Congresswoman, i do not know. Looked at the ukrainian officials you spoke to understand that mr. Giuliani was telling them to investigate Vice President bidens son and debunk the 2016 conspiracy theories . Could you say that again . Do you think the ukrainian officials who spoke to understood at the underlying meaning of mr. Giulianis advances, to be both investigating the bidens as well as debunking the 2016 Conspiracy Theory . To be clear, i think you are referring to debunking that it was a russian interference. Exactly. Does the u. S. Foreign policy push for investigation into the bidens . It was not part of any process i participated in. Do you agree that pressing these two investigations was inconsistent with the official u. S. Ukrainian policy . Obviously anticorruption reform is a big part of our policy. I was not in a position to determine whether these particular investigations were appropriate. Is it true that President Trump directed the ukraine call on july 25th to work with mr. Giuliani on these investigations . Thats correct. In fact, mr. Giuliani has made no and said my only client is the president of the United States and hes the one that had the obligation to report to. He adds that the investigations would be very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government. Is it fair to say that the ukrainian officials that you are in contact with given your portfolio were concerned about mr. Giuliani is advances . Yes, they were. In your assessment did they understand the political nature of the request being asked of them . I believe they did. Did they understand it was affecting u. S. Domestic policy . Im not sure what they frankly understood i think they understood the implications. You testified earlier that you warned of the ukrainians not to get involved in the u. S. Domestic policy set, right . I counseled them, yes. In fact, you felt like it was important that you are espousing not just what you thought but tradition and policy and the United States to say that. It is for a fact to be u. S. Policy. Why do you think its important for Foreign Governments not to get involved in Political Affairs in nations like the United States . The first thought that comes to mind is russian interference in 2016, the impact that had on internal politics and the consequence it had a for russia itself. The administration enforced sanctions, heavy sanctions against russia for their interference and that would not be in u. S. Policy. Mr. Colonel, im running out of time. Is it normal for a private citizen, a nonu. S. Government official to get involved in Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs like mr. Rudy giuliani . It certainly wasnt helpful and it didnt help the security interest. Mr. Turner. I want to thank you for your service. Formulating policy with both of our allies and tried to counter. I think we are all very concerned about a european policy and how it can thwart russian aggression. Now Lieutenant Colonel vindman you said you are the principal in your opening, you say you are the principal advisor and you coordinate the u. S. And ukraine policy. Correct . In this statement, i probably eased that back. I had that Job Description in my eval but i certainly spent much more time advising the investor than i did the president. You submitted it and read it today. The National Security advisor and the president on the ukraine. Thats what i had in there yesterday. I chose to ease back in that language even though it was in the language. What im saying is, when i read into the record this morning, it did not say that. Okay, noted. Because you know the ukraine, you know we work through allies and multilateral relations so you know the ukraine is an aspiring member of the e. U. We know the e. U. And the nato have offices in the ukraine. And you would agree that ambassador sondland will be advancing our policy interest with the ukraine at the e. U. And nato. In terms of the specific relationship between nato and the ukraine, that would fall to ambassador hutchinson and between the e. U. And the ukrai ukraine. The mayor Rudy Giuliani promoted false information that undermined the ukrainian policy. Have you ever met giuliani . Just to be accurate, i said false narratives because thats what i said on the record but have never met him. So youve never been in a meeting where he spoke to others about the ukraine . I advised him indirectly and made all of his preparations for the calls. But youve never spoken to the president and told him it advice on the ukraine . Thats correct. He said i attended the inauguration of president zielinski, and the members of the delegation provided President Trump a debriefing. Thats not really accurate, because you werent in that meeting, or you . We just have a note there that that meeting occurred without you. You said that you are responsible for coordinating the u. S. Policy. Ambassador volker . He does not. Does anyone at dod report to you in response to your coordinating with the ukraine . At my level, thats Deputy Assistant i chair those meetings. Do they seek your approval . Thats coordinated by the nsc, correct. Ms. Williams, do you have any information that has testified as part of this impeachment inquiry, either in secret or in public, as either perjured themselves or lied to this committee . I have not read the other testimonies. Do they have any evidence that theyve purged themselves . I have not. Lieutenant vindman, do you have evidence that anyone in this committee has perjured themselves or lied to the committee . Not that im aware of. I yelled back. And q for yielding. I wanted to make one point clear for folks that are watching the hearing today. Bribery does not involve quid pro quo. For something of value. Thats a white house meeting and the official act may be 400 million in military aid and do something of value. The reason we dont ask witnesses that are fact witnesses to make the judgment about whether the bribery has been committed or, what the family has had in mind when they itemize bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors is, you are fact witnesses. It will be our job to decide whether the impeachin impeachabe bribery has occurred and thats what we dont ask those questions. For one thing you are also not aware of all the other facts that have been deduced during the investigation. Thank you chairman. Colonel vindman, you are in a july 10th meeting in ambassador boltons office, correct . Correct. In that meeting the ukrainians asked about when they would get their Oval Office Meeting and ambassador sondland replied that they need to speak about ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president. Is that correct . Thats correct. Colonel vindman, did you learn why he cut the meeting short . And there was a Different Group called the wardroom. That is correct. Did nsc lawyers come, i can tell you to come directly to them, sir, if you had other concerns after july 10th . I believe the words were something to the effect of if you have other concerns, feel free to come back. In this followon meeting, ambassador sondland left in your words and no ambiguity about what specific investigations he was requesting. Ambassador sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation to Vice President joe bidens son, is that correct . And he stated he was asking this request with the White House White house chief of staff mick mulvaney, right . Thats what i heard him say. Colonel, and your career have you ever before witnessed an american official request that a Foreign Government investigated a u. S. Citizen, you immediately raised concerns about this, correct . Thats correct. After i reported it im sorry. Could you say that again . I apologize. Erase concerns about this, correct . What happened . I stated it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with the National Security policy. Did you also raise concern with that date with white house lawyers . I didnt. What did you tell them . Reported the content of the conversation with investor sondland and at that point i wasnt aware that dr. Hill had a conversation so i related what i experienced to the attorney, the Legal Counsel. As we are now aware, ambassador bolden expressed his concerns and instructed dr. Fiona hill, your supervisor, to also meet with the same white house lawyers to tell them what happened. Colonel vindman, i agree there was no question that investor sondland was proposing a transaction to ukrainian officials, trading white house meetings for specific investigations. But the full awareness of the president s chief of staff, white House Attorneys and his National Security advisors. In my view, sir, thats appalling. I yield to the chairman. Thank you gentlemen. I would just point out as where thawell that when the matter dos come, the white house through its counsel have the opportunity to make a submission to the judiciary committee. I now turn to dr. Wentz trip. Thank you mr. Chairman. Lieutenant colonel, thanks very much for being here as an army colonel who served a year in iraq, i appreciate the service and the sacrifice you made during that time and i know the environment. I appreciate the importance of chain of command and in your definition you emphasize the importance of chain of command. You are a direct report to dr. Fiona hill and they were your seniors, correct . That is correct. When you hit concerns about the call between the president s, you didnt go to mr. Morrison about that, did you . So in the deposition can you answer the question please . Please allow him to answer. Reported to Don Eisenberg and i attempted to report to mr. Morrison. But he didnt avail himself and so at that point i was told would you please allow the witness to finish . Thank you. In the morrison deposition on page 5860, the question was do you know if anyone else on the call went to eisenberg to express concerns and the answer was, i learned based on todays proceedings and open source reporting, that did raise concerns. And he reports to you, correct . And it didnt happen after the call on 725, do you have discussions about mr. Morrison about your concerns . For the exercise, i immediately went to the senior nfc Legal Counsel and share those concerns. That would be mr. Eisenberg, correct . Im sorry, my lawyer was talking. Can you say that again . You went to mr. Eisenberg. You already said that so we can go on. You are not a jag officer, and you are not a lawyer. On page 153 of her testimony deposition in reference to that meeting with mr. Eisenberg, he said i was not making a legal judgment, all he was doing was sharing my concerns with my chain of command. Lets establish the role and the title. In your deposition, page 20201 and the colloquy with mr. Stewart, i would say first of all im the director for ukraine and im the most knowledgeable. Im there for the National Security council and the white house. Are you the only one of the entire universe of our government, or otherwise, that can advise the president on the ukraine . Could someone like miss williams also advise on ukraine . Thats not typically what would happen. It would typically be ambassador bolton. So other people can advise on the ukraine besides you. You said i understand all the nuances and context and so forth surrounding these issues. I on my judgment went and expressed concerns within the chain of command which i think to be as a military officer is completely appropriate and i exercise that chain of command. The Lieutenant Colonel said i forward my concerns through the chain of command. Theyd then decide the actions to take. Mr. Morrison is your senior. He didnt know about it. How can he decide an action to take . But thats what he said. On the deposition page 60, what question he said about the 25th phone call. And he said yes in the course of reviewing for this proceeding, reviewing the open will record. The next question, so eisenberg neighbor came to you and relayed to you the conversations . And he said no. Ellis never did either . Not to the best of my recollection. So he was skipped in the chain of command about other concerns. So mr. Morrison said he is the final clearing authority. And let me ask you. Did you insist that the work demand be put into the transcription between the conversation between the two president s . I did not. But you did say that in your Opening Statement today. Thank you and i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman thank you both for your testimony service. Colonel vindman, wasnt at the case that mr. Eisenberg the attorney had sent to you after the july 5 meeting that you should come to him if you have any other concerns . Is it outside of the chain of command . He is the senior between the two, certainly. Our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have been complaining about other witnesses only having secondhand information. But in both your cases you have firsthand information. It that is correct. You and your comments today said i want to state that the file character attacks on that these distinguished and public stude student, servants is reprehensible. Would you like to expand on that at all . Maam, i think they stand on their own. In both your situations since you have given depositions and have you seen your experience in your respective jobs change or have you been treated any differently . I have not, no. Since a report on july 25th, as i stated, i did notice i was being excluded from several meetings which would have been appropriate for my position. So in some respects there have been reprisals . Im not sure i could make that judgment. I would say its out of the course of normal affairs to not have me participate in some of these events. In preparation for the july 25th phone call, its standard for the National Security council to provide talking points, is that correct . Because that important to consider the implications of the president and what they might say to a foreign leader. That is correct. Colonel goodman, you are that a Security Council director, did you participate for the talking points for the president s call . Ive prepared them. So they were then reviewed and edited by multiple Senior Officers at the nsc on the white house, correct . That is correct. If the talking points of the president contained any discussion of the president into the 2016 election, the bidens or burisma . They did not. Are you aware of any written product from the National Security council suggesting that investigations into the 2016 election, that the bidens or burisma are part of the official policy of the United States . No i am not. Some of President Trumps allies have suggested these investigations for policy reasons. In your experience to the official policies of the United States include asking ukraine to specifically open investigations into the bidens and interference by the ukraine and the 2016 election . Nothing that we prepared or had discussed up until that point included any of these elements. Would it ever be u. S. Policy to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation . Certainly a president is still within his right to do that. That allows them to be involved in any transaction and thats thats not something that we participate in. In your opinion to the official policies of the United States involve asking the ukraine to open the investigation into the bidens . I did not see that in our policy or formal policy. And listen to your opening statemenihad chills up and down. I had them recognize what an extraordinary hero that you are to our country and i would say to your father that he did well. I yield back. Mr. Stewart . Thank you both for being here today. I see you are wearing your dress uniform, knowing thats not the uniform of the day, you normally wear a suit to the white house and i think thats a great reminder of your military service. Your example here, very quickly. You quickly corrected him, and wanted to be called Lieutenant Colonel vindman. Do you always insist on civilians referring to your rank . Im in my uniform so i thought it was appropriate to stick with that. The attacks i have had in the press, and twitter have kind of eliminated the fact that im just telling you, the Ranking Member no disrespect to you. Id like to go back to your previous testimony earlier today. Much has been talked about as we have discussed between the President Trump and president zelensky on the word favor. And of this being interpreted as a basis for impeachment. I can paraphrase and feel free to correct me, you said in the military culture which you and i are both familiar with, when a superior officer asked for a favor, they will interpret that as a demand. Is that a fair synopsis of what you previously stated . When a superior makes a request, thats an order. Okay. In short then you think your interpretation of a favor is based upon your military experience in the military culture . I think that is correct. I think that is correct. Is President Trump a member of the military . Is president zelensky a member of the military . I dont believe so. I dont know. He is not. Would it be fair then to take a person who has never served in the military and to take your reevaluation of their words based on your military experience and your military culture and to attach that culture and the meaning of those words to someone who has never served . Representative, i made that judgment and i stick by that judgment. I have to tell you i think its nonsense. I was in the military, i could distinguish between an order and a command and so could my subordinates. He has been very clear. He said, i never felt any pressure at all. So you interpreted the word favor but the two people speaking to each other did not interpret that as a demand. That was your interpretation, is that fair . The context of that call consistent with the july 10th meeting and with the reporting that was going on including the president s personal attorney made it clear that this was not simply a request. Thats not clear at all. That makes it clear. And at the two individuals that were talking to each other didnt interpret it that way. Id like to go on to discuss your previous phone call and testimony. Your attorney is welcome to follow on, i did not know whether this was a crime or anything of that nature. I thought it was wrong. And id like to key in on the word wrong. Did i consider this factor that could have been other implications . Yes. But it wasnt the basis of lodging a criminal complaint or anything like that. Your concerns regarding this phone call were not legal, they were based on moral, ethical and policy differences. He said this was wrong, not illegal but wrong. There are dozens of corrupt nations in the world, hundreds of corrupt government officials, exactly one time, did the Vice President go to the nation and demanded the specific firing of one individual, and to give a six hour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold a billion dollars in aid . It was the individual who was investigating the company that was paying his son. So i will ask you, was that also wrong . Thats not i dont have any firsthand knowledge of that. Ive seen the video. Everything i just said to you was in the video. Was that wrong as well . That was something i actually participated in. The time has expired. Colonel vindman, if youd like to answer the question you are welcome. I frankly dont know anymore about that incident. I saw the snippet of the video but i dont think i could make a judgment of that. Mr. Quigley . Thank you mr. Chairman. Colonel, its one thing to ask somebody a favor like, hey go pick up my dry cleaning. Its another when the commander in chief of the most powerful army in the world asks an ally who is in a vulnerable position to do him a favor, is it not . Yes. Let me go back to that military assistance, if i could do. Ms. Williams, again. When do you first learned of the Security Assistance was being held up, the nearly 4 million that was referenced . July 3. Were you aware of any additional or did you attend any additional meetings in which the military assistance being withheld was discussed . I did. I attended meetings on july 23rd and july 26th. I believe it may have been discussed. At that point did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold . In those meetings the omb representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the white house chief of staff. And did they give reasons beyond it was being withheld by the white house chief of staff . Not specifically. The reason given was that there was an ongoing review, whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities. Did anyone in any of those meetings and subsequent discussions that you had discussed the legality of what was holding that aid . There were discussions i believe in july 31st meeting and possibly prior as well. Depict state Department Officials are seeing how they would handle and that was a level of funding that is designated and resolved as the funding continue to be held. And with what you witnessed, did anyone in the National Security Community Support withholding that assistance . No. Again just for the record, when did you learn the Security Assistance was being withheld . On or about july 3rd. And one exactly had you heard from the state department i believe that prompted you to draft the notice on july 3rd . On or about july 3rd, i became aware of inquiries into assistance funding in general. There are two typical pots, the state department and dod. I believe that was around that date that omb put a hold on congressional notification. Prior to that there were some general inquiries on how the funds were being spent. No hold certainly. No one from the state departme state department, no one from the department of connection who raise those concerns . The following, july 18th, sub pcc which again is what i coordinate and what i convene at that level, there was a july 23rd pcc that would have been conducted by mr. Morrison as to the legality of the hold. The issue was analyzed, during the july, and that was of the opinion there was, it was the hold was legal. From a purely legal point of view. Okay. Thank you for being here and thank you for your service. As millions of americans are watching through the hysteria and frenzied media coverage, two things havent changed. And number two there was no investigation into the bidens. My question to you both today will focus on the following. Systemic corruption in ukraine, and highlighting to the public that by law 80 ukraine has anticorruption efforts and who has the Decisionmaking Authority when it comes to security and authority matters . As ambassador yovanovitch testified, one of the key reasons why he was elected by the ukrainian people was they were finally standing up to rampant corruption in the country. What you both agree with the investors assessment . Yes. And ms. Williams, corruption was such an issue that when you prepared the Vice President for his congratulation call, you testified that the point you wanted to communicate on the call were the following. Look forward to seeing president zelensky really implement on the agenda on which he had run, related to anticorruption reforms. Thats correct. And would you agree that this is a critical aspect on a policy to the ukraine . I would. Lieutenant colonel vindman, you are aware that the anticorruption investigation partnered between the u. S. And the ukraine, was it to the owner of the company of burisma . Im aware of that now. You testified that burisma had questionable business dealings as part of its track record. You also testified that money laundering, tax evasion, comports with your understanding of how the business has been done. Im not aware of specific instances but my understanding is that it would not be out of the realm of possibilities for burisma. You are aware that hunter biden did sit on the board of burisma at this time . I am. I know my constituents in 2021 was aware of the fact that the Obama Administration and state department was also concerned and yet adam schiff refuses to call hunter biden despite a request. Every witness who has testified and has asked has answered yes. Do you agree that hunter biden on the board of burisma has the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest. Certainly the potential, yes. And miss williams . Yes. Shifting to Lieutenant Colonel vindman, you testified that congress had passed under the ukrainian assistant Security Initiative and a legal obligation to certify that was being addressed. If that is correct. You also testified its qualified by the National Defense authorization act. So for the public listening we are just a mic not just talking about President Trump focusing on anticorruption and the ukraine but it is so critical and so important that hard earned tax. Dollars when given to foreign nations, that by law, overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anticorruption in the ukraine in order to get u. S. Taxpayerfunded aid. Lieutenant colonel vindman, you spoke extensively about legal aid to the ukraine specifically chaplains. This was in your definition. Correct. You testified that the chaplain in particular because of its influence in afflicting the russian calculus for aggression, its one of the most important tools that we have when it comes providing defensive legal aid. Yes. And that aid was provided under President Trump and not president obama . Thats correct. And i served in the west wing of the white house for president bush on the Domestic Policy Council and in the chief of staff office so im very familiar with the policy process. I also know that as a staff member the person who sits a policy of the United States is the president , not the staff. You testified that the president sets the policy, correct . That is correct. And i respect you ar your trs service to our country but i was struck when you testified in her deposition. I would say first of all im the director for the ukraine, im the most knowledgeable, on the authority for the ukraine. On the authority for the National Council and the white house. You report to tim morrison, correct . Your direct report is tim morrison, correct . Just to clarify, only in my advisory capacity. I advised up to the chain of command. So do you agree that the president s of the policy as commander in chief as you testified previously . Absolutely. Thank you, my time is expired. Mr. Swalwell, i know my colleague from new york did not ask you but its relevant for everyone at home, isnt it true that the department of defense had certified that the anticorruption requirements of the ukraine had been met when the hold was put on by the president . That is correct. Now mr. Jordan suggested that the president did something none of us expected by releasing that call transcript. You listen to the call, is that right . Ms. Williams, you also listen to the call . Fair to say ms. Williams a lot of other people at the white house listen to the call or read the transcript . I cant characterize how many. I believe there were five or six of us in the listening room at that time. Yes thats my understanding. So the president is asking for us to give him a gold star because a number of people listen to the call or saw the call transcript and then he released it. The difference of course between this and say his oneonone meeting in meeting in helsinki with Vladimir Putin was there, it was a one on one meeting and he took the notes from the interpreter so none of us could see it. The point being the president had no choice but to release the call that everyone had seen. Youve been asked to also characterize what exactly legally all of this means and mr. Radcliffe pointed out that no one had used the term bribery in our depositions. Ms. Williams, you are not by a lawyer, are you . Im not. Your lawyer is your brother, born 20 seconds after you . 9 minutes. I wanted to give you a hypothetical. Suppose you have a shooting victim and the Police Respond after the victim is doing a little bit better. And the victim says someone came up to my car, shot into the car and hit me in the shoulder in the neck and i survived. Miraculously i can identify who the persons that pulled the trigger. The police said okay, you were shot and you know who it is. But, you didnt tell us that this was an attempted murder so we are going to have to let the person go. Is that how it works in our justice system, and less victims or witnesses identify the legal theories of the case, then we let people off the hook . Im not an attorney but it doesnt seem so. I dont think your brother would think so either. Your a voracious reader of his intelligence read a book and after the april 21 call with president zelensky you put a transcript of that call in the Vice President s read book, correct . Thats correct. Then the Vice President called president zelensky two days later. You told us in the deposition that he stuck pretty faithfully to what President Trump had said in that april 21 call, is that right . I believe his remarks were consistent but he also spoke on other issues as well including anticorruption. Would describe the Vice President is someone who would make followup calls to World Leaders after the president had done so, is that right . He has on occasion, its not a normal practice. It depends on the situation. In that case he stuck to President Trumps talking points . I would say i provided talking points for the Vice President for the april 23rd call which included the discussion of president zelenskys inauguration which President Trump had also discussed with president zelensky. I would say Vice President discussed other issues as well. And was stated earlier, the president sets of Foreign Policy for the United States, is that right . Absolutely. You said after the call, you put the call transcript in Vice President pences intelligence briefing book, is that right . I ensured it was there. My colleagues prepare the book. So flash forward, Vice President pence meets with president zelensky, and you were there. They talk about a lot of things but you will agree that Vice President pence did not bring up the bidens, is that correct . Thats correct, he did not. He did not bring up investigations . No. Is it reasonable expectations that although Vice President trump will do a lot of things for President Trump, he was not willing to bring up investigations on the bidens because he thought it was wrong . I mean not in a position to speculate. We had not discussed those in any of the preparatory sessions with the president. But you did not bring it up . No. Lieutenant colonel vindman, did you ask them to do that after the july 25th phone call . I did not. Mr. Heard . Mr. Williams, ms. Williams, i want to join my colleagues in congratulating you for your service. Did you participate in or overhear any conversations about how potential information collected from the ukrainians on the bidens would be used for political gain . I did not participate or overhear any conversations along those lines. Thank you. Lieutenant colonel vindman, i think all of us would agree that your father made the right move to come here. Youve talked about how part of your responsibility is developing talking points for your principles, is that correct . Thats correct. And im assuming you also do that for your direct supervisor . Mr. Morrison has left the position sometime ago already, at least three weeks ago. Did you prepare talking points for your supervisor . Typically and frankly at that level we dont take talking points, especially if we have expertise. The talking points are more intended for National Security advisor, although ambassador bolton didnt really require them because of his expertise. The next level up traditionally im trying to establish his position and talking points for a number of people, is that correct . If that is correct. Do they always use them . No. Is President Trump known to stick to a script . I dont believe so. So is it odd that he didnt use your talking points . No it is not. In your deposition, if your lawyer wants to follow along its page three oh six. You asked about events during the temporary hold on u. S. Assistance to the ukraine, and you testified that the u. S. Administration did not receive any new assurances from the ukraine about anticorruption efforts, and the facts on the ground it did not change before the hold was lifted, is that accurate in recounting your testimony . That is accurate. One was president zelensky sworn in . He was sworn in on may 20th, 2019. And when was that parliament cited . That was im sorry, july 21st 2019. And they werent properly seated until august . Thats right. Your boss boss and ambassador bolton traveled to the ukraine in late august. Is that correct . Thats correct. And did he take you with him . He did not. When investor bolton was there he met with president zelensky and his staff and they talked about how there were visually exhausted. One of the things that president zelensky did during that time period was change the ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from retta deputies. Right there, some of their parliamentarians. That was a source of corruption for a number of years, is that accurate . That was accurate. Were you aware of this important change to ukrainian law . And you dont believe in that corruption effort . President zelensky with this new parliament opens ukraines high anticorruption court. This had been an initiative that many folks and you in our state apartment had been pushing to happen, and that was established in that time frame. Were you aware of this . Yes. Do you think this was significant anticorruption . I do. When you talked about how many times have you met president zelensky . I think it was just the one time, multiple engagements but just the one trip. And they were all there was never a oneonone. So the bilateral meeting handshake meet and greet . You still advise the ukrainian president to watch out for the russians . Yes. And everyone else in the room, im assuming the National Security advisor was there. I believe in this case, we have other members of the administration. Did you bring up those points . We had a huddle before hand but its possible i flagged him, but i dont recall specifically. And you counseled the Ukrainian Government to stay out of politics . Thats correct. Thank you chairman. Ms. Williams, thank you for your service to our country. Its great to talk to a fellow identical twin. I hope your brother is nicer to you than mine are nicer to me and doesnt make you grow a beard. You both listened in realtime to that july 25th call. In particular you would have had President Trump asked ukraine, id like you to find out what would have happened and they would say crowd struck. They say ukraine has eight. This is that debunked Conspiracy Theory that has no basis in fact. President trumps own Homeland Security advisor called the president s assertion that ukraine intervened in the 2016 election not only a Conspiracy Theory but completely debunked. Is there evidence to support the theory that the Ukrainian Government interviewed in the 2016 election . Congressman, i am not. And are you aware that other parts of the intelligence government or other communities that, its not inconsistent to me that President Trump will be given credence to a Conspiracy Theory about the ukraine that helps russia in really at least two ways. First it ignores and frankly undermines the assessment of the u. S. Intelligence committee and seeks to weaken a state dependent on the United States support to fight russian aggression. Also for the United States, it hurts our National Security and emboldens russia. I want to look at what President Trump was doing on this call instead of pushing back against russian hostility. He was pressuring the ukraine to do his political work. President trump stated, theres a lot of talk about bidens son. He 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. Do you find that to be consistent with the u. S. Policy . I did not. In fact it sounds like President Trump was encouraging ukrainian president to engage in precisely the same type of behavior we discourage foreign leaders from undertaking their own country. And are you in fact aware of any evidence that Vice President biden improperly interfered an investigation of of his family members . I am not. These false narratives it should be said are damaging our country. They poison our politics and pressing another country to engage in corruption is antithetical as a nation. He also mentioned that you felt this request was wrong and you also said you felt corruption in the ukraine is endemic in the ukraine just as it is other places around the world. Can you speak to, what is the danger of the president of the United States, whether its donald trump or any future president , asking another nation where there is a rampant corruption to investigate a political rival or what would be the danger to that american . The reliance on u. S. Support could conceivably cause them to tip the scales of justice in favor of finding a u. S. Guilty. So they could trump up charges if they wanted to in a crumpled system like that. Certainly more broadly in russia, thats likely to happen and thats additional outcomes and dry them. Thank you, i yield back. Ms. Williams, you testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25, the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue. Correct . Correct. But raising the issue, even when you thought was unusual is different than making a demand, would you agree . Correct. And as i read the deposition it didnt sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call is a demand for investigation, is that correct . I dont believe im in a position to characterize it further other than the president asking for a favor. You didnt hear a demand . I would refer back to the transcript itself. Lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified and explained to us why in your mind it was a demand and you have given us reasons, the disparity of power between the two president s. And because you did feel that way you felt like you had the duty to report what you thought was improper, is that correct . That is correct. So two different people, one felt the need to report the call because there was a demand that was improper in one that didnt report it to anyone. You didnt report it to anyone, right, ms. Williams . I ensure that the information was available to my superiors. So while this might seem as clear as mud i think youre honest and candid assessments of what you heard on the call tells us what we need to know. These two folks, nonpartisans, but im not hearing a consensus between the two of you about what exactly you both heard on the call that you heard at the exact same time. And if you cant reach an agreement with regard to what have been on the call, how can any of us . The impeachment inquiry is supposed to be clear, it supposed to be obvious. Its supposed to be overwhelming and compelling. And that is not a clear and compelling basis and remove a president from office. I yield my remaining time to mr. Jordan. Colonel vindman, why didnt you cal go for mr. Morrison . I went to medially per the instructions from the july 10th incident. And i attempted to try to talk to mr. Morrison. That didnt happen before i received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further. So, the lawyer you not only didnt go to your boss, what ended up unfolding was, you had conversations with the attorney. I did my core function, which is coordination. I spoke to the appropriate people. And mr. Eisenberg told me not to talk to anybody there. Mr. Eisenberg, he told me to take my concerns to him. And, theres a period of time in it wasnt that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to enough time to talk to someone who you want i will assume it is, right . Ive been instructed not to, representative jordan. Hes what im getting. He told you not to talk to any of the people and you interpret that as not talking to your boss. But you talked to your brother, you talked to the lawyers, you talked to secretary kent, and the one guy adam schiff will let you tell us who he is. Is that right . Representative jordan, i did my job. Im not saying you didnt. All im saying is the instructions from the lawyer where that you shouldnt