About fighting corruption, we should also say specifically, burisma in 2016. Mr. Yermak provided me a statement. I wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. Giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to President Trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. The problem being that he is getting a bad set of information, a Statement Like this could potentially correct that. Was mr. Guiliani satisfied with the statement . No, he was not. He believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, would not mean anything. So in fact, mr. Guiliani wanted a statement that Referenced Burisma and the 2016 elections explicitly. One that would benefit, essentially, President Trump. It is to invest or come here is the text you sent to the ukrainian official on August August 13th. Lets put that up on the screen. You said, hi, good talking. Following is a text with an insert at the end for the two key items. Mr. Investor, those two key items for specific references to burisma and the 2016 elections, is that . That is correct. Did mr. Giuliani dictate those items to you . We had just had a conversation to describe the conversation we had just had with mr. Guiliani. Mr. Guiliani said he would have to conclude these things for them to be convincing for him. I shared it with Andriy Yermak to say, this is what we were talking about. I put it back in just to be
clear to the ukrainians, this is what the conversation was. Mr. Ambassador, if you believe the statement that mr. Guiliani dictated in august was not a good idea, why were the ukrainian still considering giving an interview with the same themes in september . If i may, congressman, i conveyed this to the ukrainians in order to be clear so we knew what the conversation was about. It was following up on this prior conversation. The ukrainians then said they had reasons not to do that, they described those reasons, then they agreed to scrap the statement. From that point on i didnt have any further conversations about the statement. I dont know how it came up or why it came up, a possibility of president zelensky doing an interview with u. S. Media later saying Something Like this and in the end, he didnt do that either. Thank you, sir. Mr. Morrison, he said that the president s requests were not consistent with u. S. Policy . I emphatically agree with you, sir. These Text Messages show that Ambassador Volker spent much of august pressing ukraine for requests. We can only be grateful, i guess, if the president essentially got caught, and Congress Passed a law to ensure the funding was released to ukraine before it was too late. Thank you both for your service. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I want to start, if i can, with you mr. Morrison. Discussing the 7 25 phone call and the concerns that Lieutenant Colonel vindman had. Colonel vindman came with you with edits to the transcript and you stated you accepted all of his edits, is that correct . I would have accepted all the
edits that i believed were faithful to what was actually discussed. Did he come to you with an added and said that the word demand should be in there . I dont recall that specifically. He didnt either. How soon after the phone call, did he talk on the particular issue . We got the draft, as was normal, fairly quickly after that same day. He said i reported my concerns to mr. Eisenberg, it is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign official to investigate a political opponent. He was going to mr. Eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation, yet he did not at any point on the edits say there should be a demand. He didnt do that, but he did say that he didnt come to you with his concerns because you werent available. But that same day he came to you with edits. Is that correct . I believe that is generally correct. Yes, sir. He said you werent available. And you didnt hear the president make a demand. Did you . No, sir. So sometime between the call and today, Lieutenant Colonel vindman it mustve been hearing some voices, and he heard demand at the time. But he didnt hear it that day and he didnt make it an issue that day, but today he does. I think that is pretty bizarre. When Lieutenant Colonel vindman went to legal mr. Eisenberg, do you know if he was advised not to speak to you . I dont have any firsthand knowledge of that, no, sir. Do you know if he was involved to contact the ig ic . No, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. So you dont know what he was advised when he went to legal . I do not. Thank you, i appreciate that. Mr. Volker, ive got to tell you i really enjoy your opening testimony. I know that it was long but it was extremely well done. I appreciate it. You talk about letters signed, Sharing Concerns about leadership in your assigned country. About agreeing with and sometimes disagreeing with the leadership of your own country when you felt it was appropriate. You were the boots on the ground for the administration. Lets face it, youre part of that team that is there to serve the country in that way. That all, to me, sounded like the works of a very good diplomat and i want to thank you for that. Thank you, sir. It is truly appreciated. And corruption was a concern, legitimately, in ukraine and in many ways. Mr. Jordan pointed out some of the things that were done by ukrainians in plain sight, i might use that term. In plain sight by putting off ads in our newspapers. And certainly more than one country can be trying to influence our elections. Would you agree with that . I agree with that. We keep hearing the whole thing about ukrainians, that has all been debunked. It was just the russians. That comes from an ic community that some of the people have come up with those conclusions are some of the very people that we are going to find out, if we havent already, were deeply involved with this whole russian collusion hoax. But i want to say you did a great job. Youve added zelenskys intentions. What he intended to be as a president. Would you say that is accurate . Yes, that is in fact one of the key objectives of the inauguration, to take our own judgment and report back to the president. And that is what your job should be. And you became comfortable but this president , is that correct . Yes, i did. And you work to assure our president that you were comfortable with this president. Is that correct . That is correct. In some ways you have to work through any means available. And that might include working
with Rudy Giuliani, if it could be helpful to you to get that message and advice to the president. Speak i believe the messages conveyed by Rudy Giuliani were a problem because they were at vae with our official message to the president , and not conveying the positive assessment we all had. I thought it was important to try to step in and fix the problem. In that, i think you turned a useful barometer of where things were. There are useful barometers that come in useful figures like Dennis Rodman saying youve got a friend if they can help the cause. In that situation it is not illegal. Thank you very much, ambassador. Chairman, thank you. And thank you both for your participation today and for your service. I want to take us out of some 30,000 feet for a minute and talk about coverups. Except for the fact that the whistleblower came forward, we wouldnt know any thing about this, but for the fact that the Inspector General of the cia found it to be both urgent and credible, we wouldnt know anything about it. Mr. Morrison, you said that after you heard the call, you went directly to the attorney and the National Security council and recommended that they be limited access, and they were subsequently put into a special server. The white house has not released any documents whatsoever to this committee. So do you, mr. Volker, thank you, but for the fact that you as a private citizen with your own personal phone and your Text Messages with mr. Guiliani and ambassador sondland, and mr. Yermak and whoever else, but for those Text Messages that weve been putting up on the
screen all day, we would have nothing. Nothing. And this coverup would be complete. Thats something we should think about. Now, on july 19th, you had breakfast with Rudy Giuliani at the trump hotel, correct . Correct. In that conversation at one point, he brought up mr. Lukashenko, and you brought up, whatever mr. Lukashenko is saying, that is not credible. Is that correct . Then he brought up mr. Biden and im going to quote you here, ive known him for a long time. He is a person of integrity. Two giuliani, simply not credible to me. Joe biden would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money or his son or anything like that. Weve had many discussions about
these investigations into burisma and biden and the 2016 crowd strike server. And you in that conversation with mr. Giuliani basically debunked all of that. Now at that time, at that breakfast, who else was with you at that breakfast . There was someone that mr. Giuliani brought along. Later learned that weve learned a lot about him since then. Mr. Lev parnas was at that breakfast, and we now know that mr. Lev parnas has since been indicted for Foreign Campaign contributions to President Trumps Political Action committee. Is that correct . I have seen that. On may 23rd, you were in that discussion with the president , and at one point, he referred to
zelensky having terrible people around him. Who do you think he was calling terrible people around him . There were two people that came to mind. One of them was a former investigative journalist and leader parliamentarian. He come in many of these stories, is seen as bringing forth a black ledger relating to Paul Manaforts dealings in ukraine peer that was one person. Another person i thought it could be referring to is zelenskys chief of president ial administration. He was known as a lawyer from one of the main oligarchs in ukraine. And there is a lot of controversy at the time about him being appointed to the administration. Do you think of them is terrible people . I dont think either one of them is terrible people, no. Thank you. Mr. Morrison, earlier in testimony that was elicited from
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you indicated that others had represented to you that Colonel Vindman leaked. Do you remember saying that . Yes, maam,. Colonel vindman this morning under oath said that he did not, does not leak. Would you, therefore, want to maybe rearrange your comments about the references you made to Colonel Vindman . No, maam. Even though under oath he said he has never leaked, you believing people who said to you that he may have leaked . Maam, i didnt believe or disbelieve them, that is what they told me. They told you, so you decided to continue to put that forward, even though you have no evidenc evidence. No, maam. Thank you, i yelled back. Im sorry, chairman, if i
could answer. Maam, that is incorrect. They, dr. Hill, others raised concerns about alex, those concerns were noted, i didnt take them at face value. I treated them as representations of others. I was on alert but i formed my own judgments. I took no action based on the statements of someone else that i couldnt independently validate. Thank you, gentlemen. Welcome to impeachpalooza 2019, which is the democratic effort to convince the American People to impeach President Trump out of sheer boredom. It turns out impeachment is boring if you dont have any compelling evidence. The good news is im going to be very, very brief. We are going on ten plus hours. I will be brief but the bad news is most of my colleagues after me wont. We still have some time to go. Vaster vulgar, quickly, do you think someone should be immune from investigation of suspected ethical or criminal activity just because they were a candidate for office, even for office of the president of the United States . I dont think anyone should be above the law. Of course, that is absurd. What are some of these alleged criminal offenses occurred in another country question what would it be the responsible to ask for the other countrys hel . There are channels for american citizens who may have committed crimes abroad. Again, to seek their governments help is not unusual at all. That is correct and we often have treated for that. Thank you and that is the
only thing the president was doing here. Mr. Morrison, i wonder if you could briefly, to Colonel Vindmans testimony where he described the six people, i believe it was a five or six people that were in a situation listening to this phone call between the two president s. Colonel vindman described these two president s, he said there was no reason to question their integrity or professionalism. You agree with the description of these National Security staff is Exceptional People . They are patriots, yes. People of great integrity and professionalism was mark yes, sir. Did any of these exceptional individuals, people of unquestioned integrity and professionalism indicate to you that they had thought that the president of the United States had engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior as a result of this phone call . Not that im aware of, congressman. Did any of them suggested to you in any way that they thought
the president was involved in bribery or anything associated with that . Not that im aware of, congressman. It only leaves two possible explanations. Either these individuals from what weve described is of great integrity are not true, which i dont believe, or they just interpreted in ambiguous competition very differently then did Colonel Vindman. And one thing, as an air force officer, i never understood why President Obama was against providing aid to ukraine. You have some insight into why they refused to do that . I would only point of the statements from the administration at the time. There was a perception that our allies would oppose it. That germany would oppose it. There was a perception that germany should be in the lead. There was a perception that it could be provocative to rush her or escalate conflict. As ive said come extensively at the time, and as special representative, i dont agree with those arguments. I believe it is actually very
important. I agree with you, investor. I think you got it right and i think President Trump got it right. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, i want to direct your attention to a meeting you had with Ambassador Taylor and mr. Yermak, september 14th. Do you recall this many . I believe we had dinner around the time of the conference. Okay. Do you remember discussing with mr. Yermak ukraines intent to investigate their former president . I remember raising the issue, the possibility of prosecutions. They brought it up and you talked about your intention. Excuse me, im sorry. To be clear, there was a lot of talk in kiev at that time about whether the new team would be prosecuting the former presiden
president. And i had met with president poroshenko, i had met with others in the opposition as well, and i wanted to call mr. Yermaks attention to the potential problems of this. Im very familiar with other examples of countries in the region that have gone for prosecutions of the former government and these have created deep divisions in society. So i cited president zelenskys inauguration speech. Im sorry, his National Day Speech from august 24th that was all about unifying the country. And i cautioned mr. Yermak to say that pursuing prosecution of president poroshenko risks deepening the divisions in the country, exactly the opposite of what president zelensky says he wants to do. So it is fair to describe it, you discourage them from such action . I discouraged them, i raised concerns about what the potential impact would be. What was mr. Yermaks response . I believed i refreshed him on this in the testimonies of others. Mr. Taylor and mr. Kent. I believe based on that testimony that mr. Yermak said, you mean like asking us to investigate clinton and biden . So it was something along the lines of, its okay for you to ask us to investigate the manner in which you are, these socalled investigations, but you dont want us to investigate her own president . Is that fair the way you describe this . I didnt quite understand what he was referring to because to my knowledge we werent asking to investigate clinton or biden. So i was kind of puzzled by the remark and that is why i didnt respond. Did you go investigate what he might have met or ask anybody . I took it something of a deflection from the point i was making,. In all this time, mr. Guiliani in may or september, he mentioned the biden investigation, he mentioned biden over 50 times and twentysomething time in relation to ukraine. None of that stirred your curiosity . You just now finally came to this point . As i testified, i met with giuliani once and he did mention biden and i pushed back on that and made a clear distinction that ukraine investigating its own citizens in corruption it would be fine. Going beyond that to say we are going to investigate the Vice President is not fine. Did you have any discussions with anyone in the administration about concerns about the investigation into poroshenko . Yes. I know that i raised this with Ambassador Taylor in advance with that. We had been in some of the same meetings, some of the country team there. I dont know if i had raised it with george kent or not. I may well have done but it was something we had discussed as part of our meetings in kiev that time. I yield to the chairman. Ambassador, when you had this conversation and he urged ukrainians not to investigate or prosecute the former president poroshenko, their response was, you mean like you are asking us to investigate the clintons and the bidens . That was their response . That is what i recall now from seeing Ambassador Taylors testimony. You didnt understand that at the time, but at the time had you read the call record . No. If you read the call record, that makes a little more sense, doesnt it . Yes. I was curious about something you said earlier. That the 2016 Conspiracy Theory of lukashenko had no merit but you didnt see any harm of ukraine investigating it if they wanted to investigate it. Yes. Dont they have enough legitimate corruption to investigate without spending
time investigating a debunked Conspiracy Theory . There is all kinds of corruption to investigate and ukraine. But nonetheless you proposed they did this investigation, or something you thought without merit, because this was part of an effort to fix the problem that giuliani was creating . I did not propose it. But i think you said you were okay with it. Or you amended a statement to seem to include it, because if it would help fix the Giuliani Problem. It was that the thinking . Yes, sir. That was correct. If it threads the needle between what is reasonable for ukraine to do and resets the negative perceptions held by mr. Giuliani and then the president , then why not. This is part of what you described in your Opening Statement as your effort to come if you see a problem, to fix it. Is it clear to you now, Ambassador Volker, based on the September 25th Call that you are not able to fix it . Based on the transcript that was released on the 25th, i can see now that there was a lot else going on that was about
Vice President biden that i knew at the time. And the efforts that i was making were clearly not in the context of what had already been discussed by the president on july 25th. Its fair to say you were not able to fix the Giuliani Problem . That is correct. Thank you, Ambassador Volker and mr. Morrison, for your years of service and your professional expertise and leadership on National Security issues. I want to particularly thank mr. Morrison for his great work on the House Armed Services committee on which i serve. I wanted to start with the July 25th Call between President Trump and president zelensky. Mr. Morrison, you were on that call and there was no mention of Withholding Aid on that call, is that correct . That is correct. And there was no quid pro quo, correct . Correct. No bribery . Correct. No extortion. Correct. Ambassador volker, i assume you got a read out of the call,
correct . Very terse readout, yes. In this readout, was there any reference to Withholding Aid . There was none. Any reference to bribery . There was none. Any reference to quid pro quo . There was none. Any reference to extortion . There was none. I assume you got feedback from your ukrainian counterparts . Did they mention any Withholding Aid or quid pro quo . No, they did not. Did they mention any bribery . No, they did not. Speak of the day the call you met with president Zelensky On E made no mention of a quid pro quo. He made no mention of withholding to aid or bribery. No. The fact is that ukrainians were not even aware of this hold on aid. End of the coming weeks, you were in touch with ukrainians as part of your official duties, and this included talking to
ukrainians over the phone, in person, on text, and the ukrainians never brought up an investigation into the bidens. Is that correct . That is correct. They never brought up the withholding of the aid . Correct. They never brought up quid pro quo or bribery . Let me bring up the aid, they did bring that up after the politico article. I will get to that. Until the political article, they did not bring it up. You said in your deposition, it never came up in conversation with them and i believe they had trust in me that they wouldve asked if that was really what they were worried about. Is that correct . That is correct. As you pointed out, the ukrainians never even knew their foreign aid was on pause until the political article was published in august. So they didnt know during the call. That is correct. You had to correct chairman of the committee on this timeline, he asked you, when they became aware that
military assistant was being withheld for a reason you couldnt explain, no one could explain, werent they under even greater pressure to give the president what they asked for all the call . And you answered, to my knowledge, the news about a hold on Security Assistance did not get into Ukrainian Government circles as indicated to me by the current foreign minister, then diplomatic advisor, until the end of august. Is that your testimony . Yes, it is. And chairman schiff also got the facts wrong again when he asked you this, at the point they learned their aid was paused, wouldnt that give them added urgency to meet the president s request on the bidens . And do you answered Ambassador Volker, i think the ukrainians feel they are going on the right direction. They had not done anything on an investigation. It is indeed the case, Ambassador Volker, chairman schiff said to you when you were truthfully testifying, ambassador, youre making this
much more complicated than it has to be. Page 127 from the deposition. Is that correct . Speak i remember that. But the truth is the facts are indeed not complicated. I will close out with two questions for the both of you. Did you create an open investigations . Not to my knowledge, man. Ambassador volker . Not to my knowledge, either. Did either of you have any evidence of quid pro quo . No, maam. Any evidence of bribery . No, maam. Any evidence of treason . No man. No evidence of treason. With that, i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Morrison, did ambassador bolton want the security aid hold left . Yes, congressman. He did. You testified he had a oneonone meeting with
President Trump related to ukraine Security Assistance, is that right . Can you point to where i testify that . On page 266 266, he said ambassador bolton had a oneonone meeting with President Trump in august, but the president was not yet ready to approve the release of the assistance. 226 . 266 and 268. But i am asking you, did that happen or did that knock was mark i just want to be clear. Okay, yes, sir. I see. You testified to that. What was the outcome of that meeting between ambassador bolton and President Trump. Ambassador bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the assistance. Did ambassador bolton inform me of any reason of the ongoing hold that stemmed from this meeting . No, sir. Mr. Morrison, do you consider yourself loyal to the president . Yes, sir,. And the president executes the Foreign Policy of the United States. Is that right . Well, sir, i would say he sets it. Right. And as a staffer and someone who serves in the military, it s your job to faithfully execute the Foreign Policy priorities of the president. My oath is to obey all lawful orders. On july 25, you listen to the president of the United States talk to the president of ukraine. Is that correct . Correct. Regardless of what you have prepared as far as talking points for that call with the president , you heard the president of the United States ask the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens. Is that correct . Yes, sir, he made a request. After the July 25th Call between President Trump and the ukrainian president , is it fair to say you talk to your ukrainian counterparts a number of times . Yes or. How many times, when you talk
to your ukrainian counterparts, did you ask them to investigate the bidens . Never, sir. Why not . Sir, it was not a Policy Objective that i was aware of. With all due respect, mr. Morrison, youre not in the white house to carry out your Policy Objectives. You just testified that the president s at the Foreign Policy objectives for the United States, and the one call that you listen to between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine, the president of the United States priorities were to investigate the bidens. Im asking you, sir, why didnt you follow up on the president s priorities when you talked to to the ukrainians . I did not understand it as a Policy Objective. Mr. Morrison, i know that you put that conversation in a server because, as you said, you fear to the political and some other reasons you gave. But you also chose to defy the
president s request to not come here, as other have, like mr. Mulvaney and mr. Bolton. And you have come here, and youve been truthful. And i appreciate that. Mr. Morrison, whether you acknowledge it publicly or not, i believe that you knew that what the president asked the ukrainians to do was wrong. And as you just described, your duty is to follow the Foreign Policy priorities of the president , but also only follow something that is a lawful order. And i believe you didnt think that was a lawful order and that is why he didnt follow up on those priorities. Mr. Volker, weve heard so much today about how this president is such an anticorruption president. He really cared about fighting corruption. Is russia a corrupt country . Are we talking about president zelensky . No, President Trump. Is russia a corrupt country . Yes, it is. And President Trump has met a number of times in person with president putin. Is that correct . Yes, a few times. And he has had a number of phone calls with president putin. Is turkey a corrupt country because mark yes, i believe so. Yet despite their corruption, there president had an audience with the president of the United States. Is that correct . Yes, it is. Finally, mr. Guiliani told the New York Times, President Trump basically knows what im doing as his lawyer. Are you familiar with that statement to to the New York Times . No, im not. Would you agree, as someone who has a lawyer sitting next to you, that a lawyer acts on a clients behalf and only on a clients behalf . I believe that a lawyer acts on his clients behalf. Im not sure only on a clients behalf, because as i understood mayor giuliani in this case, he was doing a lot that i consider to be on his own. I dont believe he was always
instructed. Not meddling in an election, meddling in an investigation, he didnt say i do, he said we. Im taking them from the testimony. I yield back. My colleague from california suggests he knows your opinions and thoughts better than you did. He didnt give you the opportunity to respond. Do you want to give a response . No, sir. I heard the president made a request. I received no direction at any time to attempt to lead a Policy Process different from what i laid out in my deposition. I was directed to launch a process to ensure a unity of opinion as to the importance of continuing Security Sector assistance and that is what i did. I acted upon the direction i was given. Good copy. While we are with you, thank you
for your clear and sober testimony today. Did you participate in or overhear any conversation about how political information collected by ukraine on the bidens would be used for political gain . No, sir,. Ambassador volker, same question. Did you participate in or overhear any conversations about how potential information collected by ukraine on the bidens would be used for political gain . No, i did not. Theres been a lot of discussions about a Text Exchange you had with mr. Yermak on august 12 that talked about this proposed statement. And mayor giuliani provided some feedback on what he thought needed be included to that. It did mayor giuliani get feedback from the president on what should go into that proposed statement . I have no reason to think that he had discussed it with the president. Based on your recollection, Ambassador Volker, who was in the zelensky regime has
mayor giuliani interacted with . In addition to mr. Yermak, who weve already talked about. And also the former Attorney General mr. Lukashenko. I dont know who else he wouldve interacted with in the zelensky government. Im aware of him having claimed that he dealt with mr. Lukashenkos predecessor. But that is not within the regime in which we are talking about. I dont know who else he wouldve met with. In as few words as possible, what was your understanding of ambassador sondlands role in ukraine . He cared about ukraine. He wanted to see u. S. Support for ukraine increased. He wanted to see European Union support for ukraine increased. Including maintenance of sanctions, and he wanted to be helpful. Was ambassador sondland having conversations with senior zelensky officials without letting people know . I dont believe he was not letting people know. I think he may have had some
conversations, but i think he was just acting. I think we circled back quite frequently with myself, Ambassador Taylor, and others. Can you say you have a clear understanding of what ambassador sondland and mayor giuliani were doing in all their interactions with ukrainian officials . I cant say i had a clear understanding. I thought that ambassador sondland and i were working on the same objective, which is getting a meeting between president zelensky and President Trump. And that a statement, as i understood it, that mention to speed 19 and 2016 would be potentially helpful. I didnt know anything more about their interactions or what their thoughts were. You didnt have a clear understanding. As the special representative of ukraine. Do you think the ukrainians had a clear understanding . No, i dont. You thought there was a difference between burisma, biden, and the 2016 elections. Correct. Do you think the ukrainians
had similar understanding . Yes, i do. There is also a perception that when ambassador yovanovitch, who, of 33 years of being in a pastor, that when she left kiev, that the u. S. Position on corruption would weaken. That is kind of a narrative that is floating around. Who is the person that took over for her in the interim . Immediately after her was joe pennington. Was this individual strong or weak on corruption . I would say in line with all the rest of our policy. After that individual, who was that person replaced with . Bill taylor. Who you suggested for that position, correct . Was Ambassador Taylor strong or weak on corruption . Very strong. Mr. Morrison, in my final 15 minutes. He was in charge of u. S. Foreign policy . The president. Not some other staffer within
the nfc process . The nsd staff exist to ensure that the president has a full array of options for his decision. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. Is it safe to say that both You Gentlemen were either appointed or hired by the white house, by the Trump Administration . Yes or. In mike espy secretary tillerson. But part of the Trump Administration. Yes, serving in the same administration. You previously testified that ambassador sondland, i just know he had a relationship with President Trump that i did not have. In fact, in one text message, dated july 26th, you wrote to ambassador sondland, great photo, gordon. Can you get this to potus without intermediaries . July 26th was the same day that ambassador sondland spoke to the president
from a restaurant in kiev, is that right . Im sorry, the date again . July 26th. Yes, i know that to be corrected now. Were you aware of that call . No, i was not. Speak of this committee is certainly aware of it now, as w. Were you aware that ambassador sondland had a direct line to the president was mark he claimed that he spoke to the president frequently. Did you have reason to doubt that . Ambassador sondland is a Big Personality and sometimes it says things that might be a lit bigger than life. But he was a political appointee. He was handpicked by the president or somebody in the president S Administration to serve in his position. And i believed that he could speak with the president. He had also been a large donor shoe one of President Trumps campaign committees. Is that correct . I have learned that. Use data during your testimony that when you met ambassador sondland for the first time, he represented that his mandate from the president was to go make
deals. You testified that between july 25th and September 11th of this year, you heard or learned that ambassador sondland and President Trump spoke on several occasions. Is it accurate that every time you checked you were able to confirm that ambassador sondland had in fact spoken to the president . Yes, congressman. Mr. Morrison, you also testified that ambassador sondland emailed to you and several white house staff to say that he briefed President Trump in advance of his July 25th Call with ukrainian president. Is that correct . Yes, congressman. Did ambassador sondland tell you what he briefed the president on . He sent me an email. It was a very succinct, a list of three items, it was a very sustained item with respect to ukraine. I briefed the president on the call. And you testified that you personally confirm that ambassador sondland and President Trump had spoken before the July 25th Call. That is correct, congressman. And presumably, the White House Situation Room keeps a record of those calls. Sir, that is how i was able to confirm it. Okay. Are you separately testified that your staff prepared a Briefing Memo with suggested points for the president to raise on july 25th. Points that were consistent with u. S. Policy. Is that correct . Correct, congressman. Speak about the president didnt use those points, did he . No, sir, he did not. Let me get this straight, you prepared materials for the president , which did not include references to biden or the 2016 election. Is that right . That is correct. Then ambassador sondland, the guy who is the gordon problem, the guy with a direct link to the president , the guy who is talking about making deals, brief President Trump. Is that right . That is correct. Then President Trump raised the 2016 election and Vice President biden and his son to the ukrainian president after
he was briefed by ambassador sondland. Is that right . Correct, congressman. It sounds like ambassador sondland and the president were on the same page. They both were working to benefit the president s personal political interest, even when that undermined u. S. Foreign policy. I want to ask you in the short time that i have, both You Gentlemen, who served in the states government, whether putting President Trump aside, whether you believe that it is proper for any president , now on government to investigate a u. S. Citizen, and specifically a u. S. Citizen that could be a political rival . Ambassador . I dont believe it is appropriate for the president to do that. If we have Law Enforcement concerns with u. S. Citizens generally, there are appropriate
channels for that. I agree with Ambassador Volker, sir. Thank you, chairman. I yield back. Thank you, chairman. Gentlemen, i appreciate both of you being here today. I know it has been a long day for you. Mr. Morrison, not try to summarize some of what we heard to shorten this. You were on the July 25th Call. Is that correct . Yes, congressman. He testified earlier today that he heard what he thought was a demand on that call that was improper, and felt he had a duty to report that. I think weve established already that he did not discuss or report any of that to you. Correct . Yes, congressman. But you did have a discussion with Colonel Vindman about other concerns that he had with the call, and i believe he said the fidelity of the translation and the fact that you both shared a discussion about there
not being a full throated embrace of the ukrainian reform agenda. Is that fair . Yes, congressman. With his respect to the concern of something improper, specifically at no point did he come to you and say, i heard something that i thought was improper and was a crime. Sir, i have no recollection of him doing that. No bribe, no extortion, no quid pro quo, all of those things we asked you . No, sir,. As you were listening, did you hear President Trump make a demand of anything that would constitute a crime . Sir, ive been trying to stay on the safe side of making legal conclusions but i did not hear him make any kind of demand. You have a law degree. Yes or. So you are generally familiar with bribery and extortion. I am here for United States, sir. But is it fair to say that as you were listening to the call,
you didnt say, wow, the president is bribing the president of ukraine. That didnt cross your mind, or that he was extorting the president of ukraine. It did not, sir. Or doing anything improper. Correct, sir. Have you read in the media where it president zelensky agrees with you and has said consistently that he didnt hear any demand or any commissions, he didnt feel any pressure, he didnt experience anything improper or corrupt on the call. At the u. S. General assembly, he made clear that he felt no pressure. Did anyone on the National Security council after this call express to you that some crime, bribery, extortion, quid pro quo can occur . Yes, sir, i want to ask you, mr. Morrison, about the whistleblower complaint. I dont want to ask you to speculate as to the identity, but i want to ask you about the
accusations that started this, as to their veracity. First of all, the whistleblower, who apparently was not on the call. Vic ig. He here she was concerned that the president s conduct constituted, under section 33, a serious problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order. Again, to be clear, you did not hear a violation of law or Executive Order as he listened to the call . Sir, i made no judgment about any illegal conduct occurring. Speak of whistleblower also asserted that the President Trump sought to pressure the ukrainian leadership to take actions to help the president s 2020 reelection bid. President trump does not mention 2020 during the call. Does he . No, sir, i dont believe he did. President trump doesnt mention his reelection bid, does he . I dont believe he did. And you did not hear President Trump pressure or have a demand of any kind, as we have already established, correct . Correct, sir. The whistleblower like Colonel Vindman also uses the word demand. Please use the microphone. In all due respect, i believe you just said a whistleblower like Colonel Vindman. Im sorry, a whistleblower, like Colonel Vindman, also uses the word demand. On page 4, Ambassador Volker and ambassador sondland provided guidance on how to navigate demands of the president making
of zelensky. Again, there were no demands. From your perspective, mr. Morrison. That is correct, sir. Speculations about the whistleblower aside with regard to motivation, the fact is that the whistleblower was wrong about many of the facts as well. Correct . Sir, im not intimately familiar with the whistleblower complaint. But i did not hear a demand in that call. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador volker, i want to thank you for being here today and i frankly found some of your Opening Statement to be not just genuine but downright eloquent. In particular, i noted the passages about pushing back at russian aggression and supporting a development of a strong, resilient, democratic, and prosperous ukraine. One that overcomes a legacy of corruption, and that this is critically important for u. S. National security. Some of us believe that we are not pushing strongly enough at russia. Some believe we are not being supportive enough of the ukrain ukraine. But one of our challenges is to go home to the people for whom we work and help explain to them why it is in our National Security interest. You have an audience like you will never have again to look into the camera and tell the American Public why it is important to support ukraine. Why should it matter to them if the Biggest Issue in their life is getting the kids off to school, paying their bills, and the like. Sir . Thank you so much, congressman. I agree with you completely that we are not pushing back hard enough on russia, and that we owe ukraine a great deal of support. Why does it matter . Russia is trying to up and security in europe. It is trying to reassert its dominance of neighboring countries come over there to
georgia, ukraine, or the baltic states. It has led to war in europe. The war in ukraine has left more people dead in europe than anything since the balkans. More people displaced by a war in europe than anything since world war ii. These are people who stand up for freedom, democracy, they want reform, they want to see their country be successful, like germany, like sweden, like us. And they are fighting a War Of Aggression against them designed to hold them back. And if we want to live in a world of freedom for the United States, we ought to be supporting freedom for people around the world. Thank you for that. We are here in part under cover for a concern of general corruption. Some believe there wasnt. In fact, there was something quite nefarious as the alternative. That there wasnt a concern about general corruption. But revealing the record on
that, is it not true that in march of this year the Department Of Defense certified ukraine as having made sufficient progress to continue to receive military assistance . I dont know the details but i believe that is correct. Is not true that on april april 21st, zelensky won and overwhelming mandate based largely on his advocacy for anticorruption . Correct. As an entree that this was expanded on july 21st when his party won Party Control on the basis of anticorruption . Correct. He enacted sweeping reforms to combat corruption, did he knock . Correct. Is it not true that everyone on the ground was filled with optimism that ukraine was getting serious about combating corruption . That is correct. Ambassador volker, did you know that one of the first anticorruption measures passed in the ukraine was a law to provide for the impeachment of the president. I did not know that. Its true. Because he thought he should start with himself. I raise this because my Friends On The Other Side of the aisle keep characterizing this Impeachment Inquiry as inherently wrong because, and im quoting them, it will overturn an election. Over and over, it will overturn an election. Impeachment is an anticorruption tool. For my Friends On The Other Side of the aisle, yes, it does overturn an election. By definition it overturns an election. I dont know if theyve got a problem with their constitution and its provisions for impeachment, but i recommend they reread the relevant passages. Article one, sections two and three. And some of the history about how we got there. None of us wants to be here, despite what is being said. None of us came to this easily. I didnt. I recall for the rest of my life the 48 hours we spent at our Family Cabinet literally plunged in self reflection, and literally prayerful deliberation about this whole matter. Collectively, we are going to have to grapple with this very grave decision. Its waiting, and its going to get hard. And its hard in proportion to its importance to our great republic. A republic, if we can keep it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador volker, in the now famous transcript, the bottom of page 3, President Trump said i heard you had a prosecutor and he was shot down. That is really unfair. For clarification, do you believe President Trump was talking about poroshenko . Thank you. You testified you had issues with Colonel Vindmans judgment, is that right . It is, sir. You said you had issues with
Colonel Vindman executing appropriate judgment as to who said what. Is that right . It is, sir. Your predecessor had concerns about Colonel Vindmans judgment. Is that right . Yes, sir. You testified that Colonel Vindman did not always adhere to the chain of command. Is that right . I believe so. You testified the ute concerns with Colonel Vindman executing commands outside his lane. I testified i was aware that there were those who had that concern. Thank you. And that Colonel Vindman was not included on certain trips. Is that right . Yes, sir. And you expressed concerns that colleagues expressed to you about Colonel Vindman leaking information. Is that right . Yes, sir. When i asked Colonel Vindman why he didnt go with you, even though you didnt have any concerns about anything, i think your language was nothing improper, nothing illegal on the call, i asked Colonel Vindman this morning why he didnt go to you and instead went to talk to
the lawyers, his brother, secretary kent, and one other person that he wouldnt tell us and chairman schiff wouldnt allow him to tell us. When i asked him why he did that, he indicated that the lawyers had instructed him to do that and he try to get a hold of you. Is that fair . Sir, i watched part of the proceedings this morning. I heard him say that, yes, sir. One thing chairman should be Stomach Schiff brought up is that you, Colonel Vindmans boss also went to the lawyers. What your reason for going to the lawyers is a little different, wasnt it . Yes, sir. I think you had a few things you talked about earlier in todays hearing, but i think at the top of your list was you were concerned about the content of the call leaking out. Is that fair . Yes, sir. That is exactly what happened, isnt it . Sir, i dont know if i
dont know if the contents leaked out. There was a whistleblower complaint. The president chose to declassify the memco. Well, it seems to me that you were prophetic because you stated, i feared at the time of the call, on july 25th, how disclosure of the contents of the call would play in washingtons political climate. My fears have been realized. It seems to me you saw what might happen it is sure enough did. Fair to say . Yes, sir. And we did all this. And that is the part that gets me. We get all this, these hearings, these weeks, the bunker in the basement of the capital, and four facts we keep coming back to have never changed, will never change. Weve heard from both of you today. Confirmed these fundamental facts. We got the call transcript, as you both said. No linkage to Security Assistance dollars in the transcript. Got the two individuals who were on the call. They both said no linkage, no pressure, no pushing. Got the fact that the ukrainians didnt even know it had been withheld until august 29th. And most important, the ukrainians did nothing as far as promising to start, announcing they were going to start, investigation did nothing, and aid got released. I believe it got released because of what we had been talking about. Good work by Ambassador Volker and others. I believe that is why it happened. Yet here we are. You called it all. You saw this coming, thats what he went to the lawyers, thats why you wanted to thats why the concern was there. Ambassador volker, on daily mail, they have this headline that says Ukraine Special envoy kurt volker walks back his closeddoor testimony and says he has now learned there was a link between u. S. Military aid and abide and probe. That is not your testimony, is it . To be met i dont believe thats in my testimony. I yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you, just following up on mr. Jordan. The easiest way to avoid investigations as to not do anything wrong. I want to talk a little bit about why we are here. Official Government Actions cant be traded for help in a political campaign. Let me give an analogy and ask each of you if you agree. Could amir of a city withhold funding for the Police Department budget . For those watching on the fox