That is correct. You explained earlier that your job in the white house was to coordinate United States and Ukraine Policy, is that right . It is to coordinate United States policy visavis ukraine, correct. You testified in the spring of this year that these officials, these ukrainian officials began asking you, quote, advice on how to respond to mr. Giulianis advances, end quote. Is that correct . That is correct. What do you understand they meant by mr. Giulianis advances . I understood that to mean both his public commentary, so publicly calling for investigations into 2016, burisma, and hunter biden, as well as his direct overtours to the government of ukraine directly and through proxies. Thats what i understood. As you understand it, under Whose Authority do you think mr. Giuliani was acting under . Congresswoman, i dont know. Did the ukrainian officials you were speaking to tell you that they were being asked to im sorry, can you say that again, maam . Do you think the ukrainian officials you spoke to understood the underlying meaning of mr. Giulianis advances to be investigating the bidens as well as be debunking the 2016 Conspiracy Theories . Yes, that it was ukrainian interference. Was this official u. S. Foreign policy to push for investigation into the bidens . It was not part of any process that i participated in. Ms. Williams, do you agree that pressing these two investigations was inconsistent with official u. S. Ukraine Policy . Obviously anticorruption reforms is a big part of our policy. I understand, i was not in a position to determine whether or not these particular thats fair. Colonel, is it true that President Trump directed the ukrainian president on the call on july 25th to work with mr. Giuliani on these investigations . That is correct. In fact, mr. Giuliani has made no secret of the fact that hes acting on behalf of President Trump. As mr. Giuliani told the new york times, and im going to put this on the screen, he told them, quote, my only client is the president of the United States. Hes the one i have the obligation to report to, to tell him what happens. He added that the investigations would be, quote, very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government, end quote. Colonel, is it fair to say the ukrainian officials well, you are in contact with given your portfolio, were concerned about mr. A giulianis advances . Yes, they were. In your assessment, did they understand the political nature of the request being asked of them . I believe they did. Did they understand it was affecting u. S. Domestic policy . Im not sure what they, frankly, understood about and you i think they understood the implications, yes. You testified earlier that you warned the ukrainians not to get involved in u. S. Domestic policy, is that right . I counseled them, yes. Counseled them. In fact you testified that you felt like it was important that you were espousing not just what you thought 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 its important for Foreign Governments not to get involved in Political Affairs of a nation like the United States . Congresswoman, the first thought that comes to mind is russian interference in 2016. The impact that had on internal politics, and the consequences it had for russia itself. Exactly. This administration enforced sanctions, heavy sanctions against russia for their interference. That would not be in the u. S. Policy colonel, im running out of time. I understand. Is it normal for a private citizen, a nonu. S. Government official, to get involved in Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs like mr. Giuliani . I dont know if i have the experience to say that but it certainly Wasnt Helpful and didnt help advance u. S. National security interests. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Turner. Ms. Williams, lot Colonel Vindman, i want to thank you also for your service, your knowledge and expertise is incredibly important as we look to Formulating Policy with our allies and to try to counter those who are not our allies. I think were all very concerned about our european policy and how it can thwart russian aggression. Ms. Williams, as you said, as part of your portfolio, you advised the Vice President about ukraine, correct . Correct. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, in your opening you say you are the principal adviser to the president on ukraine and you coordinate u. S. Ukraine Policy, correct . Congressman, in this statement i issued this morning i probably eased that back, i took that off my Job Description that i have on my eval. But i certainly spent much more time advising the ambassador than i did the president. But your statement, as you submitted it and read it today, says at the nsc i am the principal adviser to the National Security adviser and the president on ukraine, correct . That is not what i read into the transcript. That may 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 didnt want to you wrote what i just read . Congressman, what im saying is what i read into the record this morning didnt say that. Okay. Noted. Because you know ukraine, you know that we work through our allies and our multilateral relations and you know that ukraine is an aspiring member of nato and the eu; is that correct . Correct. Correct. And you know that the eu and no nato both have offices in the ukraine. We try to advance our policies with nato and you both know Kay Bailey Hutchison and ambassador sondland were responsible for advancing our interests in nato and the eu, is that right, ms. Williams . I would say certainly in terms of this specific relationship between nato and the ukraine, that would fall to ambassador hutchison and for ukraithe eu, ambassador sondland. Do you agree, Lieutenant Colonel vindman . I would agree. Thank you. Lieutenant colonel, you said in your Written Statement that mayor Rudolph Giuliani promoted false information. Have you ever met jugiuliani . I said false narrative, just to be record, thats what i said in the record this morning. I have not met him. So you never had a conversation with him on ukraine or been in a meeting where hes spoken to others about ukraine . No, just when i saw him, his comments on tv. So news reports. And in news, yes. Similarly, youve never met the president of the United States, right . That is correct. So youve never advised the president of the United States on ukraine . I advised him indirectly. I made all the preparations for his calls. Youve never spoken to the president and told him advice on ukraine . That is correct. So in your Written Statement you said in may i attended the inauguration of president zelensky as part of the president ial Delegation Led by secretary perry. You were a member but you werent in that meeting, were you . That is correct. Well just note there that that meeting occurred without you. Yet you do know that this Impeachment Inquiry is about the president of the United States, dont you . I do, representative. Excellent. Now, youve said that youre responsible for coordinating u. S. ukrainian policy. Correct. Does the secretary of state, pompeo, report to you . He does not. Ambassador volker . He does not. I coordinate ambassador to ukraine, anyone report to you in your responsibilities . Congress mman, at my level i convene the meetings with the deputy assistant. Does anybody need your approval to formulate Ukraine Policy . According to the nspm 4, the policy signed by the president so coordinated by the nsc, correct. Ms. Williams, 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 do you have any evidence, though . No, because i have not read them. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, do you have any evidence that anyone who has testified before this committee in the Impeachment Committee has p perjured themselves or lied to this committee . Not that im aware of. I yield bhaack. Mr. Carson. I yield to the chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to make one point clear for folks that are watching the hearing today. Bribery does involve a quid pro quo. Bribery involves the conditioning of an official act for something of value. An official act may be a white house meeting. An official act may be 400 million in military aid. And something of value to a president might include investigations of their political rival. The reason we dont ask witnesses that are Fact Witnesses to make the judgment about whether a crime of bribery has been committed or whether, more significantly, 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. Thats why we dont ask you those questions. For one thing, youre also not aware of all the other facts that have been adduced during the investigation. With that, i yield back to mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman. Thank you both for your service. Colonel vindman, you were in a july 10th white house meeting in ambassador boltons office, is that correct, sir . Im sorry, can you say that again . You were in a july 10th white house meeting with ambassador bolton . Correct. In that meeting the ukrainians asked about when they could get their oval office meeting, and ambassador sondland replied they need to, quote, speak about ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president , end quote. Is that correct, sir . That is correct. Colonel vindman, did you later learn why ambassador bolton cut the meeting short . I did. After ambassador bolton ended that meeting, sir, some of the group that attended a followon meeting in a dinner room in the white house called the ward room, is that correct, sir . That is correct. And ambassador sondland was there with the senior ukrainian officials; is that correct . That is correct. Did nsc lawyers tell you to come directly to them, sir, if you 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. And this followon meeting, sir, ambassador sondland left, in your words, no ambiguity about what specific investigations he was requesting. Ambassador sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President joe bidens son; isnt that corre correct, sir . That is correct. And he stated he was asking these requests in coordination with white house Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney, correct, sir . Thats what i 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 . I have not. And colonel, you immediately raised concerns about this, correct, sir . That cis correct. What exactly happened . After i reported it to the im sorry. Oh, im sorry, cue sould you sa that again . I apologize. You raised concerns about this, correct, sir . Correct. What happened . To ambassador sondland i stated it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with National Security policy. Did you also Raise Concerns that day with white house lawyers . I did. What did you tell them . I reported the same thing, i reported the content of the conversation with ambassador sondland. At that point i wasnt aware that dr. Hill had had a conversation with ambassador bolton so i just relayed what i experienced to the attorney, lead Legal Counsel. As we are now aware, sir, ambassador bolton expressed his concerns and instructed dr. Fiona hill, your supervisor, to also meet with the same white house lawyers to tell them what happened. Colonel vindman, i agree there is no question that ambassador sondland was proposing a transaction to ukrainian officials, trading white house meetings for specific investigations. The full awareness of the president s Chief Of Staff, white house attorneys, and his National Security adviser. In my view, sir, thats appalling. Thank you both for your service. I yaeield back to the chairman. I thank the chairman. I would point out as well that when the matter does move to the judiciary committee, and no decision has been made about the ultimate resolution, the white house through its counsel will have the opportunity to submit or make a submission to the judiciary committee. I now turn to dr. Wenstrop. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, thank you very much for being here. As an army colonel who served in iraq, i thank you for your service and i know the environment. In your deposition you emphasize the importance of Chain Of Command. You were a Direct Report to dr. Hill and mr. Morrison and they were your seniors; is that correct . That is correct. When you had concerns about the 7 25 call, you didnt go to mr. Morrison about that, did you . I immediately went to john eisenberg, the Legal Counsel. That doesnt seem like Chain Of Command. Thats not in the deposition im sorry, can i answer the question . Congressman, please allow Colonel Vindman to answer. I reported to john eisenberg. I attempted to report it to mr. Morrison. Thank you. He didnt avail himself. At that point i was told not to he did avail himself. Please allow the witness to finish. Colonel, are you finished with your answer . Yes. Thank you. Okay. In the morrison deposition, on page 58 to 60, it question was do you know if anyone else on the call went to eisenberg to express concerns and your answer was, i learned 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 vindman on my staff. The question then, and he reports to you, correct . Answer he does. Lieutenant colonel vicinindman Direct Report was mr. Morrison and it didnt happen. Lieutenant colonel, the question was, okay, after the call on 7 25, do you have any discussions with mr. Morrison about your concerns . Answer after the call, i well per the exercise in the Chain Of Command and expressing i immediately went to the senior nsc Legal Counsel and shared those concerns. That would be mr. Eisenberg, correct . Im sorry. My lawyer was talking. Could you say that again, please . You went to mr. Eisenberg, you already said that so we can go on. Youre not a jag, youre not a lawyer. In your deposition, you referenced that meeting with mr. Eisenberg. You said, i Wasnt Making A legal judgment, all i was doing was sharing my concerns with my Chain Of Command. Yet weve established that your Direct Report is to mr. Morrison. Lets establish your role and your title. In your deposition, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, page 200, 201, in a colloquy with mr. Stewart, you said, i would say first of all im the director for ukraine. Im responsible for ukraine. Im the most knowledgeable. And im therefore the National Security council and the white house. Are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on ukraine . Couldnt someone like ms. Williams also advise on ukraine . Its in her portfolio. Thats not typically what would happen. Frankly it would be ambassador bolton other people can advise on ukraine besides you. Going on in your testimony, you said, i understand all the nuances, the context and so forth surrounding these issues. I on my judgment went, expressed concerns within the Chain Of Command which i think to me as a Military Officer is completely appropriate and i exercised that Chain Of Command. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you said, i forwarded my concerns through the Chain Of Command and the seniors then decide the action to take. Mr. Morrison is your senior. He didnt know about it. How can he decide an action to take . But thats what you said. In mr. Morrisons deposition, page 60, the question is, at what point did you learn that Lieutenant Colonel vindman went to eisenberg, about the 25th phone call. He said, yes, in the course of reviewing for this proceeding, reviewing the open record. So the next question, so eisenberg never came to you and relayed to you the conversation . He said no. Ellis never did either . Not to the best of the my recollection. So mr. Morrison was in your Chain Of Command about your other concerns. Mr. Morrison says hes the final clearing authority, he says he saw your edits. Do you remember if all the edits were incorporated and he said yes, i accepted all of them, thats on page 6162. So he believes all your edits were accepted. Let me ask you, in your edits, did you insist that the word demand be put into the transcription between the conversation between the two president s . I did not. But you did say that in your Opening Statement today. Thank you, and i yield back. Ms. Speier. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you both for your testimony and your service. Colonel vindman, wasnt it the case that mr. Eisenberg, the attorney, had said to you after the July 5th Meeting that you should come to him if you have any other concerns . After the July 10th Meeting, yes, maam, that is 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 two, certainly. All right. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been complaining about other witnesses having only secondhand information. But in both your cases, you have firsthand information because you were on the july 25th phone call; is that correct . Thats correct. That is correct. Now, colonel, you in your comments today said, i want to state that the vile Character Attacks on these distinguished and honorable Public Servants is reprehensible. Would you like to expand on that at all . Maam, i think they stand on their own. I dont think its necessary 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, no. Since the report on the july 25th, as i stated, i did notice i was being excluded from several meetings that would have been appropriate for my position. So in some respects then there have been reprisals . I am 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 events. Thank you. In preparation for the july 25th phone call, its 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 its important to ensure that everyone has carefully considered the implications of what the president mild say to a foreign leader . That is correct. Colonel vindman, you are the National Security councils 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 at the nsc 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 burisma . They did not. Are you aware of any written product from the National Security council suggesting that investigations into the 2016 election, the bidens, or burisma are part of the official policy of the United States . No, i am not. Some of President Trumps allies have suggested 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 nsc, certainly a director at the ns kroochc would do. As a matter of fact we are prohibited from being involved in any transaction between the Department Of Justice and a foreign power to ensure that there is no perception of manipulation from the white house. So it is not something that we would participate in. Ms. Williams, in your experience did 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. Let me just say to you, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, in listening to your Opening Statement, i had chills up and down my spine. 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. Ms. Williams, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, thank you to both of you for being here today. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, i see youre wearing your dress uniform. Knowing thats not the uniform of the day, do you normally wear a suit to the white house . Its a great reminder of your military service. I too come from a military family. These are my fathers air force links. Five of his sons served in the military. At one military family to another, thank you to you and your brothers for your service. Your example here. Very quickly, im curious, when Ranking Member nunes called you mr. Vindman, you corrected him to Lieutenant Colonel vindman. Do you always insist onn being addressed by your rank . I thought im sure you meant no disrespect. I dont believe he did. But the attacks ive had in the press, in twitter, have kind of eliminated the fact that either marginalized me as a Military Officer or listen, im just telling you that the Ranking Member met no disrespect to you. I believe that. I would like to go back to your previous testimony earlier today. Much has been talked about as weve discussed between President Trump and president zelensky and the word favor. And this being interpreted as a basis for impeachment. Your interpretation of the word favor, and ill paraphrase you, feel free to correct me, you said in the Military Culture, which you and i are both familiar with, when a Superior Officer asks for a favor of a subordinate they will interpret that as a demand. Is that a fair synopsis of what you previously stated . When a superior makes a request, its an order. In short, you think your interpretation of a favor as 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 . Not that im aware of. Is president zelensky a member of the military . The answer is no. I dont believe so. I dont know. Hes not. Would it be fair then to take a person who has never served in the military and to take your reevaluation of their words based on your Military Experience and your Military Culture and to attach that culture and that meaning to those words to someone who has never served . Representative, i made that judgment, i stick by that judgment. I have to tell you i think its nonsense. Look, i was in the military. I could distinguish between a favor and an order and a demand. And so could my subordinates. I think president zelensky did as well. He never initiated an investigation. In fact hes been very clear, he said i never felt any pressure at all. So you interpreted the word favor but the two 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 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 thats not true at all. Thats not clear at all. You say it makes it clear. Its not clear at all. And the two individuals who were talking to each other didnt interpret it that way. I would like to go on to discuss your reaction to the phone call, and again, your previous testimony. For brevity and for clarity im going to refer to your previous testimony, page 155, your attorney is welcome to follow on, quoting you, i did not know whether this was a crime or anything of that nature. I thought it was wrong. And i would like to key on the word wrong here because were going to come back to that. In my mind did i consider this that there could have been other implications . Yes, but it wasnt the basis of, i dont know, lodging a criminal complaint or anything like that. Then you go on to talk about Policy Concerns and ethical judgments. So your concerns were not legal, they were based on moral, ethical, and policy differences. Let me ask you and what you thought were wrong, to use your words, not illegal but wrong. As ive stated previously sitting here a couple of 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 sixhour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold A Billion Dollars of aid if not. It was the one individual who was investigating a company that was paying his son. So ill ask you, was that also wrong . That is not what i understand. I frankly dont have any firsthand knowledge of that. You have not seen ive seen the video. Thats all ive described is the 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 the American People can make a judgment. The time of the gentleman has expired. Colonel vindman, if you would like to answer the question, you are more than welcome to. I frankly dont know that much more about that particular incident. I saw the snippet of the video but i dont know if i can make a judgment off that. Thank you. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Colonel, its one thing to ask somebody a favor like, hey, go pick up my dry cleaning. Its another when the Commander In Chief of the most powerful army in the world asks an ally who is in a vulnerable position to do him a favor, is it not . Yes. Let me go back to that military assistance, if i could. Ms. Williams, again, when did you first learn that the Security Assistance was being held up, the nearly 400 million that was referenced . July 3rd. And were you aware of 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 omb representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the white house Chief Of Staff. And did they give reasons beyond that it was being withheld by the white house Chief Of Staff . Not specifically. The reason given was that there was an ongoing review whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities. Did anyone in any of those meetings or in 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, nerin terms of defense an state Department Officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which earmarked funding from congress that was designated for ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approached the end of the fiscal year. And from what you witnessed, did anybody in the National Security Community Support withholding the assistance . No. Colonel, again, just for the record, when did you first learn the Security Assistance was being withheld . On or about july 3rd. And what exactly had you learned from the State Department, i believe, that prompted you to draft the notice on july 3rd . So on or about july 3rd i became aware of inquiries into Security Assistance funding in general. There are two typical pots, State Department and dod. And i believe it was around that date that omb put a hold on congressional notification. And had you had any earlier indications that this might be the case . Prior to that, there were some general inquiries on how the funds were being spent, things that have nature, nothing specific. No holds, certainly. Were you aware of anyone in the National Security community who supported withholding the aid . No. No one from National Security . None. No one from the State Department . Correct. No one from the department of defense . Correct. Did anybody in your understanding raise the legality of withholding the assistance . It was raised on several occasions. And who raised those concerns . So the following the july 18th subpcc which is, again, what i coordinate, what i convene at my level, there was a july 23rd pcc that would have been conducted by mr. Morrison. There were questions raised as to the legality of the hold. Over the subsequent week, the issue was analyzed, and during the july 26th deputies, so the deputies from all the departments and agencies, there was an opinion rendered that it was it was legal to put the hold. It was excuse me . There was an opinion legal opinion rendered that it was okay to that the hold was legal. On the purely legal Point Of View . Correct. Very good. I yield back to the chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ms. Stefanik. Ms. Williams, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, thank you for being here and thank you both for your service. As millions of americans are watching throughout the hysteria and frenzied media coverage, two key facts have not changed that are critical to these impeachment proceedings. One, ukraine in fact received the aid, and two, there was no investigations into the bidens. 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 anticorruption efforts, and three, who in our government has the Decisionmaking Authority when it comes to Foreign Policy and National Security matters. So on corruption and ukraine, as ambassador yovanovitch testified, one of the key reasons why president zelensky 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 ambassadors 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 zelensky, you testified that the points you wanted to communicate on the call were the following. Quote, look forward to seeing president zelensky really implement the agenda on which he had run related to anticorruption reforms. Thats correct . That is, yes. And Lieutenant Colonel vindman, would you agree this Focus On Corruption is a critical aspect of our policy towards ukraine . I would. And Lieutenant Colonel vindman, you are aware that in 2014 during the obama administration, the first anticorruption investigation partnered between the u. S. , the uk, and ukraine, was into the owner of the Company Burisma . Im aware of it now. And Lieutenant Colonel vindman, you testified you were aware that burisma had questionable Business Dealings as part of its track record . That is correct. You also testified that regarding burisma, money laundering, tax evasion, comports with your understanding of how business is done in ukraine; is that correct . Im not aware of specific incidents but my understanding is that it would not be out of the realm of the possible for burisma. Thats page 2 of 7 from your testimony but ill move on. You are aware that hunter biden did sit on the board of burisma at this time . I am. I know my constituents have many concerns about the fact that hunter biden, the son of the Vice President , sat on the board of a corrupt company like burisma. The obama administrations 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 burisma has the potential for the appearance of a Conflict Of Interest . Certainly the potential, yes. And ms. Williams . Yes. Now, shifting to the legal requirements that our aid to ukraine is conditioned on anticorruption, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, 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. 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 anticorruption in ukraine but it is so critical, so important, that hardearned taxpayer dollars when given to foreign nations, that by law overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anticorruption in ukraine in order to get u. S. Taxpayer funded aid. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you spoke extensively about the importance of javelins, this was your deposition. Correct. And you testified 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 when it comes to providing defensive lethal aid. The system itself and the signal u. S. Support, yes. And it is a fact that that aid was provided under President Trump and not president obama . That is correct. My last question, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, i know you serve at the nsc at the white house, i served for President Bush on the Domestic Policy council. I also know as a staff member the person who sets the policy of the United States is the president , not the staff. And you testified 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 first of all, im the director for ukraine, im responsible for ukraine, im the most knowledgeable, im the authority for ukraine, for the National Security council and the white house. I just want a clarification. You report to tim morrison, correct . In my your Direct Report is tim morrison, correct . Just to clarify, only in my advisory capacity. I advise up through the Chain Of Command. Thats what i do. And the Chain Of Command is tim morrison to ambassador john bolton, National Security adviser to the president of the United States . Right. And do you agree the president sets the policy as Commander In Chief as you testified previously . Absolutely. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you both. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, i think the followup question that my colleague from new york did not ask you but is relevant for everyone at home, isnt it true that the department of defense had certified that the anticorruption requirements of ukraine had been met when the hold was put on by the president . That is correct. Now, mr. Jordan suggested that the president did something none of us expected by releasing that call transcript. You listened to the call, is that right, Lieutenant Colonel . That is. Ms. Williams, you also listened to the call, is that right . Yes. Fair to say, ms. Williams, a lot of other people at the white house listened to the call or read the transcript . I cant characterize how many, i believe there were four, five, or six of us in the Listening Room at the time. And the transcript was distributed to others . I wasnt part of that process but thats my understanding. The president is asking us to give him a gold star because a number of people listened to the transcript before he released it. The difference between this and his oneonone meeting in helsinki with Vladimir Putin is there it was a oneonone 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. Youve been asked to also characterize what exactly legally all of this means. And mr. Ratcliff pointed out that no one had used the term bribery in our deposition. Ms. Williams, youre not a lawyer, are you . Im not, no. Mr. Vindman, are you a lawyer . The lawyer is back there. Your brother, born nine minutes after you. Yes. Youre the older brother. Yes, a lifetime of wisdom there. Suppose you have a Shooting Victim and the Police Respond after the victim is doing a little bit better and they ask the victim, 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 who the person is that pulled the trigger. The police say, okay, you were shot, you know who it is, but, shucks, you didnt tell us that this was an attempted murder, so were going to have to let the person go. Is that how it works in our justice system, that unless victims or witnesses iecdentify the legal theories of the case, we let them off the hook . Is that how it works . Im not an attorney but it doesnt seem so. I dont think your brother would think so either. Ms. Williams, Vice President pence was described to our committee by mr. Moyrrison, as , quote, Voracious Reader of his intelligence read book. After the call with president zelensky, you put a transcript of that call in the Vice President s read book; is that correct . Thats correct. And the Vice President called president zelensky two days later, is that right . Thats correct. And you told us in that deposition that he stuck pretty Faithly Lfully to what preside trump said, right . I believe he was consistent but he also spoke on other issues as well including anticorruption. You would describe the Vice President as someone who would make Followup Calls to World Leaders after the president , is that right . He has on occasion. Its not a normal practice. It depends on the situation. And in that case he stuck to President Trumps Talking Points . I would say that i provided Talking Points for the april 23rd call for the Vice President which included discussion of president zelenskys inauguration which President Trump had also discussed with president zelensky. But i would say the Vice President discussed other issues with president zelensky as well. And as was stated earlier, the president sets the Foreign Policy of the United States, is that right . Absolutely. And you told us that after the july 25 call between President Trump and president zelensky, that you put the call transcript in Vice President pences intelligence briefing book, is that right . I ensured it was there. My colleagues prepare the book. But yes. Flash forward to september 1, Vice President pence meets with president zelensky, is that right . Thats correct. Youre there . Yes. And Vice President pence and president zelensky talk about a lot of things but you agree that Vice President pence did not bring up the bidens . Thats correct. He did not bring up investigations . No. 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 into the bidens because he thought it was wrong . Im not in a position to speculate. We had not discussed those investigations in any preparatory sessions with the Vice President. But you did not bring it up in the preparation for that call . No. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you ever do what was being asked of the ukrainians after that july 25th phone call . I did not, i did not render any opinion on what was being asked on the 25th. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Hurd. Ms. Williams, i want to join my colleagues in thangking you for your service. Did you participate in conversations on how potential information collected by 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 Vindman, i think all of us would agree your father made the right move to come here, and were glad that he did. Youve talked about how part of your responsibilities is preparing Talking Points . That is correct. You also do that for your direct supervisor right now, mr. Morrison . Mr. Morrison has left the position sometime ago already, at least three weeks ago. But you prepare Talking Points for your supervisors; is that correct . Typically, frankly, at that level they dont really take Talking Points, especially if they have expertise. The Talking Points are more intended for National Security adviser, although ambassador bolton didnt really require them because of his deep expertise. Its the next level up. Traditionally, im trying to establish the position as somebody who prepared Talking Points for a number of people; is that correct . That is correct. Do they always use them . No. Is President Trump known to stick to a script . I dont believe so. So is it odd that he didnt use your Talking Points . No, it is not. In your deposition, if your lawyer wants to follow on, its page 306, you were asked about events during the temporary hold to u. S. Assistance to ukraine, the fiveday period or so. You testified that the u. S. Administration did not receive any new insurances from the ukraine about anticorruption efforts and the facts on the ground did not change before the hold was lifted, is that accurate in recounting your testimony . That is accurate. When was president zelensky sworn in . He was sworn in on excuse me, may 20th, 2019. And then he had a new parliament too elected after he was; is that correct . He did. And when was that parliament seated . That was july 21st, 2019. That was when they won, right . They werent properly seated until august. Thats right. They won and they Werent Seated until august. Your boss boss, ambassador bolton, traveled to ukraine in late august, august 27, 28; is that correct . That is correct. Did he take you with him . He didnt. We know from other witnesses that when ambassador bolton was there, he met with president zelensky and his staff and they talked about how they were visually exhausted because one of the things that president zelensky did during that time period was change the ukrainian constitution to remove absolutely immunity from rada deputies, some of their parliament tak parliamentarians, is that accurate . That is accurate. Were you aware of this important change to ukrainian law . Of course. Ambassador taylor testified that president zelensky with this new parliament opened ukraines high anticorruption court, right . This had been an initiative that many folks and our State Department had been push to ing happen and that was established in that time frame. Were you aware of this . Yes. Do you think this is significant anticorruption . I do. When you talked about how many times have you met president zelensky . I think it was just the one time from the president ial delegation. Multiple engagements, but just the one trip. Thats a oneonone meeting . That was in a larger bilateral format. Then there were a couple of smaller venues. They were all in there was never a oneonone. But there were a couple of, again, touch points. So the bilateral meeting, handshake, meet and greet, he had a short so there was a lot of people in the room when you met with them . Thats right. You still advised the ukrainian president to watch out for the russians . Yes. And that was that was and everybody else in the room, im assuming, the National Security adviser was there, i believe, in this case you had other members of the administration. Were your points preapproved, did they know you were going to bring up those points . He did have a huddle beforehand. Its possible i flagged him. I dont recall specifically. I. And you counseled the ukrainian president to stay out of u. S. Politics . Correct. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the time i do not have. Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Castro . Thank you, chairman. Miss williams, thank you for your service to the country. Colonel vindman, thank you for your service. And its great to talk to a fellow identical twin. I hope that your brother is nicer to you than mine is to me. And doesnt make you grow a beard. You both listened in realtime to the july 25th call. In particular, you would have heard President Trump ask the president of ukraine, quote, i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike, and quote, the server. They say ukraine has it. This is a debunked Conspiracy Theory that has no basis in fact. President trumps own former Homeland Security adviser, thomas p. Bossert called the president s assertion that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, quote, not only a Conspiracy Theory, but, quote unquote, completely debunked. Unquote. Colonel vindman, are you aware of any evidence to sport the theory that the Ukrainian Government interfered in the 2016 election . Congressman, i am not. And 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 am not aware of. And 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 wow would be giving credence to a Conspiracy Theory about ukraine that helps russia, really in at least two ways. First, it ignores and frankly undermines the assessment of the u. S. Intelligence community, and seeks to weaken a state dependent on the United States Supreme Court to fight russian aggression. It also for the United States 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 pressuring ukraine to do his political work. President trump stated on that july 25th call, quote, theres a lot of talk about bidens son that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Colonel vindman, when you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful and wellcalibrated anticorruption program, consistent with u. S. Policy . I 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 trumps own political benefit that he discourage foreign leaders from undertaking in their own countries. And discouraging other countries from undertaking politically motivated investigations is, in fact, a major part of official u. S. Anticorruption policy. Is that correct . That is correct. And are you, in fact, aware of any evidence that Vice President biden improperly interfered in investigation of his Family Members . I am not. These false narratives, it 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. He also mentioned that this request, that you felt this request was wrong. And youve also said that corruption in ukraine is endemic to 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 of the United States, whether its donald trump or any future president , asking another nation where theres 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 the reliance on u. S. Support could conceivably cause them to tip the scales of justice in favor of finding a the u. S. Citizen guilty, if they thought they needed to do that. 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. I yield back, chairman. Mr. Ratcliffe . Thank you, chairman. Miss williams. You testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25th was that the president raised 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 didnt sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations, is that fair . I dont believe im in a position to characterize it further than the president did in terms of ask for a favor. You didnt hear a demand km. I would just refer back to the transcript itself. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you youve testified and explained why to us in your mind it was a demand. And youve given us reason, the disparity of power between the two president s. 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. Okay. So two different people, two impartial observers, one felt the need to report the call because there was a demand that was improper and one that didnt report it to anyone. You didnt report it to anyone, right, miss williams . I ensured that the information was available to my superiors. So, while all of 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 two independent evacuates, nonpartisans, and im not hearing a consensus between the two of you about what exactly you both heard on the call that you heard at the exact same time. And if you cant reach an agreement with regard to what happened on the call, how can any of us . An Impeachment Inquiry is supposed to be clear. Its supposed to be obvious. Its supposed to be overwhelming and compelling. And if two 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 63 million votes and remove a president from office. I yield my remaining time to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentlemen for yielding. Colonel vindman. Why didnt you go after the call, why didnt you go to mr. Morrison . I went immediately, per the instructions from the july 10th incident, i went immediately to mr. Eisenberg. After that, once i made that expressed my concerns, it was an extremely week. We had a pcc just finish, we had the call, and then a deputys meeting, which consumed all of my time. I was working extremely long days. I attempted to try to communicate to i managed to speak to two folks in the interagency. I attempted to try to talk to mr. Morrison. That didnt happen before i received struninstructions from eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further. So the lawyer you not only didnt go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss . No, he didnt tell me until what ended up unfolding is i had the conversation with the attorney, i did my coordination my core function, which is coordination. I spoke to the appropriate people within the interagency, and then circling back around, mr. Eisenberg came back to me and told me not to talk to