to the ukraine . Very big difference. Mr. Morrison, tell us about your military service. Mr. Turner, im a u. S. Naval reserve officer. I am an intelligence officer. Where did you go to law
school . George washington university. Now, gentlemen, theres been a lot of talk about a lot of people, we have to pick up the pace, these are shorts periods of time for these questions. A lot of people talking about perceptions, beliefs, feelings even, what they heard and their understandings and thoughts. Ambassador taylor, mr. Kent, ambassador yovanovitch, and Lieutenant Colonel vindman had conversations with each other and other people and had a bunch of hearsay. I can assure you it boils down to one thing. This is impeachment inquiry concerning the president of the United States. So the only thing that matters besides all these people talking to each other, all their feelings and thoughts and understandings, it really only comes down to what did the president of the United States intend and what did he say and what did the ukranians understand or hear. Ambassador volker, youre one of the first people we have had in open public testimony thats had conversations with both. So i get to ask you. You had a meeting with the president of the United States, and you believe the policy issues he raised concerning ukraine were valid, correct . Yes. Did the president of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to ukraine unless there were investigations into burisma, bidens, or the 2016 elections . No, he did not. Did the ukranians tell you they understood they wouldnt get a meeting, phone call with the president of the United States, military aid or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of burisma, the bidens, or the Twik2016 Electio . They did not. You took apart the entire case. If the president of the United States didnt intend it and the ukranians didnt understand it, and youre the one that stands between them, i have to ask you, Ambassador Volker, the three amigo thing that theyre trying to disparage you with, youre
not part of an irregular channel, are you . Arent you the official channel . That is correct. Explain how youre the official channel, not an irregular channel. I was appointed by Secretary Of State tillerson to be the u. S. Special representative for ukraine negotiations. Thats a role thats different from assistant Secretary Of State or different from ambassador in ukraine. That role is particularly focused on the diplomatic activities surrounding the efforts to reverse russias invasion and occupation of ukraine. It is the normandy process, support from nato, support for sanctions from european union, it is osc, monitoring missions, it is the efforts of individual allies like poland, like the uk, like canada that are supporting ukraine, it is work at a senior level in the agency i am going to cut you off. You are one of the few people
that had spoken to giuliani, the socalled irregular channel, all of the other people had feelings and understandings of What Giuliani was doing. Did giuliani ever tell you that United States aid or a meeting with the president of the United States wouldnt occur for the ukranians until they agreed to an investigation of burisma, the bidens, or the 2016 election . Everything i heard from giuliani i took to be his opinion. Excellent. I would assume the ukranians never told you that giuliani had told them that in order to get a meeting with the president , phone call with the president , military aid or foreign aid from the United States that they would have to do these investigations . No. Okay. Mr. Morrison, you testified that you spoke to ambassador sondland and he told you about a conversation he had with the president of the United States. On page 128 of his testimony, he relates content of a
conversation he had with the president , and he was asked about it. It is the only one he relates. He said he was asked whether or not there was a quid pro quo. He said i didnt frame the question basically to the president that way as a link, i did not frame the question that way. I asked the open ended question what do you want, this is mr. Sondland in his testimony asking this question of the president of the United States. This is what he reports of the president of the United States. He said i want nothing. I dont want to give them anything, i dont want anything from them. I want zelensky to do the right thing. Thats what he and he kept repeating, no quid pro quo over and over again. Mr. Morrison, do you have any reason to believe mr. Sondland is not telling the truth of the content of his conversation with the president of the United States . No, congressman. Do either of you have information or evidence that anyone that testified before the committee in the secret Dungeon Testimonies that have been released or in open testimonies
has perfejured themselves or li to the committee . I have no reason to think that. Mr. Morrison . No, sir. Lieutenant colonel vindman reported to you . He did, sir. You have a legal background. He said he listened the phone call, a phone call you said you saw nothing had occurred illegally, and he said he believed the president of the United States demanded to president zelensky that these investigations move forward. Do you believe, because he only was telling us his opinion, do you believe in your opinion that the president of the United States demanded that president zelensky undertake these investigations . No, sir. To both of you. Ukraine is an aspireant to the eu. Ambassador sondland is ambassador to the eu. Is ukraine in the ambassadors portfolio . Ambassador volker . Yes, also because eu sanctions on ukraine are
incredibly important. Mr. Morrison . I agree, sir. I yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. President trump has described his july 25th phone call with president zelensky as, quote, perfect. And i think he has done that on twitter, not once, not twice, by my count 11 times. It feels to me like the characterization of perfect is of a piece with the idea that we hear in defense of the president s request to the ukranians. But thats just normal course of business pursuing anticorruption. I have been concerned from the start this is not about going after corruption, it is in fact about aiming corruption at the Vice President. Mr. Morrison, you listened in on the call in the white house situation room. Did you hear the president Mention Crowdstrike and the
server . I believe so, yes, sir. Did you hear President Trump mention the bidens . Yes, sir. Did you hear President Trump in the length of the phone call use the word corruption . No, sir. Well, sir, i dont believe he did. Was the request that ukraine investigate crowdstrike and the bidens consistent with what you understood to be official u. S. Policy towards combatting corruption in ukraine . Sir, it was the first i hert heard of much of this. In your deposition, you testified you wanted to stay away from what you described as this, quote, bucket of investigations. Why did you want to stay away from those issues . Thats what i was advised by dr. Hill. You also testified that the president s call was not, and im quoting, full tloetd ukraine
reform agenda. What did you mean by that . Sir, what we, myself, colonel vindman, others, what we prepared in the package we provided the president was background on president zelensky, background on his positions about reforming ukraine, reforming its institutions, rooting out corruption. We were hoping, we recommended the president support what president zelensky had run on in his own election and what his servant of the people party had run on in its election where it received majority mandate. That didnt come up in the call, did it . No, sir. Are you aware of any other discussion where the president raised those things with the new ukranian president . Corruption reform . Yes. Sir, it has been some time since i refreshed myself on the discussion at the u. N. General assembly, i hesitate to say did
he ever raise it, but he did not raise it at the time of the 25 july phone call. Switching gears a little bit, you strike me as a process guy. And it is nagging at me because you characterized the ambassador Sondland Linking in whatever way it happened of aid to an investigation as the gordon problem. You said it caused you to roll your eyes, Ambassador Volker said it was everybody in the July 10th Meeting thought it was inappropriate, john bolton characterized this as the drug deal. So seems like everybody in the room understands theres a huge problem here. My understanding is it would be normal course of business when you have an ambassador out there going rogue as apparently there was consensus ambassador sondland was doing that either the National Security adviser john bolton or the Secretary Of State might rein them in. Why didnt that happen . Sir, i cant speak to that. I would generally agree that ambassadors work for Secretary Of State and the president. Do you have, you dont have any idea, you worked for him, you dont have any idea why john bolton would characterize what the ambassador was doing as a drug deal, but not rein him in . Ambassadors dont work for the National Security adviser. But john bolton is National Security adviser, presumably spends time with the Secretary Of State. I am puzzled that everybody characterizes this as the gordon problem, inappropriate, and the Secretary Of State does nothing. Sir, im sorry, was there a question . You dont have any insight into that . No, sir. Ambassador volker, you testified you were troubled once you read the record of the president s July 25th Call. You testified, quote, that asking the president of ukraine to Work Together with the Attorney General to look into this, you can see as it happened, this becomes explosive in domestic politics and in your
new testimony call this unacceptable. What specifically in that call to the ukraine president do you find unacceptable or troubling . It is the reference to Vice President biden. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Connelly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This morning we heard about the July 25th Call in which the president asked for a favor. In Lieutenant Colonel vindmans mind it was an order. In the last part of the conversation between two heads of state, President Trump talks about a prosecutor that he is in favor of, would like to see stay there, he says mr. President no, since we won the majority of parliament, the next Prosecutor General will be 100 my candidate. Does that sound like a Head Of State thats been bullied under the thumb of the president of the United States . Not at all. No, sir. The impact on the pause that occurred, 55 day pause inSecurity Assistance, none of us understood exactly what happened during that time frame. No one knew about it other than internal u. S. Folks until late august, so the russians wouldnt necessarily have known about it, potential impact that i agree with on russias interpretation of our support for ukraine wasnt known until the last 14 days, but impact on the lethal aid they already had should russia tried to move the line of contact further west with their tanks, would the lethal assistance we had given be available to them to push back on that . Yes, it would. Mr. Morrison, comments . I agree with that but i would add the hold as i understood it applied to ukraine Security Assistance, uasi, and it did not apply and javelins were applied
by fms. The moslt Lethal Weapon he provided to the ukranians, in obamas Policy He Set was available if they pushed tanks west, the javelins . Yes, sir. Even with the pause and stuff going on . Yes, sir. Associated press is reporting that Ambassador Volker, you mentioned earlier the russians Act Of War Took Two Gun Ships and a tug and 24 sailors last november, yet the russians have now given the 24 sailors back in september, Associated Press is reporting today that theyve given gun boats and tug back. Does that sound like ukraine is inept being able to negotiate with the russians because of wounded in some way by our actions . I would not say that the ukranians are inept. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, i would like as a
personal request, request that you and or one of your lawyer members on the committee of lawyers to put into the record the federal statute that provides for absolute immunity or right to immunity that youve exerted over and over. I dont think it is there, but if it is in fact federal statute or brief you can cite, put that in the record so well know that. Before you get mad and accuse me wanting to out the whistleblower, you get upset every time somebody accuses you personally of knowing who the whistleblower is. I get upset every time you, anonymity, you accuse me because i want to know the whistleblower and whats going on, we want to out. Thats unfair to make that accusation, i get just as mad. This is leveling the playing field. Your team knows the whistleblower, have intimate knowledge who he or she is. Mention biases, your team fully
understands that. Our team should understand that. It is leveling the playing field. I know that youve overrun my request for a closure subpoena, i understand that. But i think it is supported you put in the record the basis on which you continue to assert this absolute right to anonymity. I misspoke earlier, anonymity of the whistleblower. The speaker onned 23rd issued a document we use to talk to each other. It is with 434 other members of congress, intended to be the truth, intended to be straightforward. She says in that that the whistleblower by law is required to testify to the house and the Senate Intelligence committees. Now, youre defying the speaker in this regard. I understand thats between you and her. If shes correct, then youre defying the law. If on the other hand she mislead us into thinking something that was not true, then i think you need to tell the speaker to retract that Dear Colleague letter and set the record straight, is the whistleblower required by law as the speaker said to testify to us or not, and what isment the right to anonymity that you question. With that, i yield back. Time of the gentleman expired. Happy to enter into the record the whistleblower statute that allows the whistleblower to remain anonymous, as well as talking about the importance of whistleblowers. I recognize miss sewell. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador volker, it seems by early july it has become clear that mr. Giuliani has become a major problem for the u. S. , ukraine relations. You previously testified on july 2nd you met with the ukranian president and his aide in toronto, is that right . I had a bilateral meeting between the u. S. And ukranian
delegations and then a meeting with the president and chief of staff. You discuss mr. Giulianis quote, Negative View, quote, of ukraine based on a Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election, right . I conveyed that he was repeating a negative narrative about ukraine based on accusations of the then Prosecutor General, lutsenko. Are you saying you didnt think they were Negative Views . No, no, that they were Negative Views. But that wasnt your description. Im sorry, i have lost the question. I was trying to get at who said the Negative Views that you the Prosecutor General of ukraine was putting out this series of Conspiracy Theories that i believe were self serving and inaccurate. Mr. Giuliani had he was at
least effected by these, concerned believed they were negative. Believed they were negative and was conveying them to the president. So was it problematic that he believed they were Negative Views . Yes. The whole thing was problematic. Ambassador taylor testified that you told ukranians they needed to youre now saying that you dont recall saying those word, is that correct . I dont believe i said the words cooperate on investigations. Did you say investigations . I believe i did, yes. What did you mean by investigations. I meant burisma in 2016 was in my mind and i wanted to keep it general and ukraine being convincing to giuliani and hopefully also to the president that they were serious about Fighting Corruption would engage in whatever investigations necessary to clean up the country. Now moving to july 10th,
Ambassador Volker sent you a text message. You sent a text message to giuliani, and i think its on the its on the screen now and you said mr. Mayor, could we meet for coffee or lunch in the next week or so . Id like to update you on my conversations about ukraine. Id like i think we have an opportunity to get what you need, did you say that . That is an accurate text message . What did you mean by what you need . Contact with the actual government of ukraine with president zelensky and his team. Later that day you and ambassador sondland met with ukraine officials at the white house. We heard from several witnesses that ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that they needed to cooperate with the quote, unquote, investigations, in order to get the Oval Office Meeting scheduled on the books. Were these investigations a part of the official u. S. Policy towards ukraine . U. S. Approximately see toward ukraine w ukraine was it was specifically about this kinds of investigation. You said the investigation was burisma wait. Okay. In order to fight corruption you need to conduct investigations and you need to see what ukrainian citizens were up to and doing. Was that the purpose of that or was it because the president you knew that well, that the president wanted those investigations to be done as a condition for them to actually have a meeting with the with the white house. Well, first off, we have to be clear when were talking about in terms of investigations. Were not talking about Vice President biden. Were not talking about burisma has nothing to do with youre saying that im saying whether ukrainians within the company of burisma had acted in a corrupt way or sought to buy influence. Thats a legitimate thing for ukraine to investigate and if ukraine can make a statement about their intentions about
Fighting Corruption domestically that is helpful in order to convince President Trump ultimately, that this is well, with all due respect, Ambassador Volker, we heard from two witnesses this morning that those investigations were not offici official u. S. Policy. Ambassador volker, i dont know what you are getting yourself into, but sitting here today i hope you understand that pressuring ukraine to involve itself in u. S. Domestic approximatepolicy is just simply wrong. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Turner . I yield my time to jim jordan. I thank the gentleman. Ambassador volker, you were special ambassador to ukraine, is that right . That is correct. Prior to that at the diplomatic service, you worked at the nsc and ambassador to nato Senate Confirmed ambassador to nato in your distinguished career. So it may not bother you when youre referred to as the irregular channel, but it bothers representative turner
and it bothers me. You were the Special Envoy to ukraine and in that role you said in the Opening Statement you were the administrations most outspoken public figure highlighting russias invasioning in the occupation of ukraine and calling out russianas role in the war, is that correct . Thats correct. Advocated living the ban of arms to ukraine. That is correct. And President Trump did it, didnt he . That is correct. In spite of that, President Trump was still skeptical of giving hardearned tax dollars to ukraine. Yes. And the reason, the guy doesnt like foreign aid. Thats one reason and ukraines history of corruption is another. The third most corrupt countries on the planet and europe isnt doing enough and oh, by the way, in president s mind he did think ukraine was trying to influence the 2016 election. Things happened, when the ambassador of the United States
writes an oped criticizing thenCandidate Trump thats trying to influence the election when a key minister in their government says all kinds of things about Candidate Trump that certainly looks like hes trying to influence the election and when mr. Leaschenko, and i know we all run campaigns when people say bad things about us in the course of the campaign we dont necessarily say great things about them, but you were convinced zelensky was the real deal, is that right . That is correct. Because you spent a lot of time with the guy, and guess what . When aid was frozen you knew if you could get these two guys together it would work out. When aid was frozen you told the ukrainian, dont worry about it. You said dont be alarmed, right . That is correct. Guess what happened . By the time when aids frozen and when its released all kinds of interactions between president zelensky and senior
u. S. Official, right . It starts with the call with President Trump and president zelensky. Next week you meet with president zelensky in ukraine and next we have ambassador Bolton Meeting with the and then we have Vice President meeting with him, and then we have u. S. Senators johnson and murphy meeting with him and guess what . In none of those meetings, not a single one, did Security Assistance dollars in exchange for an investigation, not once did they come up, did that conversation come up, is that right . That is correct. Not once. No discussion of aid for investigations and, as you testified, you never believed aid for investigations was ever being talked about either in any of these conversations. That is correct. What happened in those meetings . They all became convinced of the same thing you knew. They all saw the same darn thing. This guy was the real deal. He is a legitimate reformer and they all came back, they all came back and told the president , hey, mr. President , this guys real. Go ahead and release the dollars. Oh, by the way, in the same timeframe, you know what else happened . Their parliament, their newly elected parliament stayed up to pass the reform measures and to put in the Anticorruption Court to get rid of this this this ability that no one in their congress and their parliament could ever be hit with a crime. I mean, thats unbelievable. All that happens and they come back and tell President Trump, guess what . Time to release the dollars, and he did it, right . The dollars were released. Yeah. You did your job. You did your job, and youve got to put up with all of this because the democrats are out to get this president. You did your job the just the way mr. Turner described. You did your job just like you did all these years and the
democrats put you through this. You have served your country way and the kind of diplomat we want serving and heres heres one of the saddest things about what the democrats are putting us through, you two guys who are here telling it straight you both decided you will step out of government because of what these guys are doing and thats the sad thing. People like Ambassador Volker and tim morrison who have served our country so well are now stepping out of our government because of what these guys are doing and thats why mr. Turner got so fired up and i am so fired up, too, because we appreciate what you guys did. I yield back. Mr. Carson . Thank you, chairman schiff. Ambassador volker, i want to focus the Press Statement that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani wanted ukraine announcing investigations to benefit President Trump. When august 9th served ambassador sondland and you had this exchange, ambassador
sondland says morrison, ready to get dates as soon as umack concerns. You reply excellent. How did you sway him . Ambassador sondland says not sure i did. I think potus really wants deliverable. The deliverable here was a public announcement that ukraine was going to conduct investigations into burisma and allege 2016 Election Interference by ukraine, is that correct, sir . Thank you. I understood the deliverable to be the statement that we had been talking about. On august 13th, you and ambassador sondland discussed a Draft Statement from ukraine with mr. Giuliani. Sir, why did you discuss the Draft Statement with mr. Giuliani . Because the idea of the statement had come up from the meeting, and remember mr. Yermak asked me to connect him, and i did, and they had a meeting and they both called me afterwards. Mr. Giuliani thought he said