What they frankly understood about us and I think they understood the implications Yes Now you testified earlier that you warned the Ukrainians not to get involved in u.s. Domestic policy is that right I counsel them yes counsel them in fact you testified that that they that you felt like it was important that you were exposing not just what you thought but but but tradition and policy of the United States to say that it is what I knew for a fact to be u.s. Policy now why do you think it's important that for foreign governments not to get involved in political affairs of a nation like United States. Congress from the 1st thought that comes to mind is a Russian and if your interference in 2016 the input impact that had on internal politics and the consequences it had for Russia itself exactly said ministration. Enforced sanctions and heavy sanctions against Russia for their interference that would not be in u.s. Policy terms so Mr mr it was Colonel I'm running out of time and so is it because it's normal for the for a private citizen a non us government official to get involved in foreign policy in foreign affairs like Mr Giuliani I don't know if I have the experience to say that but it certainly wasn't helpful and it didn't help advance us their fury interests Thank you Mr Chairman I yield back Mr Turner. Ms Williams little girl Vaniman I want to thank you also for your service your knowledge and expertise is incredibly important as we look to formulating policy with both our republic Turner Republican of Ohio as. I think we're all very concerned about European policy and how it can work Russian aggression. Ms Williams And you were responsible as you said as part of your portfolio you advised the vice president about Ukraine correct correct Lieutenant Colonel that I'm in you said that you were the principal in your opening you say you were the principal adviser to the president on Ukraine and you coordinate your u.s. Ukraine policy correct. Congressman in this statement if you just morning I I probably ease that back I took that off my day job description that I have on my evil but I certainly spent much more time advising them Basser and I did the president had you know it but your statement as you submitted and read it today says at the n.s.c. I am the principal adviser to the national security adviser and the president on your current credit that is not what I read into the transcript that might have been what I had in there yesterday when I was drafting it but I chose to ease back on that language even though it was in my evaluation just because I didn't want to but you wrote in my role you wrote what I just read what Congressman what I'm saying is what I read into the the record this morning I didn't say that Ok. Noted. Because you know Ukraine you know that we work through our allies and our multilateral relations and you know that the Ukraine is aspiring member of the e.u. And NATO right Ms Williams Yes that's correct the driven him and yes correct and you know that probably that the e.u. And the NATO and NATO both have offices in the Ukraine and that we tried to advance our policy with the e.u. And NATO and you would agree that our ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchinson investor Sunland would be responsible for advancing our policy interest with Ukraine at the e.u. And at NATO right Mr Williams. I would say that certainly in terms of this specific relationship between NATO and Ukraine that would sit would fall to Ambassador Hutchison and between the e.u. And Ukraine to master saw online but obviously we have an ambassador in Ukraine as well but the girl that even you would agree I agree with Miss Williams do it. Now. To the colonel you said in your written statement the mayor Rudolph Giuliani promoted false information that undermine the United States Ukraine policy Have you ever met Giuliani. Just to be a good actor I said false narrative just because that's what I said in the record this morning but I have not met him and so you've never had a conversation with him about Ukraine or been in a meeting where him working with him where he's spoken to others about Ukraine know just what I saw him. You know his comments on t.v. News or the news and similarly you've never met the president ited States right that is correct you've never advised the president States on Ukraine I've advised him in directly a made all his preparations for the calls and but you really never spoke to the president says and told him advice on Ukraine that is correct so on in your written same you said in May I attended the inauguration of President is part of the present delegation led by Secretary Perry following the visit the members of the delegation provided present briefing that's not really accurate right because the members didn't because you were a member but you weren't in that meeting were you that is correct Ok so we'll just have note there that that meeting occurred without you and that you do know that this impeachment inquiry is about the present state so you look around and I do represent an excellent Now you've said that you're responsible for coordinating u.s. Ukranian policy correct does the secretary of state pump a report to you. He does not embassador Volcker. He does not but we coordinate ambassador of Ukraine e.u. NATO assistant secretary for Europe anyone idio de report to you with respect to your responsibilities of of coordinating u.s. Policy with Ukraine Congressman at my level I convene what's called a sub policy cordoning committee that deputy assistant secretary I coordinate with I chair those meetings and is there anybody need your approval in your role on Ukraine policy to formulate your current policy they seek your approval according to the and us pm for the policy side by the president so he can do coordinate by the he as you and I see correct. Do you have any information that any person who has testified as part of this impeachment inquiry either in secret or in public has either perjured themselves or lied to this committee I have not read the other testimonies and you know do you have any evidence though that they have perjured themselves or lied you know because I have not read them the general Vandeman do you have any evidence that anyone who has testified before this committee in the impeachment inquiry has perjured themselves or lied to this committee not that I'm aware of that you object. As Carson thank you chairmanship to yield to the chairman I think the Jennifer yielding wanted to. Just make one point clear for folks that are watching the hearing today. Bribery doesn't evolve a quid pro quo bribery involves the conditioning of an official act or something of value. An official act may be a White House meeting an official act may be 400000000 in military aid and something of value to a president might include investigations of their political rival the reason we don't ask witnesses that are fact witnesses to make the judgment about whether a crime or bribery has been committed or whether more significantly the what the founders had in mind. When they itemize bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors is your fact witnesses it will be our job to decide whether the impeachable act of bribery has occurred that's why we don't ask you those questions for one thing you're also not aware as intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff Democrat from California that your back to Mr Carson thank you Chairman thank you both for your service Colonel them and you were in a jew lard to White House meeting in Ambassador Bolton's office isn't that rights are next line of questioning in this case are promising day and hard working and he's going right in front window and eating with them bass are both correct in that meeting Ukrainians ask about when they would get their Oval Office meeting an ambassador of Stalin replied that they need to quote speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president in quote is that correct sir that is correct kind of him and did you later learned why Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short I did. After Ambassador Bolton into that meeting serves some of the group that attended follow one meeting in a different room in the White House called the ward room is that correct sir that is correct and Ambassador Solomon was there with the senior Ukrainian officials is that correct that is correct. Did in this the lawyers tell you to come directly to them sir if he had any other concerns after July 10th they said that I believe the words were something to the effect of If you have any other concerns feel free to come back. In in this follow on meeting server ambassador Saddam left in your words no ambiguity about what specific investigations he was requesting besar sound and made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden's son isn't that correct sir that is correct and he stated that he was asking these requests in coordination with chief of staff White House chief of staff and. That is why you heard him say Colonel in your career had you ever before witnessed an American official request that a foreign government investigate a u.s. Citizen who is related to the president's political opponent. And Colonel. You immediately raise concerns about this correct sir that is correct what exactly happened after I reported it to the I'm sorry. I'm sorry could you say that again. You raise concerns about this correct sir rect what happened to that to Ambassador Solomon if I understood you correctly I stated that it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security policy. Did you also raise concern that day with White House lawyers or did what did you tell them I reported the same thing that I reported the content of the conversation with him . At that point I wasn't aware that Dr Hill had had a conversation with him so I just relayed what I had and what what I experienced to head to the attorney the legal counsel as we are now where Sir embarrass or both an 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 vim and I agree that there is no question that Ambassador Sargent was proposing a transaction to Ukrainian officials trading White House meetings for specific investigations with the full awareness of the president's chief of staff White House attorneys and his national security adviser in my view sort of that's appalling thank you both for your service so you're back to the chairman. I think the gentleman I would just point out as well that when the matter does move to the Judiciary Committee and no decision has been made about the ultimate resolution of the White House through its counsel We'll have the opportunity to submit make a submission to the Judiciary Committee and now turn to Dr Webster. That was high commissioner Germany America and Britain thank you very much for being here as an Army colonel who served a year in Iraq I appreciate your service and the sacrifice that you made during that time and I know the environment and I understand appreciate the importance of chain of command in your deposition you emphasize the importance of chain of command you were direct report to Dr Fiona Hill and then Mr Tim Morrison and they were your seniors correct that is correct when you had concerns about this 725 call between the 2 presidents you didn't go to Mr Morrison about that did you. I immediately went to John Eisenberg lead legal counsel so that doesn't seem like a change of command so I was not in the deposition with Ms I'm sorry said Page 50 answer the 60. Charities allow Colonel I'm a dancer so I reported to John Eisenberg I attempted to report it to Mr Morse and I did Ok thank you but he didn't develop self and at that point I was told not to say well he didn't say I just often I'll get into that he was a lot of the witness to finish her or you finish with your answer yes thank you. And came in you're in the Morrison deposition on page 58 to 60 is the question was there you know and I don't hire a public went ahead and step on House Intelligence Committee and the answer was I learned based on today's proceedings based on open source reporting which I have no firsthand knowledge that other personnel did raise concerns question who based on open source without firsthand knowledge Alex of Inman on my on. My staff question then and he reports to you correct answer he does Lieutenant Colonel Ramon's direct report was Mr Morris and it didn't happen Lieutenant Colonel them and in your deposition page 96 the question was Ok after the call on 725 Do you have any discussions with Mr Morrison about your concerns answer after the call I heard the the exercise in the chain of command in expressing I immediately went to the senior and it's the legal counsel and share those concerns that would be Mr Eisenberg correct I'm sorry my my lawyer was talking Could you say that again please Dr you went to Mr Eisenberg you've already said that so we can go on and you are not a Jag officer you're not a lawyer and a page 153 of your testimony deposition in reference to that meeting with Mr Eisenberg you said I was not making a legal judgment all I was doing assuring my concerns with my chain of command. And yet we've established that your direct report is to Mr Morrison So let's establish your role in your title in your deposition Lieutenant Colonel them and page 20201 and a colloquy with Mr Stewart you said I would say 1st of all I'm the director for Ukraine I'm responsible for Ukraine I'm the most knowledgeable and therefore than the National Security Council in the White House are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on Ukraine couldn't someone like Ms Williams also advise on Ukraine it's in her proof folio. Not typically would happen it would be appropriately would be Ambassador Bolton got other options through other people can advise on Ukraine Besides you. Going on in your test and you said I understand all the nuances the context and so forth surrounding these issues I on my judgment went I expressed concerns within the chain of command which I think to me as a military officer is completely appropriate and I exercise that chain of command but Senator Levin many of deposition page $259.00 you said I forwarded my concerns through the chain of command and the seniors then decide the action to take Mr Morris and your senior he did know about how can he decide an action to take but that's what you said in Mr Morris deposition page 60 The question is At what point did you learn that Lieutenant Colonel De Mint went to Eisenberg you said it's about the 25th phone call he said yes in the course of your viewing for this proceeding reviewing the open record so the question next question so I assume Berg never came to you and relayed to the conversation no said tell us never did either to the best of my reelection recollection so Mr Morrison was skipped in your chain of command about your other concerns. So Mr Morrison said he was the final clearing the story he said he saw your edits Do you remember if all of the IT's were incorporated and he said yes I accepted all of them that's on page 6162 so he believes all your edits were accepted Let me ask you were in your edits did you insist that the word demand be put into the transcription between the conversation of the 2 presidents I did not but you did say that in your opening statement today thank you know you'll do. The spear Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you both for your testimony and your service Colonel Van men Wasn't it the case that Mr Eisenberg This is your early said he was I don't think I answered your Democrat of California that you should come to him if you have any other concerns after the July 10th reading just members correct and it is not going outside the chain of command to speak to a lawyer within the institution is that correct no he is the senior between the 2 certainly. All right our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been complaining about other witnesses having only 2nd hand information but in both your cases you have firsthand information because you were on the July 25th phone call is that correct that's correct that is correct now. Colonel you and your comments today said I want to state that the violent character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible would you like to expand on that at all. I think they stand on their own I don't think it's no sir to expand on it so in both your situations since you have given depositions since those depositions have been made public have you seen your experience in your respective jobs changed or have you been treated any differently . I have not know. Since their report on July 25th as I stated I did notice that I was being excluded from several meetings that would have been appropriate for my position. So in some respects than there have been replies olds. I'm not sure if I could make that judgment I could say that it was out of the course of normal affairs to not have me participate in some of these if I think you are in preparation for the July 25th phone call it's standard for the National Security Council to provide talking points is that correct correct because the words of the president carry incredible weight is that not correct that is correct so it's important to ensure that everyone has carefully considered the implications of what the president might say to a foreign leader that is correct. Colonel binmen you are the national security council's director for Ukraine did you participate in preparing the talking points for the president's call I did I prepared them. So you prepared them they were then reviewed and edited by multiple senior officers the n.s.c. And the White House is that correct that is correct did the talking points for the president contain any discussion of investigations into the 2016 election the Bidens or charisma they did know are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations into the 2016 election the Bidens or are part of the official policy of the United States no I know some of President trumps allies have suggested that the president requested these investigations for official policy reasons as part of some plan to root out corruption in Ukraine. In your experience did the official policies of the United States include asking Ukraine to specifically open investigations into the Bidens and interference by Ukraine in 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 in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation there are proper procedures in which to do that certainly the president is well within his right to do that. It is not something the n.s.c. Certainly a director at the n.s.c. Would do as a matter of fact we are prohibited from being involved in any transaction between Department of Justice and a farm and a foreign. Power to ensure that there is no perception of manipulation from the White House so it is not something that we will participate and Miss Williams In your experience that the official policies of the United States include asking Ukraine to open investigations into the Bidens I had not seen any reference to those particular cases in our policy formulation process All right let me just say to you Lieutenant Colonel been men that in listening to your opening statement I had chills up and down my spine and I think most Americans recognize what an extraordinary hero you are to our country and I would say to your father. He did well I yield back Mr Stewart. Thank you Miss Williams Lieutenant didn't think both of you for being here today. When I see you're wearing your dress uniform and knowing that's not the uniform of the day you can since Congressman increase to me a Republican from Utah a minder of your military service I too come from a military family these are my father's Air Force wings he was a pilot in World War 25 of his son served in the military so as one military family to another thank you and your brothers for your service and your example here. Very quickly I'm curious when ranking member doing ads for abuse Mr binmen you quickly corrected him and wanted to be called Lieutenant Colonel did and do you always insist on civilians calling you by your rank. Mr Stewart represented steward I'm in uniform and wearing my military rank I just thought it was appropriate to stick with that well I'm sorry if you know what I'll. Do because I don't believe you did but the attacks that I've had in the press in Twitter have kind of eliminated the fact that either marginalized me as a military officer or listen I just I'm I'm just I'm just telling you the ranking member not met no disrespect to you I believe that I'd like to go back to your previous testimony earlier today much as much has been talked about as we've discussed between the President Trump and present list and the word favor and this being interpreted as a basis for impeachment and your interpretation of word favor and I'll paraphrase Yunior feel free to correct me you said in the military culture which you and I are both on the earth when a superior officer asks for a favor of this board and they will interpret that as a demand is is that a fair synopsis of what you previously stated. Represented when a superior makes a request that's an order Ok In short dang you think your interpretation of a favor is a demand is based on your military experience and the military culture I think that is correct I think that is correct is President Trump a member of the military he is not has he ever served in the military I'm not that I'm aware of his present Zelinsky a member of the military. I'd answer leave so I don't know he's not it would be fair then to take a person who has never served in the military. And to take your revaluation of their words based on your military experience and your military culture and to attach that culture and that meaning of those words to someone who has never served . Represent of our you made bad judgment and I stick by that judgment Ok well I got to tell you I think it's nonsense look I was in the military I could distinguish between a favor and an order and a demand and so could my subordinates and I think President Zelinsky did as well he never been initiated investigation in fact he's been very clear he said I never felt any pressure at all so you interpreted the word favor but the 2 people who were speaking to each other did not interpret that as a demand It was your interpretation is that fair. The context of this call consistent with the July July 10th meeting with the reporting that was going on including the president's personal attorney. Made it clear that this was not simply a request Well that's not dated at all it's not clear at all you say it makes it clear it's not clear at all and the 2 individuals who were talking to each other didn't interpret it that way I'd like to go on to discuss your reaction to the phone call and again your previous testimony and for brevity and for clarity I'm going to refer to your previous testimony page 155 your attorney's welcome to follow on quoting you Lieutenant Colonel b. Adman I did not know whether this was a crime or anything of that nature I thought it was wrong. Another like to keep on the word wrong here because we're going to come back to that in my mind did I consider this factor that could have been other implications yes but it wasn't the basis of I don't know lodging a criminal complaint or anything like that then you go on to talk about policy concerns and moral ethical judgments so your concerns regarding this phone call were not legal they were based on moral ethical and policy differences let me ask you then. And you what you thought were wrong to use your word you said this was wrong not illegal but wrong there are as I've stated previous sitting here a couple days ago there are dozens of corrupt nations in the world hundreds of corrupt government officials exactly one time did a vice president go to a nation and demand the specific firing of one individual and give a 6 hour time limit and withhold or threaten to hold a 1000000000 dollars in aid if not it was the one individual who was investigating a company that was paying his son so I'll ask you was out also wrong I bet is not what I. Frankly don't have any firsthand knowledge of that I was not sitting as a deal I've I've seen the video I guess my life described as with a video everything I just said to you is in the video. Was that wrong as well Congressman this is something I actually participated in I think I remember going to school can make a I don't attitude isn't the time a journalist explore kind of an image if you like to answer the question are more welcome I frankly don't know about much more about that particular incident so I saw that snippet of the video but I know if I can make a judgment on. Thank you. This quickly thank Mr Chairman Colonel it's one thing gas somebody a favor like a go pick up my dry cleaning. It's another when the commander in chief of the most powerful army Mike Quigley Democrat from has only 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 Miss Williams. Again when did you 1st learn that the security assistance was being held up the nearly $400000000.00 that was referenced July 3rd and you were any additional or did you attend any additional meetings in which that military assistance being withheld was discussed I did I attended meetings on July 23rd and July 26th where the security assistance hold was discussed I believe it may have also been discussed on July 31st and. At that point did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold in those meetings the o.m.b. Representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the White House chief of staff and did they give reasons why beyond that it was being withheld by the White House chief of staff. Not specifically the reason given was that there was ongoing review whether the the funding was still in line with administration priorities Did anyone in any of those meetings or any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid there were discussions I believe in the July 31st meeting and possibly prior as well in terms of Defense and State Department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which your marked funding from Congress that was designated for Ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approach the end of the fiscal year and from what you witnessed in anybody in the national security community support withholding the assistance no. Colonel. Again just for the record when did you 1st learn these security assistance was being with home on July 3rd. What exactly had you learned from the State Department I believe that prompted you to draft the notice on July 3rd I saw. A 3rd I became aware of inquiries into. Security assistance funding in general there are 2 typical pots State Department and d. O. D. And I believe it was around that day that would be put a hold on congressional notification had you had any earlier indications that this might be the case. Prior to that there were there were some general inquiries on how the funds were being spent things of that nature nothing specific but no hold certainly we'll where if anyone in the national security community who supported withholding the aid know no one from the Nationals security no one no one from the State Department correct no one from the Department of Defense correct then anyone in to your understanding raise the legalities of withholding this assistance it was raised on several occasions and who raised those concerns so the following the July 18th. Sub p.c.c. Which is again what I coordinate what I convene at my level there was a July 23rd p.c.c. That would have been conducted by Mr Morrison There were the there were questions raised on as to the legality of of the hold over the subsequent week the issue was analyzed and during the July. 26 deputies So the deputies from all the departments and agencies there was a opinion rendered that it was. It was legal to put a hold it was excuse me there was an opinion legal. Opinion rendered that it was Ok to hold as legal on the purely legal point of view correct going back to the chairman. Thank you Joe really miss 200. Ms Williams Lieutenant Colonel Van men thank you for being here and thank you both for your service as millions of Americans are watching throughout the hysteria now from at least a phonic Republican from New York Ange that are critical to these impeachment proceedings one Ukraine in fact received the aide and 2 there was no investigation into the Biden's my question to both of you today will focus on the following systemic corruption in Ukraine to highlighting for the public that by law aid to Ukraine requires anti-corruption efforts and 3 who in our government has the decision making authority when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters so on corruption in Ukraine as a bastard Evanovich testified one of the key reasons why President Selenski was overwhelmingly elected by the Ukrainian people was that they were finally standing up to rampant corruption in their country would you both agree with the ambassador's assessment Yes Yes And Ms Williams corruption was such a critical issue from your perspective that when you prepared the vice president for his congratulatory call with President Selenski you testified that the points you wanted to communicate on the call were the following quote look forward to seeing President Selenski really implement the agenda on which he had run related to anti-corruption reforms That's correct yes and Lieutenant Colonel Van min Would you agree that this focus on anti-corruption is a critical aspect of our policy towards Ukraine. And Lieutenant Colonel Denman you are aware that in 2014 during the Obama administration the 1st anti corruption investigation partner between the u.s. The u.k. And Ukraine was it to the owner of the company barista I'm aware of it now and Lieutenant Colonel venom and you testified that you were aware that charisma had questionable business dealings that's part of its track record that is correct you also testified that regarding brás money laundering tax evasion comports with your understanding of how business is done in Ukraine is that correct I'm not aware of space of. Incidence but my understanding is that it would not be out of the out of the realm of the possible for Burst Well that's page 2 of 7 from your testimony but I'll move on you are aware that Hunter Biden did sit on the board of Brazil at this time I am well I know I know that my constituents in New York 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden the son of the vice president sat on the board of a corrupt company like Karisma the Obama administration State Department was also concerned and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered Yes Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Bris Milah has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest. Certainly the potential of us and Ms Williams. Now shifting to the legal requirements that our aid to Ukraine is conditioned on anti-corruption Lieutenant Colonel Van minute you testified that you understood that Congress had passed under the Ukrainian security assistance initiative a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed That is correct and you also testified that it is required by the National Defense Authorization Act That is correct so for the public listening we are not just talking about President Trump focusing on anti corruption in Ukraine but it is so critical so important that harder and taxpayer dollars when given to foreign nations that by law overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anti corruption in Ukraine in order to get us taxpayer funded aid. Lieutenant Colonel venom and you spoke extensively about the importance of defense of lethal aid to Ukraine specifically javelins this was in your deposition correct and you testified that the javelin in particular because of its effectiveness in terms of influencing the Russian decision calculus for aggression. It is one of the most important tools we had have when it comes to providing defensive lethal aid the system itself and the signaling of your support Yes and it is a fact that that aid was provided under President Trump and not President Obama that is correct and my last question Lieutenant Colonel Van Man I know you serve at the n.s.c. In the White House I served in the West Wing of the White House for President Bush on the Domestic Policy Council in the chief of staff's office so I'm very familiar with the policy process I also know that as a staff member the person who sets the policy the United States is the president not the staff and you testify that the president sets the policy correct that is correct and I respect your deep expertise your tremendous service to our country we can never repay those that have worn the military uniform and served our nation but I was struck when you testified in your deposition I would say 1st of all I'm the director for Ukraine I'm responsible for Ukraine I'm the most knowledgeable I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House I just want to clarification you report to Tim Morris and correct. In my advice i Report is to more of a rare advisor just to clarify in my only in my advisory capacity I advise up through the chain of command that's what I do and the chain of command is to Morrison to Ambassador John Bolton the national the Prez the United States and do you agree that the president sets the policy as commander in chief as you testified previously Absolutely thank you my time's expired Mr Swallow thank you both Lieutenant Colonel Vin Minh I think the follow up question that my colleague from New York did not ask you but is relevant for everyone at home. This is Congressman Eric Swalwell Democrat of California 5 that the anti-corruption requirements of Ukraine had been met when the hold was put on by the president that is correct now Mr Jordan suggested. The president did something none of us expected by releasing that call transcript you listen to the calls out right Lieutenant Colonel that is this Williams You also listen to the calls that right yes fair to say Mr Williams a lot of other people at the White House listen to the call or read the transcript . I can't characterize how many I believe there are 445 or 6 of us in the listening room at the time and the transcript was distributed to others is that right I wasn't part of that process but that's my understanding so the president is asking for us and his defenders 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 one on the one on one meeting and 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 a call that everyone had seen now you've 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 and Mr Williams You're not a lawyer are you I'm not no lieutenant colonel women are you a lawyer or their lawyers your brother born 20 seconds after you was out you said 9 minutes 9 minutes after you confess you're the older brother lifetime wisdom there now I want to give you a hypothetical here suppose you have a shooting victim and the police respond after the victim is doing a little bit better and they ask the victim Well tell us what happened and the victim says Well someone came up to my car shot into the car hit me in the shoulder hit me in the back hit me in the neck miraculously I survived but I can identify you know who the person is that pulled the trigger and the police say Ok you were shot you know who it is but shucks you didn't tell us that this was an attempted murder so we're going to have to let the person go. Is that how it works in our justice system that unless victims or witnesses identify the legal theories of a case we just let people off the hook is that how it works lieutenant colonel than I'm not an attorney there's and seem so I don't think your brother would think so either Mr Williams vice president Pence was described to our committee by Mr Morrison as a quote for racist reader of his intelligence read book and after the April 21 call with president's Alinsky you put a transcript of that call in the vice president's revoke is that right that's correct and then the vice president called Presidents Alinsky 2 days later is that right that's correct and you told us in the deposition that he stuck pretty faithfully to what President Trump had said and that April 21 calls that right I believe his remarks were consistent they he also spoke on other issues as well including anti-corruption and you would describe the vice president as somebody who would make follow up calls to world leaders after the president had done so is that right. He has on occasion it's not a normal practice it depends on the situation and in that case he stuck to President Trump's talking points I would say that I provided talking points for the April 23rd call for the vice president which included discussion of the president's landscape inauguration which the present Trump had also discussed with President Lansky but I would say the vice president discussed other issues with presidents Lansky as well and. As was stated earlier the president sets the foreign policy for the United States is that right absolutely and you told us that after the July 25 call between President Trump and President Alinsky that you put the call transcript in Vice President Pence's intelligence briefing book is that right I am sure it was there my colleagues prepare the book but yes so let's flash forward to September 1 vice president pence meets with presidents Alinsky is that right that's correct you're there yes and President Selenski with Vice President pence they talk about a lot of things but you will agree that Vice President pence did not bring up the Bidens Is that correct that's correct he did not he did not bring up investigations you know is one reasonable explanation that although vice president pence will do a lot of things for President Trump that he was not willing to bring up investigations and Biden's because he thought it was wrong. I'm not in a position to speculate we had not discussed those particular investigations in any of their preparatory sessions with the vice president but you didn't bring it up with the Ukrainians after the July 25 call right he did not in that meeting now and you did not either you know and Lieutenant Colonel Denman Did you ever asked the Ukrainians to do what President Trump was asking them to do after the July 25 phone call I did not I didn't burn or any opinion no no what was asked in the 25 thank you for your time was to hurt. Miss Williams I want to join my colleagues and thanking you for your service we share a personal hero and the voice for a public scene like will of Texas you participate in or overhear any conversations about how potential information collected from the Ukrainians on the Bidens would be used for political gain. No I did not participate or overhear any conversations along those lines Thank you Lieutenant Colonel Van men I think all of us would agree that your father made the right move to come here and we're glad that that he did. You've talked about how part of your responsibilities is developing talking points for your principles is that correct that is correct President I'm assuming you also do that for your direct supervisor currently right now Mr Morris and Zachariah Mr Morrison has left the position some time ago already at least 3 weeks so but you do that you prepare talking points for your supervisor is that. Typically And frankly that at that level they don't really take talking points especially if they have expertise in talking points or more intended for national security advisor although we didn't really really require dip because of his deep expertise it's or the next level up the president a traditionally on this trying to establish kind of the position is somebody accurate these talking points for a number of people that is correct do they always use them know. Or is is President Trump known to stick to a script. I don't believe so. So is it odd that he didn't use your talking points we know it is not in your deposition if your lawyer wants to follow on it's Page 306 when you were asked about events during the temporary hold on u.s. Assistance to Ukraine this is that 55 day period or so and you testified that the u.s. Administration did not receive any new or shine says from Ukraine about anticorruption efforts and that the facts on the ground did not change before the hold was lifted is that is that accurate and we count in your testimony that is accurate when was president Selenski sworn in he was sworn in on. Excuse me May 20th 2100 and then he had a new parliament 2 elected after he was correct he did and when was that parliament seated that was. That was I'm sorry July 21st 2100. That was when they won right there to a point where I probably see in the Argus is that's right that's what they wanted they wanted until August your boss's boss Ambassador Bolton travel to Ukraine in late August by August 27th 28 is that correct that is correct they take you with you did he take you did with him he didn't. We know from other witnesses that when the bastard Bolton was there he met with presence and once again his staff and they talked about how they were visually exhausted because one of the things that presence Alinsky did during that time period was changed Ukrainian Constitution to remove absolute immunity from rather deputies right there to some of their parliamentarian's because that had been the source of raw corruption for a number of years is that accurate that is accurate where you are were you aware of this important change the Ukrainian law of course and you don't believe that's significant any corruption after you know it is significant pretty significant correct I'm also Ambassador Taylor testified that presents a whisky Zelinsky with this new Parliament opened Ukraine's high into corruption court right this had been an initiative that many folks and the un our State Department had been had been pushing to happen and that was stablish in that timeframe is were you aware of this yes do you think this is a significant anti corruption I do. When you talked about how many times have you met President Alinsky. I think it was just the one time from the presidential delegation multiple engagements but just the one trip and that's a one on one meeting that was in a bilateral larger bilateral format. Than there was there were a couple of smaller venue they were all in up and there was never a one on one. But there were a couple of against touch points so the bilateral meeting handshake me angry she had a short So there was a lot of people in the room when when the on that with them it's kind of she still advise the Ukrainian president to watch out for the Russians Yes and that was that was and that everybody else in the room I'm assuming the national security adviser was there I believe in this case you had other members of the ministration was that what your points preapproved did they know you are going to bring up those points. I did we did have a huddle before hand and it's possible I flagged him but I don't I don't recall specifically possible date that I didn't. And you counsel the Ukrainian president to stay out of u.s. Politics correct. As Chairman you're back to time and do not have generals back him Mr Castro thank you Chairman Miss Williams thank you for your service to the country Colonel binman career for your service and it's great to talk to a fellow identical twin and I hope that your brother is nicer to you than mine is to me and that's why Kaine can make or a Democrat from Texas. Right. You both listen in real time to the July 25th call in particular you would have heard President Trump ask the president Ukraine quote I'd like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine they say Crowd Strike and quote the server they say Ukraine has it this is a debunked conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. President Trump's own former homeland security advisor Thomas p. Boss or call the president's assertion that Ukraine intervene in the 2016 elections quote not only a conspiracy theory but quote unquote completely debunked unquote Colonel binman Are you aware of any evidence to support the theory that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 26000 election Congressman I am not and I'm Furthermore I would say that this is a Russian narrative that President Putin has promoted and are you aware of any part of the u.s. Government its foreign policy or intelligence apparatus that supports that theory no I'm not aware of that you are aware that other parts of the u.s. Government our intelligence community for example has said definitively that it was the Russians who interfered in the 2016 elections that is correct it seems incredibly odd though unfortunately but not inconsistent to me that President Trump would be giving be giving credence to a conspiracy theory about Ukraine that helps Russia really in at least 2 ways 1st it ignores and frankly undermines the assessment of the u.s. Intelligence community and seeks to weaken a state dependent on the United States support to fight Russian aggression it also for the United States hurts or not hurts our national security and emboldens Russia . And I want to look at what President Trump was doing on his call instead of pushing back against Russian hostility he was pressured you can't read Ukraine to do his political work President Trump stayed on the job on that July 25th call quote There's a lot of talk about Biden's son that Biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it it sounds horrible to me. Colonel binman when you hear those words do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program consistent with u.s. Policy. Or do not. In fact it sounds like President Trump was encouraging the Ukrainian president to engage in precisely the same type of behavior for president Trump's own political benefit that we discourage foreign leaders from undertaking in their own countries and discouraging other countries from undertaking politically motivated investigation is in fact a major part of official u.s. Anti-corruption policy is that correct that is correct. And are you in fact aware of any evidence that Vice President Biden improperly interfered in an investigation of his family members I am not. These false narratives that should be said are damaging our country they poison our politics and distract from the truth and pressing another country to engage in corruption is antithetical to who we are as a nation you also mentioned that this request where you felt this request was wrong and you've also said that corruption in Ukraine is in Demick Ukraine just as it is in other places around the world. What is the can you speak to what is the danger of a president the United States whether it's Donald Trump or any future president asking another nation where there is rampant corruption to investigate a political rival or just any other American citizen what would be the danger to that American. Congressman. The Ukraine the Ukrainian judiciary is imperfect at the moment and the. There were alliance on us support. Could conceivably cause them to tip the scales of justice in favor of finding the us citizen guilty if they thought they need to do that international so they could trump up charges if they wanted to in a corrupt system like that they could and Ukraine is making progress certainly more broadly in Russia that is likely to happen where the state will be involved in judicial outcomes and drive them thank you are you about your stretch of thank you Chairman is Williams You testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that questioning our friends on John Radcliff Republican attacks race what appeared to be a domestic political issue correct correct but raising an issue even one that you thought was unusual is different than making a demand would you agree yes and as I read your deposition it didn't sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations is that fair. I don't believe I'm in a position to characterize it further than the president did in terms of asking for a favor. He didn't hear a demand. Again I would just refer back to the transcript itself. Lieutenant Colonel been you've testified. And explained to us why in your mind it was a demand and you've given us reasons the disparity of power between the 2 presidents and because you did feel that way you also felt that you had a duty to report what you thought was improper Is that correct that is correct Ok so. 2 different people 2 impartial observers. One felt the need to report the call because there was a demand that was improper and one that didn't report it to anyone you didn't report it to anyone right Mr Williams I ensured that the information was available to my superiors so. While all this might seem as clear as mud I think your honest and candid assessments of what you heard on the call tells us what we need to know we have 2 independent folks nonpartisans. And I'm not hearing a consensus between the 2 of you about what exactly you both heard on the call that you heard at the exact same time and if you can't reach an agreement with regard to what happened on the call how can any of us an impeachment inquiry is supposed to be clear it's supposed to be obvious it's supposed to be overwhelming and compelling enough to people on the call disagree honestly about whether or not there was a demand and whether or not anything should be reported on a call that is not a clear and compelling basis to undo 63000000 votes and remove a president from office. They yield my remaining time to Mr Jordan I think the gentleman for yielding colonel then. Why did you go after the call why don't you go to this Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio I went immediately per the per the instructions from the July 10th incident I met went immediately to. Mr Eisenberg after that once I made that expressed my concerns it was an extremely busy week we had a p.c. You're listening to Special Coverage from n.p.r. News which consumed all of my time I was working streaming long days I attempted to try to communicate to I managed to speak to 2 folks in the inner agency I attempted to try to talk to Mr Morse and that didn't happen before I'd receive instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further so the lawyer you know he didn't go to your boss you said you tried beating go to your boss you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss no he didn't tell me until. What ended up unfolding is I really had the conversation with the attorney I did my coordination my core function which is coordination I spoke to the appropriate people within the inner agency and then circling back around Mr Eisenberg came back to me and told me not to talk to him I'm going to read from the transcript here why don't you go to your direct report Mr Morris and your response was be this page one of 2 because Mr Eisenberg told me to take my concerns to him. And I ask you did miss Did Mr Eisenberg tell you not to report to go around Mr Morrison and you said actually he did say that I should talk to any other people this is special coverage of the impeachment hearings from n.p.r. News is there between when I spoke to him and when he circled back around it wasn't that long a period time but it was enough time for me to enough time to go to talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is right I Bob I've been instructed not to represent of Jordan here's what I'm getting the lawyer told you don't talk to any other people and you interpret that as not talking to your boss by you talk to your brother you talk to the lawyers you talk to Secretary can you talk to the one guy Adam Schiff won't tell you what let us won't let you tell us who is the right represent I did my job I'm not saying you did it all I'm saying is you and your the instructions from a lot the lawyer was you shouldn't talk to anybody and you interpret that is don't talk to my boss but I'm going to go talk to someone that we can't even ask you who that individual is that is incorrect Well I just read what you said that he shouldn't talk to any other people settlement has expired There's I'm sorry Chairman but that sequence is not the way it played out I screamed try to turn around script kernal been Jordan please let her know that it's very the sequence played out where immediately afterwards I expressed my concerns I did my coordination function Mr Eisenberg circle back around told me not to talk to anybody else in that period of time I did not notice that that's when it happened that's when you're talking sized Mr that's right they can Mr Chairman Colonel And let's go back to that. Pair of meetings on July 10th and Besser Bolton's office and down in the ward room where you witness ambassador Sanyal and inform the Ukrainian officials that is a proof to a White House meeting between the 2 presidents quote Ukrainians Congressman Danny has been in the Washington Democrats in quote you said that Ambassador song was quote calling for an investigation that didn't exist into the Bidens in Barisan is that correct that is correct. It's that same afternoon you into Mr Eisenberg the council correct that meeting occurred in the afternoon and within you know a couple I'm sure was it was within a couple hours I spoke to Mr Eisenberg How did he react. He was cool calm and collected he took notes and he said he would look into it and did he not also tell you to feel free to come back it did not additional concerns he did congressman ambassador siloed had told you that his request to the Ukrainians had been coordinated with the chief of staff acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney Did you report that to Mr Eisenberg I did and what was his reaction. He key took notes and he said he was going to he'll follow up or look into it I don't recall exactly what he said Colonel you've also testified that on the July 25th call now between the 2 presidents quote There was no doubt in quotes that President Trump asked for investigations into the 26th election and Vice President Biden's son in return for a White House meeting within an hour of that call you reported that Mr Eisenberg did you not I did went back to him just as he had suggested would be appropriate He's an assistant to the president it was less a suggestion more than more of an instruction did you tell the lawyers that President Trump asked President Zelinsky to speak to Mr Giuliani Yes. And the lawyers it was at this point told you not to talk to anyone else that is that that is not correct with regard to timing they didn't follow by a circle back around.