Had already stopped the Trip Planning by that point. And when did that happen . Stopping the Trip Planning . Yeah. On may 13th. Okay. And how did you hear about that . I was called by a colleague in the the Vice President s chief of staffs office and told to stop the Trip Planning. Okay. And as i understand it, it was the assistant to the chief of staff . Thats correct. Okay. And so you didnt hear about it from general kellogg or the chief of staff or the president or the Vice President , you heard about it from mr. Shorts assistant . Thats right. And did you have any knowledge of the reasoning for stopping the trip . I asked my colleague why we should stop Trip Planning and why the Vice President would not be attending, and i was informed that the president had decided the Vice President would not attend the inauguration. Okay. And do you know why the president decided no, she did not have that information. Okay. And ultimately the Vice President went to canada for a usmca event . Thats right. During this this window of time, correct . Correct. So its entirely conceivable that the president decided that he wanted the Vice President to go to canada on behalf of usmca instead of doing anything else, correct . Im really not in a position to speculate what the motivations were behind the president s decision. Well, you know the Vice President s done quite a bit of usmca events, correct . Absolutely. Yes, sir. And are you aware of whether the anyone at the State Department inquired with your office about the Vice President s availability for the trip to canada . For the trip at what point . Early may, maybe may 8th. I was not involved in the Trip Planning for canada. One of my colleagues who covers Western Hemisphere was in charge of that, so im not aware of specific requests about the Vice President s availability. I was aware from my colleague who was planning that trip that we had competing trips potentially for the same window, but i was told that the ukraine trip would take priority. Okay. But ultimately you dont know . I dont know about the canada trip . You dont know the reason as to why the Vice President was sent to canada for a usmca event instead of going to the ukraine . I would say i dont know the reason behind why the president directed the Vice President not to go to ukraine. I cant speak to the motivations about the canada trip. Okay. Colonel vindman, id like to turn a little bit to the July 10th Meeting in ambassador boltons office and the subsequent postmeeting in the ward room. Who all was in the July 10th Meeting to the best of your recollection . Are we talking about the boardroom, or are we talking about the actual meeting with ambassador bolton . Well start with the first meeting in the ambassadors office. So from the u. S. Side, we had ambassador bolton, dr. Hill, i
believe there was another special Assistant To The President , Wells Griffith was in there and myself. From the ukrainian who for the ukrainians . Oh, sorry. From the ukrainian side, we had alexander danuluk, Andr Andre Yurmak and alexanders adviser alexis semeni. Okay. And you testified that you couldnt recall exactly why ambassador bolton stopped the meeting short and you only learned it subsequently talking to dr. Fiona hill . Yeah, i noted that it ended abruptly, but i didnt frankly, you know i didnt exactly know why. And in the bolton meeting, you dont remember ambassador sondland using the word biden . He did not. Okay. To the best of my recollection, i dont think he did. And then the group decamped to take a photo, correct . Correct. Okay. Group was a positive one at that time, even though it may have ended abruptly . I think ambassador bolton was exceptionally qualified. He understood the Strategic Communications opportunity of having a photo, and we prompted him to before we completely adjourned to see if he was willing to do a photo, and he did. Okay. So you went out to west executive ave. Of the white house and you took a photo . You said you took it . I certainly took a ducouple them. In the photo was Secretary Perry, ambassador volker, mr. Danny look and mr. Yarmark. Of course ambassador bolton, volker, and sondland were there and Secretary Perry was there. Okay. Now, you testified that before the July 10th Meeting you had developed concerns about the
narrative, you know, involving Rudy Giuliani, is that correct . That is correct. And had you heard, like a firsthand account from anyone on the inside, or had you just been following News Accounts . So i certainly was following News Accounts, and thats from the ukrainian side, ukrainian press, and u. S. Press. Okay. And and my colleagues in the inner agency also were concerned about this as this had started in the march time frame kind of emanating from the John Solomon Story All The Way through, so there had been ongoing conversations. So several different sources, counselor. And so when ambassador sondland mentioned the investigations, you sort of had a little bit of a clue of what the issue was . Oh, definitely. Okay. And then you took the photo, a very nice photo, and then you went to the ward room . Correct. And do you remember i think you conceded to us that you had a hard time remembering
exactly what was said in the ward room. Again, its four months ago, its hard to be precise about whether sondland, what specific words he used, whether he used burisma, 2016 investigations. Yeah, so i believe its in the deposition, the three elements, burisma, bidens and the 2016 elections were all mentioned. In the ward room . Correct. And i think you know, i think we can maybe go back to this, but i think on page 64 of your testimony, you told us that you dont remember him using 2016 in the ward room . I believe that i actually followed up and because this question was asked multiple times. I said all three elements were in there. So let me ask the question to sort of refresh your recollection. Yes, i guess thats the term now. There was some discussion of,
you know, whether when mr. Morrison took over the portfolio for dr. Hill, whether you were sidelined at all. Did you feel like you were . So i certainly was excluded or didnt participate in the trip to ukraine, belarus at the end of august, and i wasnt initially before it changed from a podus trip to a Vice President trip to warsaw, i wasnt participating in that one, so i didnt miss that, no. Okay. Did you express any concerns to mr. Morrison about why you werent included on those trips . So mr. Morrison, i was on leave, i was supposed to be on leave from the 3rd of august through about the 16th or so of august, and he called me and asked me to return. There was obviously a high Priority Travel to the region, and he needed my assistance to help plan for it, and in asking me to return early from leave, which i take infrequently, i assumed that id be gone on the trip, so when i was after returning from leave early when i was told i wasnt going, i inquired about it, correct. And what feedback did he give you . He initially told me that the aircraft that was acquired was too small, and there wasnt enough room. Okay. Did had you ever had any discussions with mr. Morrison about concerns that he or dr. Hill had with your judgment . Did i ever have any conversations with mr. Morrison about it . Yeah. No. Okay. Did mr. Morrison ever express concerns to you that he thought maybe you werent following the Chain Of Command in all instances . He did not. And did dr. Hill or mr. Morrison ever ask you questions about whether you were trying to access information outside of your lane . They did not. And another, you know,s aspe of the ukraine portfolio that you were not a part of were some of the communications mr. Morrison was having with Ambassador Taylor . Correct. Did you ever ebs prexpress c that he was leaving you off those calls . Well, certainly it was concerning. He had just come on board. He didnt have the you know, he wasnt steeped in all the items that we were working on, including the policy that we had developed over the preceding months, and i thought i could contribute to that, to the performance of his duties. Okay. When you were you went to ukraine for the inauguration . Correct. At any point during that trip, did mr. Dannylook offer
you a position of Defense Minister . He did. How many times did he do that . I believe it was three times. Do you have any reason why he asked you to do that . I dont know, but every single time i dismissed it, upon returning i notified my Chain Of Command and the appropriate Counter Intelligence folks about the offer. Ukraines a country thats experienced a war with russia, certainly their Minister Of Defense is a pretty key position for the ukrainians, president , zelensky, that was a big honor, correct . I think it would be a great honor, and frankly im aware of Service Members that have left service to help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world. If i recall correctly, it was an Air Force Officer that became a
Minister Of Defense. But im an american. I came here when i was a toddler, and i immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them. When he made this offer to you initially, did you leave The Door Open . Was there a reason he had to come back and ask a second or third time . Or was he trying to convince you . The whole notion is rather comic cal that i was being asked to consider whether id want to be the Minister Of Defense. I did not leave The Door Open at all. Okay. But it is pretty funny for a Lieutenant Colonel of the United States army, which really is not that senior to be offered that illustrious a position. When he made this offer to you, was he speaking in english or ukrainian . Oh, he is an absolutely flawless english speaker. He was speaking in english, and just to be clear, there were two other Staff Officers, embassy kyiv Staff Officers that were sitting next to me when this
offer was made . Who were they . Bun one of them you may have met, it was mr. David holmes. I dont know, i guess its another Foreign Service officer, keith bean. Okay. We met mr. Holmes last friday evening. I understand. Delightful. And you said when you returned to the United States, you papered it up given your you know, with Sci Clearance whenever a Foreign Government makes an overture like that, you paper it up and you tell your Chain Of Command . I did, but i also dont know if i fully entertained it as a legitimate offer. I was just making sure that i did the right thing in terms of reporting this. Okay. And did any of your supervisors, dr. Hill at the time or drdr. Dr. Kupperman or ambassador bolton ever follow up with you about that . Its a rather significant, you know, the ukrainians offered you
the post of Defense Minister, you know, did you tell anyone in your Chain Of Command about it . After i spoke to i believe the deputy our deputy senior director, john areth was there, once i mentioned it to both of them, i dont believe there was ever a followup discussion. Okay. So it never came one dr. Kupperman or dr. Hill . Following that consideration i had with dr. Hill, i dont believe there was a subsequent conversation, and i dont recall ever having a conversation with dr. Kupperman about it. Okay. And did you brief dr. Or sorry, Director Morrison when he came on board . No, i completely forgot about it. Okay. And subsequent to the nature, did mr. Danyliuk ever ask you to reconsider . Were there any other offers . No. When he visited for the July 10th Meeting with ambassador bolton, did it come up okay. And did you ever think that
possibly if this information s was, you know, got out, it might create at least the perception of a conflict that the ukrainians thought so highly of you to offer you the Defense Ministry post on one hand, but on the other hand youre responsible for ukrainian policy at the National Security council. So frankly, it would be its more important about what my american leadership, american Chain Of Command thinks than any of the this is these are honorable people. Im not sure if you meant it as a joke or not, but its much more important what my civilian white house National SecurityCouncil Chain of command thinks more so than anybody else, and frankly, if they were concerned about me being able to continue my duties, they would have brought that to my attention. Dr. Hill stayed on for several more months, and we continued to work to advance u. S. Policy. Okay. And during the times relevant of the committees investigation, did you have any communications with mr. Yarmock or danyliuk. I recall a courtesy note within days of his return in july in which he wanted to preserve an open channel communication, and i said, you know, please feel free to contact me with any concerns. And were you following this, you know, theres sort of two tracks, Ambassador Taylor walked us through it during his testimony last wednesday. There was a he called it a regular channel, and then he called it an irregular but not outlandish channel with ambassador sondland, ambassador volker. Were you tracking the sondland and Volker Channel . During this time period . Yeah, so im trying to recall at which point i became aware of ambassador certainly i was aware of the fact that they were they were working
together, sondland, ambassador sondland, ambassador volker and Secretary Perry were working together to advance u. S. Policy interests that were in support of what had been agreed to, but i didnt really learn, like i said, until the july 10th actually, there may have been a slightly earlier point. I recall a meeting in which ambassador bolton facilitated a meeting between ambassador volker and ambassador bolton in the june time frame, and there may have been some discussion about this external channel. Okay. I frankly didnt become aware of these particular u. S. Government officials being involved in this alternate track until july 10th. Okay. And i think we had some discussion that, you know, mr. Giuliani was promoting a negative narrative about the ukraine and certain officials were trying to help the president understand that with zelensky, it was a new day, and ukraines going to be different. Is that r yoyour understanding . That is correct. That is exactly what was being reported by the intelligence community, by the Policy Channels within the nsc, and the concerted voices of the various people that have actually met with him including foreign officials. And to the extent that youre aware of what ambassador, you know, sondlands goals were here and ambassador volkers goals were here, you think they were just trying to do the best they could and try to advocate in the best interests of the United States . That is what i believed, and that is what i still believe, frankly. And to the extent mr. Giuliani may have had differing views they were trying to help him understand that it was time to change those views . I think they were trying to bring him into the tent and have him kind of support the direction that was that we had settled on. And you never conferred with mr. Giuliani . No. You never had any meetings, phone calls or anything of that sort . I did not. I only know him as new yorks
finest mayor. Americas mayor. Americas mayor. And did you did you have any discussions, communications during this relevant time period with the president . I have never had any contact with the president of the United States. My time expired mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank the gentleman. Were going to now move to the fiveminute member rounds. Are you good to go forward, or do you need a break . I think wed like to take a short break. Okay. Lets try to take a five or tenminute break and well resume with the fiveminute rounds. If i could ask the audience and members to please allow the witnesses to leave the room first. The committee is in recess. Its another stunning morning of testimony on capitol hill with major implications for the trump white house. Im Nicolle Wallace in new
yorkings you yorkin yorkings. Youve been watching our coverage of this third day of open coverage impeachment hearings, the first of two rounds. This morning two dedicated Public Servants, speaking truth to power in the face of withering public criticism. We are joined by maya wiley who previously worked in the Sicivi Division of the u. S. Attorneys office, also by my wing woman on these mornings, former democratic senator from missouri and current msnbc political analyst, claire mechanccaskill, msnbc contributor joyce vance. Two big flash points this morning, two moments that will be remembered long after this mornings Public Session ends. One, Lieutenant Colonel vindman correcting a harsh line of questioning from devin nunes, the president s mini me in the house, if you will, who called him mr. Vindman. That followed an Opening Statement where he said to his
father, dad, its safe to tell the truth here. The second flash point, devin nunes seemingly trying to out the whistleblower with a line of questioning there. Claire, what stood out to you this morning . I think, once again, the witnesses have been called clearly are not political. I mean, for gosh sakes, this woman worked as a field in the field for bush Cheney Running for president and then found her way into the Foreign Service from a clearly political beginning of her career, so any attempts to couch these witnesses and how powerful was that Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel when he said in russia, if i were in russia and speaking truth to power, even if i respectd a ed and did behind closed doors, it would be a problem, and frankly if i did it publicly like this, i would be killed. This is what Colonel Vindman testified to in his opening
statement. In russia my act of expressing my concerns to the Chain Of Command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. Im Grateful For My Fathers Brave Act Of Hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an american citizen and Public Servant where i can live free of fear for mine and my familys safety. Not the whole picture. There are News Accounts in the wall street journal, the washington post, and im fairly confident nbc has also confirmed the army has a plan for relocating them. And giving him security. Right, stunning. Its absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses who as everyone has pointed out, are so clearly fact witnesses. These are career professionals, and every effort thats been made by the republicans to take away from their testimony has failed, particularly this effort with ms. William to try to get her to say that pences failure
to attend the inauguration of the ukrainian president was just something that happened because the Secret Service hadnt done their job. She pushed back firmly saying she didnt know what the president s thinking was, but it was clear. We havent said enough about ms. Williams. Shes here, she is also a firsthand witness to the call between donald trump and president zelensky. She says that while she listened to the call and she spoke about her concerns with her superior mr. Kellogg, she did not have a conversation with the Vice President. Thats her testimony, right . Right, and she put the record of the call in his Briefing Book. She put the transcript, the summary transcript there, too. She just doesnt know whether the Vice President read them orbor not, but i think thats something well hear more about, right . Typically if youre preparing a Briefing Book for your principal, the expectation is theyll know whats in there. An important call like this, how unlikely would it be that the Vice President wouldnt have at least given it a once over . He worked for President Trump who never reads anything so who knows. Exactly. We are joined by my colleague ari melb ari melber. It is another example of the democrats sort of laying these bricks in order. These are now the firsthand within witnesses taking away, depriving republicans of what seemed to be their Talking Point Last Wednesday and friday, as compelling as the witnesses may have been, as nonpolitical as they obviously are, they werent firsthand witnesses. These two are today. Vindman struck me as the most devastating weve seen in a public hearing to date. This is someone who obviously looks the part, is the part, youll notice there was a real reticence by republicans to go directly at him, which departs from maybe some of the smearing that had gone on from his media allies. He spoke very directly about why
he phoned it in. He saw a bribery plot. He knew that it was political and wrong. He phoned it in through private channels and he went about his work. This is not someone who reads in any way as grandizing, looking for the spotlight. He said under oath that he phoned it in because he thought it was wrong, and he went on with his work and his duty through official channels. He did not think that he would be testifying before the cameras or to the american public, and in our experience, i do think the public responds strongly to that because theres really very little to impugn. This is his story. Its devastating for the white house. Ive been wanting to ask you this question as i sat listening to Colonel Vindman talk about going through his Chain Of Command. He doesnt just follow the Chain Of Command, he reveres the Chain Of Command. It is, to me, what distinguishes him from everyone else weve heard from, and in his view following the Chain Of Command when he had concerns meant going
to the White House Counsels Office. He mentioned john eisenberg. He is the person in the White House Counsels Office who feels to me like hes emerging as almost a don mcgahn like scandals. He is the person whos in receipt of the most information, it would appear, about where norms and laws were strained or may be broken. Its a great point you make. Viewers will remember don mcgahn was the star witness in the mueller report. He was cited by bob muellers investigators more than anyone else, precisely because as you say he was in the red hot center of whats allow of the president pushing him and ultimately standing up. We see that same pattern here, different plot, but same pattern. New scandal. Right. Season two. Exactly. But in all seriousness, different plotting, but career people, many of them who say, look, ive done this for other president s. Of course ive had disagreements. This idea that people had stayed, according to some of the
critic we heard on the committee, they were just airing policy differences. No, actually these people who have worked with different policies and under different president s by definition. As you say, many went to the lawyers through the official cha channels because they saw something that looked wrong, inappropriate, and potentially illegal. That goes to Something Else here which is ultimately, this is not about leaking. Its not about criticism, its not about anyone breaking the rules. The whistleblower went privately through the secure channels and wrote down the concern. The people who you say called the National SecurityCouncil Lawyers and other white house lawyers also through the proper channels. So its more devastating when having done that, the rules, the law we have in this country is credible complaints go to the congress and heres the congress doing its oversight investigative work. In that way you see the system working and thats A Bulwark Implicit and explicit against the alleged bribery plot, which is trying to kneecap the system, get the career people out of the way, get the nonpartisan people
out of the way, get the Colonel Vindmans out of the way so Rudy Giuliani can cut a deal. Let me bring in our colleague garrett haake. Youre in the room. Bring to life some of the atmosphere. It felt to us watching like deaf devin nunes was trying to out a whistleblower this morning. That the sense . Reporter that was certainly the sense in the room. You could see adam schiff watching that line of questioning very closely. You could see Lieutenant Colonel vindmans Attorney Jumping in there to shut that down. There were audible signs of discontent from the republicans sitting in the room watching the hearing that that line of questioning was shut down, and it really sort of stuffed out devin nuness entire line of questioning. That was when he decided to hand things over to counsel. The other dynamic in the room that was so obvious is how much more comfortable Lieutenant Colonel vindman got over the course of those two hours. His Opening Statement he was very halting, referring to his papers over and over again. Then by the end of it, hes
joking about his language proficiency. He is reminding Congressman Nunes of his military title, which got a lot of laughs in the room, and then joking just before we broke up for this brief recess about remembering Rudy Giuliani only as new york citys finest mayor as he said, and this is someone who i think settled into the moment here after being maybe a little bit star struck by having to be in that room in this context this morning. Garrett, what did it seem to you like republicans were trying to do to Lieutenant Colonel vindman . Because it seemed like they pursued a line of questioning trying to show him as somehow disgruntled. He just reads patriotic, dutiful and by the book. He seem. Disgruntled and perhaps having dual loyalty. I was very curious how far republican counsel mr. Caster was going to go on that line of
questioning about Vindman Being offered a job at the Defense Ministry in ukraine. He seemed to walk just up to the line of oh, you know, its pretty interesting. Thats a pretty big job for someone like you. Must have been a big honor. Who did you tell about it . Were you worried about a Conflict Of Interest when you came back . He did not go right out there and accuse Lieutenant Colonel vindman of having any kind of secondary loyalty, but he left it just sort of sitting there with anyone who might want to pick up the baton and run with it when we go back. That is a very delicate thing for a member of congress to touch to sitting active duty Lieutenant Colonel when they come back. Kaster left it just right there. Lets just be blunt about this, its reprehensible line of questioning, but it is one that they were perhaps inspired by on some of the president s favorite programs. Laura ingraham, john yoo,
suggested that Colonel Vindman because he speaks ukrainian and russian might be a spy. This is out there, and we should out it. This is the Smear Campaign against Lieutenant Colonel vindman. It is active. It is live, and today it spilled out in this public hearing. It is reprehensible, and i really appreciated nicole, you reading his actual Opening Statement where he said, dad, you were not wrong to come here 40 years ago, meaning, you know, whats implied in all this that hasnt been as explicit is hes jewish, and at the time they fled the soviet union, jews had extreme discrimination against them. They were fleeing persecution. Synagogues all over the United States had signs that said free soviet jewelry, thats what he represents, and yet, and yet he has to signal publicly that his father did not make a mistake in bringing him to the u. S. When he
was 3 years old, and that wearing the u. S. Uniform, i was a little surprised he didnt talk more, hes really understated his sacrifices for this country because he didnt talk about his purple heart. I thought more of that would come out. If you know anyone in the military, claire, i mean, active duty military, they are hard wired to not talk about their accomplishments on the battlefield, but we should say he is a purple heart recipient, and you know, im going to stop saying this, but im constantly shocked by the bottomlessness of the Republicans Cravenness in trying to defend donald trump. This is an active duty military person sitting in his uniform talking about his story, but it does not put any brakes in the system on the line of questioning clearly intended to insinuate that he has dual loyalties. Yeah, and i think hes still Walking Around with shrapnel in his body from his injuries at war and his he talked about his brothers all joining the
military. What was fascinating to me is this counsel gently went there. Will these members go there boldly, and how despicable will they be if they do because what i was interested in is the way he said, well, did you leave The Door Open to the offer of Defense Minister . And he said no, i did not leave The Door Open, and then he said boldly and strongly, i am an american, and that phrase, i am an american, ought to ring really loudly in the ears of all these republicans. If they go there, if they actually try to turn this guy into somebody who cares about the ukraine instead of the United States of america, then shame on them. Shame on them. Let me bring into our conversation juan zarate, the former Deputy Assistant to the president and deputy National Security adviser for combatting terrorism during the george w. Bush administration. Hes now an nbc News Senior International analyst. We both served in the george w. Bush white house in the months and years after 9 11. Colonel vindman is the best of the best of what the National Security council is sometimes privileged to include among its ranks. Did you see it that way today . Absolutely, and i agree with you wholeheartedly that attacks on his integrity and credibility are really shameful, and i think Everyone Needs to check themselves in the context of this heated political battle because at the end of the day, were all americans and you have people like Colonel Vindman who are serving the country not only in uniform, but in staff worlds at the why house and in the National Security council, and frankly trying to do their best to serve u. S. Interests. I think one of the things nicole, that you see quite clearly in the testimony, especially from National Security professionals like these two is that theyre trying to walk the fine line between explaining what they were trying to do to advance u. S. Interests, what they understood to be u. S. Policy in the face of this
parallel process and these parallel narratives that they were having to contend with and what appears to be at times contradictory directions from the president perhaps, and so i feel for them. Feel for them for having to testify to begin with. Secondly, to be attacked in ways that are unfair and, third, to have to sort of endure what is a very unconventional Foreign Policy situation where theyre having to drive policy at a time when theres complete incoherence or at least seeming incoherence, and now theyre caught in this huge drama in washington. The one thing i would say, nicole, from our experience, from my experience at the white house and i had the largest staff at the National Security council when i served as deputy National Security adviser, we pulled from the best and brightest, and largely not only the most expert in the space, but those that are committed to
departments and agencies and to the mission of u. S. National security, and i saw that in Colonel Vindman. Juan, its great to have you. Lets listen back in to this hearing back underway. My colleagues in the minority, first if i could ask you ms. Williams and Colonel Vindman, you were asked a series of questions by the Ranking Member at the outset. Were you aware of the fact that and then there was a recitation of information about burisma, the bidens, is it fair to say you have no firsthand knowledge of any of the matters that were asked in those questions . Thats right. That is correct. Ms. Williams you were also asked a series of questions about the Vice President s schedule and whether he could have made the inauguration or was the president traveling or the trip to canada. Lets be clear about something, the president you were instructed that the president had told the Vice President not to go before you even knew the
date of the inauguration, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. At the time he was told not to go, there was no calculation about where he might be or where the president might be because the date hadnt even been set yet, is that right . Thats right. The date had not been set, so we were weighing a number of different scenarios of when the inauguration might fall. Now, i think you said that originally the president had told him to go, and then you received the instruction that the president no longer wanted him to go. Were you aware in the interim of the president telling him to go and the president telling him not to go that Rudy Giuliani had to abort a trip that he was going to make to ukraine . I had seen that in the press, yes. And had you seen in the press that Rudy Giuliani blamed people around zelensky for having to cancel the trip . For having to cancel his trip . Yes. I had read that in the press reporting, yes. And did you read in the press
reporting also that giuliani wanted to go to ukraine to, as he put it, not meddle in an election, but meddle in investigations . I did read that, yes. And that occurred prior to the president canceling the Vice President s trip to the inauguration . It did. I believe it was around may 10th or so. Colonel vindman, you were asked by the minority counsel about the president s words in the July 25th Call, and whether the president s words were ambiguous. Was there any ambiguity about the president s use of the word biden . There was not. It was pretty clear that the president wanted zelensky to commit to investigating the bidens, was it not . That is correct. That is one of the favors that you thought should be properly characterized as a demand . That is correct. And theres no ambiguity about that . In my mind there was not. Its also true, is it not, that these two investigations that the president Asked Zelensky for into 2016 and into the bidens were precisely the two investigations that Rudy Giuliani was calling for publicly, were they not . That is correct. So when people suggest, well, maybe Rudy Giuliani was acting on his own and maybe he was a freelancer or whatever, the president referred to exactly the same two investigations Rudy Giuliani was out pushing on his behalf, is that correct. That is correct. Now, ms. Williams you were asked about the meeting the Vice President had with zelensky in september, in which the ukrainians brought up their concern about the hold on the Security Assistance, is that
right . You were asked about whether in that meeting between the Vice President zelensky, the bidens or burisma came up, and i think you said they did not, correct . Thaets correct, they did no come up. That bilateral meeting was a large meeting that involved two or three dozen people, wasnt . It was. In the context of this meeting with two or three dozen people, the Vice President didnt bring up those investigations, correct . No, he did not bring up those investigations. Hes never brought up those investigations. Were you aware that immediately, and i mean immediately after that meeting broke up, ambassador sondland has said that he went over to mr. Yermak one of the top advisers to zelensky and told yermak that if they wanted the military aid they were going to have to do these investigations or words to that effect . I was not aware at the time of any meetings, Side Meetings that ambassador sondland had following our the Vice President s meeting with president zelensky. Ive only learned that through ambassador sondlands testimony. So at the big Public Meeting it didnt come up, and you cant speak to the private meeting that was held immediately thereafter . Correct. The Vice President moved on with his schedule immediately after his meeting with president zelensky. Now Colonel Vindman, i want to go back to that July 10th Meeting or meetings the one with ambassador bolton and then the one in the ward room that followed quickly on its heels. Were you aware that ambassador bolton instructed your superior dr. Hill to go talk to the lawyers after that meeting . I learned shortly after she was finished talking to ambassador bolton and after we wrapped up with the ward room that she did have a meeting with him, and thats what was expressed. Now, you thought you should go talk to the lawyers on your own, correct . That is my recollection, yes. But bolton also thought that
dr. Hill should go talk to the lawyers because his concern over this drug deal that sondland and mulvaney were cooking up. Is that right . That is my understanding. And in fact, this drug deal as bolton called it, involved this conditioning of the white house meeting on these investigations that sondland brought up, is that right . That is my understanding. And in fact, the same conditioning or the same issue of wanting these political investigations and tieing it to the white house meeting, this came up in the July 25th Call, did it not, when the president asked for these investigations . That is correct. So the very same issue that bolton said to hill go talk to the lawyers, the very same issue that prompted you to go talk to the lawyers, ends up coming up
in that call with the president is that right . That is correct. And it was that conversation that once again led you back to the Lawyers Office . That is correct. I yield to the Ranking Member. Mr. Chairman you took seven minutes, so i assume youre going to give us equal time . Yes, mr. Nunes. Thank you. Before i turn to mr. Jordan, i asked ms. Williams about this about if she had ever accessed without authorization a fellow employees Computer System. She answered no to the question. Have you ever accessed anyones Computer System at the nsc without authorization . Without their knowledge, no. Knowledge or authorization . Im sorry . Knowledge or authorization,
you never accessed someones computer without their knowledge or authorization . Correct. Mr. Jordan. I thank the Ranking Member. Colonel, i want to thank you for your service and sacrifice to our great country. This afternoon your former boss, mr. Morrisons going to be sitting right where youre sitting and hes going to testify. I want to give you a chance, i think were bringing you a copy, i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the things mr. Morrison said in his deposition. Page 82 of the transcript from mr. Morrison. Mr. Morrison said this, i had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel vindmans judgment, among the discussions i had with dr. Hill and the transition was our team, its strengths, its weaknesses and fiona and others had raised concerns about alexs judgment when mr. Morris was asked by mr. Kaster did anyone bring concerns to you that they believe Colonel Vindman may have leaked something, mr. Morrison replied yes. So your boss had concerns about your judgment. Your former boss dr. Hill had concerns about your judgment. Your colleagues had concern about your judgment, and your colleagues felt na there were times when you leaked information. Any idea why they have those impressions Colonel Vindman . Yes, representative jordan, i guess ill start by reading drf dr. Hills own words as she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of july right before she left. Alex is a top 1 Military Officer and the best army officer i have worked with many any 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable and exercises excellent judgment. So im sorry. Exemplary during numerous visits so forth and so on. I think you get the idea. Mr. Morrison, yeah, the date of that was lets see. Im sorry. July 13th. So mr. Jordan i would say that i cant say what mr. Morrison why mr. Morrison questioned my judgment. We had only recently started working together. He didnt he wasnt there very long, and we were just trying to figure out our relationship. Maybe i was a different culture, military culture. And colonel you never leaked information . I never did, never would, that is preposterous that i would do that. Okay. Colonel, its interesting we depose a lot of people in the bunker in the basement of the capitol over the last several weeks, but of all those depositions only three of the individuals we deposed were actually on the now somewhat famous july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky, there was you, the individual sitting beside you ms. Williams, and then there of course was your boss mr. Morrison who i just read from his deposition. When we asked ms. Williams who she spoke to after the call about the call, shef was willin to answer our questions, and
Chairman Schiff allowed her to answer our questions. When we asked mr. Morrison who he spoke to after the call about the call, he was willing to answer our question, and mr. Schiff Chairman Schiff allowed him to answer our question. But when we ask you, you first told us three individuals, at the nsc, your brother, and the two lawyers. And then you said there was a group of other people you communicated with, but you would only give us one individual in that group. Secretary kent, and the chairman would only allow you to give us that name, when we asked you who else you kpcommunicated with us you would not tell us. I want to know first how many other people are in that group you communicated with outside the four individuals i just named . Mr. Jordan on a call readout certainly after the first call there were probably a half a dozen or more people read out. Those are people with the proper clearance and the need to know. In this case because of the sensitivity of the call and mr. Eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else, i only read out outside of the nsc two individuals. Two individuals. Kent and one other person. Youre not willing to tell us who that other individual is mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Chairman point of order. Gentleman suspend, counsel. Mr. Chairman, i would ask you to enforce the rule with regard to disclosure, with regard to the intelligence office. Thank you, counsel. You know, as i indicated before this committee will not be used to out the whistleblower. That same mr. Chairman, can you please stop the time so i dont lose the time. You are recognized again, mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, i dont see how this is outing the whistleblower. The witness has testified he doesnt know who the whistleblower is. You have said even though no one believes you, you have said you dont know who the whistleblower is. How is this outing the whistleblower to find out who this individual is . Mr. Jordan, this is your time for questioning. You can use it any way you like, but your questions should be addressed to the witness, and your questions should not be addressed to trying to out the
whistleblower. Colonel vindman, mr. Morrison said he was not concerned about the call itself. He said there was nothing illegal or improper on the call, but he was concerned about the call leaking, the contents of the call leaking. Excuse me. He said this, he was concerned how it would play out in washingtons polarized environment, how the contents would be used in washingtons political process. Excuse me. Mr. Morrison was right. Excuse me, mr. Jordan, could i get a page . Page 44. Thank you. Mr. Morrison was right, the call leaks. The whistleblower goes to Chairman Schiff, staff, then he runs off to the lawyer, the same lawyer who said in January Of 2017 the coup has started against President Trump. The one thing the democrats didnt the one thing they didnt count on, one thing they didnt count on was the president releasing Call Transcript and letting us all see what he said. They didnt count on that. Transcript shows no linkage, the
two individuals on the call have both said no pressure, no pushing, no linkage of Security Assistance dollars to an investigation. Ms. Williams, after the call on the 25th, we know that Colonel Vindman talked to several people. After the call on the 25th, how many people did you talk to about the call . I did not speak to anybody about the call. Didnt speak to anybody . No. I yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you mr. Chairman. I ask you consent to enter the Lieutenant Colonels Performance Review into the record. May i inquire of Colonel Vindman whether he would like us to do that . If he would wed be happy to. If youd prefer it not be in the record, ill leave that with you. I guess with redactions it has pii in it that should be protectd and maybe the only elements that are relevant are the actual narrative. Chairman. Did you read the relevant
portions . I mean, that was the short version. There were some other paragraphs in there. Ill withdraw my request. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. Ms. Williams you joined the Foreign Service in 2006, correct . Correct. Prior to becoming a nonpartisan career official, you worked as a Field Representative for the Bush Cheney Campaign in 2004, and then you held a political appointment in the department of Homeland Security under secretary kherdoff, is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Now as a Foreign Service officer, you have served three president s, two republicans, one democrat in a variety of roles, correct . Youre detail from state to advise the Vice President on Foreign Policy towards europe and russia, correct . Vice president on Foreign Policy . Thats right. Ms. Williams, you were personally targeted on a tweet by President Trump, this is after he targeted ambassador yovanovitch during her testimony. It says, tell jennifer williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the president ial
calls and see the just released statement from ukraine then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers who i dont know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better president ial attack. Ms. Williams, are you engaged in a president ial attack . No, sir. Are you a Never Trumper . Im not sure if i know of an official definition of Never Trumper. Wow describe yourself that way . No, i would not. Did that tweet make an impression on you when you read it . It certainly surprised me. I was not examining to be called out by name. It surprised me too and looked an awful lot like Witness Intimidation and tampering, in an effort to perhaps get you to shake your testimony today. Lieutenant colonel, you previously testified that youve dedicated your entire professional life to the United States of america. Colonel, above your left breast
you are wearing a device which is a Springfield Musket on a bluefield. What is that device . Its a combat infantrymans badge. How do you get the combat infanrymans badge . You have to be serving in a Fighting Unit in combat. Under fire . Correct. Youre also wearing a purple heart. Can you tell us in 20 or 30 seconds why youre wearing a purple heart . In 2014, in the rampup to probably the largest urban operation in decades, outside of fallujah, we were conducting a Reconnaissance Patrol in conjunction with the marines and my vehicle was struck by an Improvised Explosive Device that pane tra penetrated armor. Were you injured . I was. The day after you appeared for your deposition, President Trump called you a Never Trumper. Colonel vindman, would you call yourself a Never Trumper . Representative, i would call myself never partisan. Thank you. Colonel vindman, youve served under four president s, two democrats, two republicans. Have you ever wavered from the oath you took to support and defend the constitution . Never. Do you have any political motivations for your appearance here today . None. Colonel vindman, multiple Right Wing Conspiracy Theorists including Rudy Giuliani have accused you of harboring loyalties toward ukraine based on the fact that your family like Many American families immigrated to the United States. They accuse you of espionage and dual loyalties. Weve seen that in this room this morning, the three minutes spent on the offer made to make you Minister Of Defense, that may have come cloaked in a
brooks brothers suit but it was designed exclusively to give right wing media an opening to question your loyalties. I want people to understand what that was all about. Its the kind of attack, its the kind of thing you say when youre defending the indefensible. Its what you say when its not enough to attack the media, the way the Ranking Member did in his Opening Statement, and attacking the democrats. Its what you stoop to when the up defen indefensibility of your argument forces you to attack you. I yield back the balance of my time. In a press conference last thursday, Speaker Of The House nancy pelosi said that President Trump committed the impeachability offenImpeachable Offense of bribery evidenced in his July 25th Call transcript
with president zelensky. In concert with that, multiple democratic members of this Committee Gave tv and radio interviews over this past week expressing how the president s conduct supported impeachment for committing bribery. All of which struck me as odd because for the longest time this was about quid pro quo according to the whistleblower complaint. After witness after witness said there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible, we saw a shift from the democrats. They briefly started to refer to the president s conduct on the July 25th Call as extortion. And now its shifted again last week to bribery. Ms. Williams, you used the word unusual to describe the president s call last on july 25th. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you used the word inappropriate and improper. Ive word searched each of your
transcripts. And the word bribery or bribe doesnt appear anywhere in that. Ms. Williams, youve never used the word bribery or bribe to explain President Trumps conduct, correct . No, sir. Colonel vend minuindman, you either . That is correct. The problem is, in an Impeachment Inquiry that the Speaker Of The House says is all about bribery, where bribery is the Impeachable Offense, no witness has used the word bribery to describe President Trumps conduct. None of them. These arent all of the deposition transcripts. These are just the ten that have been released. Six weeks of witness interviews in this Impeachment Inquiry. Hundreds of hours of testimony. Thousands of questions asked. Thousands of answers given. The number of times that witnesses have been asked any question about whether or not President Trumps conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yovanovitch was asked by my colleague Congressman Stewart Last Thursday is zero. The number of times witnesses have used the word bribery or bribe to describe President Trumps conduct in the last six weeks of this inquiry is zero. In fact in these 3,500 pages of sworn deposition testimony, in just these ten transcripts released thus far, the word bribery appears in these 3,500 pages exactly one time. And ironically, it appears not in a description of President Trumps alleged conduct. It appears in the description of Vice President bidens alleged conduct. This is important because as early as next week, my democratic colleagues are going
to say we need to vote on the evidence from this Impeachment Inquiry, on the impeachment of the president for bribery. And theyre going to send a report to the Judiciary Committee and because theres more democrats than republicans, its going to likely pass. And when that happens, the American People need to be clear that when the democrats, what they are describing as bribery, not a single witness is describing as bribery. Weve heard many times in the course of this proceeding that the facts of the president are not in dispute. But the American People are asking, if the facts are the same, why do the crimes that the president is being accused of keep changing . Why do we go from quid pro quo to extortion, now to bribery . Chairman nunes told you the answer. The answer is polling. The Washington Times asked americans what would be the most of the damning accusation. It didnt come back quid pro quo. It didnt come back extortion. It came back bribery. So this case is all about bribery. Look, its bad enough that the democrats have forbidden white house lawyers from this proceeding. Its hard enough to defend yourself without your lawyers present. Whats even worse is trying to defend yourself against an accusation that keeps changing in the middle of the proceeding. If democrats accused the president of high crime or Impeachable Offense he ought to at least know which one it is. When Speaker Pelosi says this is all about bribery, shes promised us evidence of bribery that would be compelling and overwhelming and instead its invisible. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i would like to thank everyone in thanking both witnesses for your service. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, as part of your Policy Portfolio in the white house, you maintain a relationship with ukrainian officials, do you not