Anybody else. Im going to read from the transcript here. Why didnt you go to your direct report, mr. Morrison, your response, because mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. And then i asked you, did mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around mr. Morrison . And you said, actually, he did say that, i shouldnt talk to any other people. Is that right . Yes, but theres a whole theres a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. It wasnt that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to enough time for you to go to talk to someone who you wont tell us who it is, right . Ive been instructed not to, representative jordan. Heres what im getting. The lawyer told you not talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to scare keec kent and talk to the one guy schiff wont let us tell you who it is. Representative jordan, i did my job. Im not saying you didnt. All im saying is the
instructions from the lawyer was, you shouldnt talk to anybody, and you interpret that as dont talk to my boss, but im going to go talk to someone that we cant even ask you who that individual is. That is incorrect. Well, i just read what you said. That is incorrect. Zblis i shouldnt talk to any other people. Im sorry, chairman, but that sequence is not the way it played out. Im reading from the transcript, Colonel Vindman. Let Colonel Vindman answer. The sequence played out where immediately afterwards, i expressed my concerns, i duty my coordination function, mr. Eisenberg circled back around and told me not to talk to anybody else. In that period of time oh, thats when it happened. Thats when you talked to someone. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Colonel vindman, lets go back to that pair of meetings on pair on july 10th where you witnessed ambassador sondland inform the ukrainian officials that as a prerequisite to a white house meeting, between the two president s, quote, ukraine yaia
would have to deliver an investigation into the bidens, end quote. You said that ambassador sondland was, quote, calling for an investigation that didnt exist into the bidens and burisma. Is that correct . That is correct. Its that same afternoon that you went to mr. Eisenberg, the counsel . That meeting occurred within the afternoon, and it was within a couple of hours i spoke to mr. Eisenberg. How did he react . He was cool, calm, and colle collected. He took notes and said he would look into it. And did he not also tell you to feel free to come back if you had additional concerns . He did. Ambassador sondland had told you that his request to the ukrainians had been coordinated with the Chief Of Staff, acting Chief Of Staff, mick mulvaney. Did you report that to mr. Eisenberg. I did. And what was his reaction . He took notes and he said he was going to hell follow up or look into it. I dont recall exactly what he said. Colonel, you have also testified on the July 25th Call between the two president s, quote, there was no doubt, end quote, that President Trump asked for investigations into the 2016 election and Vice President bidens son in return for a white house meeting. Within an hour of that call, you reported that to mr. Eisenberg, did you not item i did. Went back to him as he suggested would be appropriate. Hes an Assistant To The President , it was less a suggestion and more an instruction. Did you tell the lawyers that President Trump asked president zelensky to speak to mr. Giuliani . Yes. And the lawyers, it was at this point, told you not to talk to anyone else . That is that is not correct with regards to timing. They didnt follow they didnt circle back around. What ended up happening is, in my coordination role, i spoke to state win spoke
state, i spoke to a member of the Intelligence Community, and the general counsel from one of the intelligence bodies notified mr. Eisenberg that there was, you know, that there was information on the call, on the July 25th Call. At that point, mr. Eisenberg told me that i shouldnt talk to anybody else about it. Colonel, i want to go back to 2014 and iraq, when you were blown up. I presume that given the point in your Military Career and what else was going on in the world, that upon recovery there was the very real prospect or possibility that you might once again find yourself in harms way. Is that correct . Yes, congressman. It happened in 2004, but yes. 04, excuse me, thank you. Did you consider leaving the Military Service at that point . No. Frankly, congressman, i suffered light wounds. I was fortunate compared to my counterparts in the same vehicle. And i returned to duty, i think it may have been that same day. But you could have been subjected to additional harm. You chose to continue service in uniform. I continued to serve in combat for the remaining 10 or 11 months of the tour. You know, colonel, i have to say, i find it a rich, but incredibly painful irony that within a week of the president , contrary to all advice of his senior military officials, he pardons those who are convicted of war crimes, which was widely decried in the military community. Within the week of him doing that, hes engaged in an effort, and allies on his behalf, including some here today, to demean your record of service and the sacrifice and the contribution you have made. Indeed, sir, less than 20
minutes ago, the white house officially quoted out, out of context, the comments referred to earlier by mr. Morrison in your judgment. I can only conclude, sir, that what we thought was just the president as the subject of our deliberations and this inquiry, isnt sufficient to capture whats happening here. Indeed, what subject to this inquiry, and what is at peril is our constitution and the very values upon which it is based. I want to thank you for your service, but you know, thank you doesnt cut it. Please know however that it comes from the bottom of my heart and i know on the bottoms of the heart of countless other americans. Thank you for your service, sir. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Jordan . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sunday, sunday the speaker of
the United States house of representatives called the president of the United States an imposter. The speaker of the house called the president an imposter. The a guy 63 Million People voted more. The guy who won an Electoral College landslide, the speaker calls an imposter. Thats whats happened to our country, to this congress. The speakers statement says it all. The democrats have never accepted the will of the American People. Democrats dont trust the American People. The American People who wanted to send someone to this town who was willing to shake it up a bit. They dont trust that. And they have tried to do everything they can to undo what the American People decided on november 8th, 2016. Theyve been out to get the president since the day he was elected. The whistleblowers lawyer, the whistleblowers legal team said
this january 30th, 2017 the president had been in office about a week, coup has started. First of many steps. Next sentence, impeachment will follow ultimately. I guess were in the final step. Started three and a half years ago. Congressman talib started this congress, first day of congress said, impeach the president. Representative green said, if we dont impeach him, the president is going to win reelection. Weve got to do it. Most importantly, most importantly, five Democrat Members of this committee voted to move forward with impeachment before the phone call ever happened. The truth is, the attacks actually started before, before the inauguration, even before the election. The Ranking Member talked about this in his Opening Statement. July 2016, fbi opens an investigation into the socalled trump Russia Coordination Collusion Which was never there. Opened an investigation, spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign. Membership guess is, thats probably never happened in american history, but they did it and for ten months, jim comeys Fbi Investigatied the president. Guess what . After ten months, they had nothing and you know how we know that . When we deposed mr. Comey last congress, he told us they didnt have a thing. No matter. Special counsel mueller gets appointed and they do a twoyear, 40 million, 19lawyer, unbelievable investigation and guess what . they come back and they got nothing. But the democrats dont care. So now we get this. A bunch of depositions in the bunker in the basement of the capitol, witnesses who arent allowed to answer questions about who they talked to about the phone call. We get this. All based on some anonymous whistleblower, no firsthand knowledge, biased against the president. These facts have never changed. We learned these right away. Who worked with Vice President biden. Who wrote a memo the day after somebody talked to him about the call, but waited 18 days to file a complaint. 18 days to file a complaint. Whatd he do in those 18 days . We all know. Ran off and talked with chairman schiffs staff. And then, hired the legal team that i just talked about, that i just talked about, one of the steps in the whole impeachment coup, as his legal team has said. This is scary, what these guys are putting our country through. It is it is it is sad, it is scary, it is wrong. And the good news, the American People see through it all. They know the facts are on the president s side, as representative stefanick said,
four facts will never change we got the transcript, which they never thought the president would release, shows no coordination, no conditionality, no linkage. We got the two guys on the call, President Trump, president zelensky, who have said, nothing wrong, no pressure, no pushing here. We have the ukrainians who didnt know the aid was held up at the time of the call. And we have one witness to yet tell us any evidence from anyone that president zelensky did anything on investigations to get the aid released. Those facts will never chaunge. The facts are on the president s side, the process is certainly not. It has been the most unfair process we have ever seen and the American People understand it. Thoepz 63 million americans, they understand it and frankly, i think a lot of others do as well. They see this for what it is, and they know this is wrong, especially wrong, just 11 months before the next election. I yield back. Mr. Welch . Thank you. What this hearing is about, i think, was best stated by Colonel Vindmans Opening Statement. The question before us is this. Is it improper for the president of the United States to demand a Foreign Government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent . C have well stated. I just listened to mr. Jordan, as you did as well, and i heard his criticisms of the process. Nothing really happened. A lot of people are out to get the president. I didnt hear an answer to the question as to whether its proper for the president of the United States to demand a Foreign Government to investigate a u. S. Citizen and political opponent. And to date, i havent heard any one of my republican colleagues address that question. Colonel vindman and miss williams, thank you. Im going to ask some questions that go through the background. Whats come out during this process is that we had two ukraine policyies. One was bipartisan and longstanding. One was to assist itself which had freed itself from the corruption of russia. Is that a fair statement . I think thats a fair characterization. And to give folks pa reminder of the extent of corruption. By the way, a legacy of Putins Russia is that your understanding when your prior president , mr. Yanukovych, fled to russia, into the arms of mr. Putin, he took with him 30
billion to 40 billion of that impoverished country. There are different estimates, but its on that scale, yes. Vast scale for a poor country. And is it your understanding that powerless, but motivated ukrainians rose up in protest to this incredible graft and theft and abuse by their president. That is correct. And that was in the it was called the mayden revolution, the revolution of dignity, correct . Correct. And young people went into that square in Downtown Kyiv and demonstrated for months, correct . Correct. And a hundred died. 106 young people died and older people died, correct . That was in between february 18, 2014, and february 22. Is that correct . Correct. 106 died, including people who were shot by snipers, kids, and yanukovych had put snipers on the rooftops of buildings to shoot into that square and kill, murder, slaughter, those young people. Is that your understanding . That is correct. In our bipartisan support, and by the way, i want to say to my republican Colleaguese Scoll lot of leadership of this bipartisan support came from our side. Thank you. But our whole commitment was to get rid of corruption and to stop that russian aggression. Is that correct . That amounts to some of the key pillars. Thats right. And the giuliani, sondeman and it appears trump policy was not about that, but it was about investigations into a political opponent, correct . Ill take that question back. We know it. And you know, ill say this to President Trump. You want to investigate joe biden, you want to investigate hunter biden . Go at it . Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty, do it the way you do it. Just dont do by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. Thats your job. Its not his. My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindmans question. And the second, coming out of that is for us, as a congress, to return to the ukraine policy that nancy pelosi and Kevin Mccarthy both support. Its not investigations. Its the restoration of democracy in ukraine and the resistance of russian aggression. I yield back. Mr. Maloney . Thank you both for being here. You know, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, this may be one of your first congressional hearings like this, so hope to be the last. I cant blame you for feeling that way, sir. Particularly when ive been sitting here listening to my republican colleagues, one of the advantages of being down here at the kids table is that you get to hear the folks above you ask their questions. And ive been along closely to my republican colleagues and ive heard them say just about everything except to contradict any of the Substantiative Testimony youve both given. You may have notice, theres been a lot of complaints and theres been a lot of insinuations and theres been a lot of suggestions, maybe, that your service is somehow not, not to be trusted. And yet you were treated to questions about your loyalty because of some halfbaked job
offer, i guess the ukrainians made you, which of course you dutifully reported. I guess mr. Castor is implying that maybe youve got some dual loyalty, which is of course an old smear weve heard many times in our history. They try to demean you as though maybe youve overstated your importance of your job, but of course, youre the guy on the National Security council responsible for directing ukrainian policy. Weve heard them air out some allegations with no basis in proof, but they want to get them out there and hope maybe some of those strands of spaghetti, i guess, will stick on the wall, if they keep throwing them. Weve even had a member of this Committee Question this is my favorite question why you would wear your Dress Uniform today. Even though that Dress Uniform includes a breast plate that has a Combat Infantry Badge on it and a purple heart medal ribbon. It seems like if anybody gets to wear the uniform, its somebody whos got a breast plate with those congressmenatimmendations. So lets do it again. Lets do the substance. Can we do that . Because weve had a lot of dust kicked up. Miss williams, you heard the call with your own ears, right . Yes, sir. Not secondhand, not hearsay. You heard the president speak. You heard his voice on the call. Correct. And your conclusion was what he said about investigating the bidens, was, your words, unusual and inappropriate, i believe. Am i right . That was my testimony. And mr. Vindman, you were treated to a July 10th Meeting in the white house where you heard ambassador sondland Raise Investigations conditioning a white house meeting on that, investigations that you thought were unduly political, i believe thats how you described them, and you went to nsc counsel and reported it, right . Correct. And later you two were on the white house call, am i right, you heard it with your own ears . Correct. Not secondhand, you heard the president s voice on the call . I did. And you heard him raise that subject again, that ambassador sondland had raised before,
about investigating the bidens, right . I did. And i want to ask you, when you heard him say that, what was the first thought that went through your mind . Frankly, i couldnt believe what i was hearing. It was probably an element of shock that maybe in certain regards, my worst fear of how our ukraine policy could play out was playing out, how this was likely to have significant implications for u. S. National security. And you went immediately and reported it, didnt you . I did. Why . Because that was my duty. You still have your Opening Statement handy . I do. Can you read the last paragraph for me again, the secondtolast one, can you read that again for me . I think the American Public deserves to have it again. The dad thats the one. I think my dad would appreciate this one, too. Dad, my sitting here today in
the u. S. Capitol, talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union and come here to the United States of america in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, ill be fine for telling the truth. You realize when you came forward out of sense of duty, that you were putting yourself in direct opposition to the most powerful person in the world. Do you realize that, sir . I knew i was assuming a lot of risk. And im struck by the word that phrase, do not worry, you addressed to your dad. Was your dad a warrior. He did serve, it was a different military, though. And he would have worried if you were putting yourself up against the president of the United States, right . He deeply worried about it. In his context, there was there was the ultimate risk. And why do you have confidence that you can do that . And tell your dad not to worry . Congressman, because this is america. This is the country i have served and defended, that all of
my brothers have served and here, right matters. Thank you, sir. I yield back. [ applause ] mr. Demmings. Thank you, mr. Chairman, first of all. Miss williams, let me thank you for your service to our nation. It truly matters. Thank you. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, i had the honor of speaking to a group of veterans this past weekend. And what i said to them was that no words, no words are really adequate or sufficient to fully express our gratitude for their service to our nation. So Lieutenant Colonel vindman, today i say to you, there are no words that are sufficient to fully express our gratitude to
you, for what you have done for our nation and amazingly, what you are still willing to do for our nation. It is vitally important that the American People understand how President Trumps unethical demand that ukraine deliver politically motivated investigations in exchange for Military Assistance created a Security Risk for our, the United States of america, National Security. The president was not just playing a political game, by upholding military aid and meetings with ukraine, threatening the hundreds of millions of dollars of Military Assistance that congress had appropriated has reallife consequences, for ukraine and for the usa. In your deposition, Colonel Vindman, you testified, and i
quote, a strong and independent ukraine is critical to our security interests. Could you please explain why a strong and independent ukraine is so critical and why it is so vital to us interest. S. Interes . We sometimes refer to ukraine as a front line state. Its on the front line of europe, its they have actually described it to me, the ukrainians, that it is a they consider themselves as a barrier between russian aggression and europe. And what ive heard them describe is the need for u. S. Support in order to serve this role, in order to protect european and western security. Lieutenant colonel, this is not just a theoretical conflict between ukraine and russia. Youve already said this morning
that russia is actively fighting to expand into ukraine. That ukraine is in a hot war with russia right now, is that correct . Its stable, but its still a hot war. And isnt it true, Lieutenant Colonel, that even if the Security Assistance was eventually delivered to ukraine, the fact that it was delayed, just that fact, could signal to russia that the bond between ukraine and the u. S. Was weakening. That was the concern of myself and my colleagues. And was the risks of even the appearance that the u. S. ukraine bond is shaky, is that it could embolden russia to act with more aggression, would you say thats correct . I believe that was my testimony. Just last month during an interview, President Putin joked about interfering in our political elections. I can only guess thats what we
have become to russia and its president. I think he felt emboldened by the president s reckless actions, both attempts to hold Critical Military aid from ukraine and President Trumps effort to blame ukraine, not russia, for election interference. Miss williams and Lieutenant Colonel vindman, i can only say that every american, regardless of our politics, should be critically concerned about that. And let me just say this, yes, we do trust the American People. But you know what . The American People trust us, too, as members of congress, to support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And we intend to do just that. Thank you again for your service. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good afternoon, Lieutenant Colonel vindman and miss williams. Thank you for your service. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, im concerned that your loyalty has been questioned not just because youre bringing Forward Evidence of wrongdoing against the president , the president of the United States, but because youre an immigrant. Recently, fox news host Brian Kilmeade said he, meaning you, were born in the soviet union, emigrated with his family young. He tends to feel sympatico with the ukraine. I find this statement reprehensible, because it appears that your immigrant heritage is being used against you. Lieutenant colonel, i came to this country when i was 3 months old. Your family fled the soviet union and moved to america when you were just 3 1 2 years old, right . Correct. And i understand that your father worked multiple jobs
while also learning english, right . Correct. Your father stressed the importance of embracing what it means to be an american, correct . That is correct. All of your Childhood Memories relate to being an american, correct . That is correct. You and your family faced difficult times during your childhood, correct . Yes. I can relate. Thats my story, too. But your father went on to become an engineer, right . He reestablished himself in his former profession in the United States. I can relate. I got a bs in engineering. Of course, some people claim i practice the bs part now. Your father never gave up working hard to build his very own American Dream, did he . He did not. Well, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, your father achieved the American Dream and so did you and your family. From One Immigrant American To Another immigrant american, i
want to say to you that you and your family represent the very best of america. I assume that you are as proud to be an american as i am. Correct . Yes, sir. Sir, i want to turn your attention to uryou yuri lute lu, the former prosecutor general in ukraine has made various claims about various americans, right . Corre correct. You are unaware of any factual basis for his accusations against yovanovitch, corre right . Correct. He was also a source for an article by john solomon in the hill, right . That is correct. And you said that key
elements of that article as well as his accusations are false, right . Correct. Lutsenco is not a credible source, right . Correct. Sir, the other side claims that there was absolutely no pressure on this july 25th phone call. I think thats what we heard earlier, right . I believe so. And you have termed what President Trump asked in terms of investigations on that phone call as a demand, correct . Correct. And youve pointed out the large power disparity between President Trump on the one hand and president zelensky on the other hand, correct . Yes. There was pressure on that phone call, right . The ukrainians needed the meeting, the ukrainian subsequently, when they found out about it, needed the Security Assistance. So pressure was brought to bear on them, correct . I believe so. Sir, Colonel Vindman, last week, we heard a decorated military veteran, namely ambassador bill taylor come before us. You interacted regularly with Ambassador Taylor and you know him to be a man of integrity and hes a patriotic american, isnt that right . A superb individual. I asked Ambassador Taylor a series of questions based on his experience as an infantry commander. I asked him, quote, is an officer allowed to hold up action placing his troops at risk until someone provides them a personal benefit . Ambassador taylor responded, no, sir. Colonel vindman, do you agree with Ambassador Taylor . I do. I then asked Ambassador Taylor, quote, is that because they would be betraying their responsibility to the nation . Ambassador taylor responded, yes, sir. Colonel vindman, do you agree with Ambassador Taylor . I do. I then asked Ambassador Taylor, quote, could that type of Conduct Trigger a courtmartial . Ambassador taylor said, yes, sir. Do you agree with Ambassador Taylor, Colonel Vindman . I do. Thank you for your service. That concludes the member questioning. Representative nunes, youre recognized for your concluding remarks. Well, act i of todays circus is over. For those of you who have been watching at home, the democrats are no closer to impeachment than where they were three years ago. And tin the process, the State Department, the fbi, elements within the ic, the icig have all suffered longterm damage. The democrats can continue to put to poison the American People with this nonsense. Weve sat here all morning without any evidence for impeachment. Which would be a very serious crime, high cream and misdemeanors, as it says in the constitution. No such thing. Policy disagreements and the democrats failure to
acknowledge their involvement in the 2016 election. I would say its astonishing that that would be putti inting little emphasis on their actions. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentlemen. I want to thank our witnesses today. Miss williams, Colonel Vindman, both of you for your service to the country, for your testimony here today. And i just want to address briefly some of the evidence you presented, as well as others thus far in the Impeachment Inquiry. First of all, i want to join my colleagues in thanking you, Colonel Vindman, for your Military Service. And i should tell you that notwithstanding all of the questions you got on why didnt you go talk to your supervisor, why didnt you go talk to mr. Morrison, why did you go to the National Security lawyer . As if theres something wrong with going to the national
security lawyer. Are you aware that we asked mr. Morrison whether he went to the National Security lawyer right after the call and that he did . I am. And are you aware also that we asked him well, if you had this problem with Colonel Vindman not going to you instead of the lawyer, naturally, you must have gone to your supervisor . And you know what his answer was, he didnt go to his supervisor either he went directly to the National Security counsel lawyer. So i hope my colleagues will give him the same hard time for not following his Chain Of Command that he complained with you, apparently. The president may attack you and has. Others on rightwing tv might attack you and they have. But i thought you should know and maybe you know already that this is what the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff had to say about you, Colonel Vindman. He is a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer. He has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of
our nation in both peace time and combat. Im sure your dad is proud to hear that. My colleagues have tried to make the argument here today, and we have heard it before, that the president was just interested in Fighting Corruption. Thats our goal, Fighting Corruption in ukraine, this terribly corrupt country. The problem, of course, with that is theres no evidence of the president trying to fight corruption. The evidence all points in the other direction. The evidence points in the direction of the president inviting ukraine to engage in the corrupt act of investigating a u. S. Political opponent. Ambassador yovanovitch was known as a stronger fighter of corruption, so what does the president do . He recalls her from her post. Ambassador yovanovitch, in fact, was at a meeting celebrating other anticorruption fighters, including a woman who had acid
thrown in her face on the day she was told to get on the next plane back to washington. You prepared talking points for the president s first conversation with zelensky. Hes supposed to talk about rooting out corruption. If this president had such a deep interest in rooting out corruption in ukraine, surely he would have brought it up on the call. But of course, now we know that he did not. We then see Rudy Giuliani not Fighting Corruption, but asking for an investigation of the bidens and my colleagues say, well, maybe he was acting on his own, even though hes saying hes acting as the president s lawyer, maybe hes really acting on his own, but the two investigations that Rudy Giuliani wanted come up in the meeting you participate in on july 10th at the white house, when ambassador sondland brings up the bidens and burisma in 2016. Tells the ukrainians, if you want that meeting in the white house, youve got to do these investigation
investigations. Now they would say, ambassador sondland was acting on his own, but that doesnt quite work either, because we have the call record from july 25th, which the president was forced to release, in which the president doesnt bring up corruption. He doesnt say how are those anticorruption courts going or great work in the rota. Of course not. What does the president say . I want you to investigate the bidens and this debunked Conspiracy Theory pushed by vladimir putin, that also helps me in my reelection. So much for Fighting Corruption. The message to ukraine, the real message to ukraine, our u. S. Policy message is, dont engage in political investigations. The message from the president , however, was the exact opposite. Do engage in political investigations and do it for my reelection. And its also made clear, if they want the white house meeting and ultimately if they want 400 million in u. S. Aid, this is what they have to do. The only lament i hear from my colleagues is, it wasnt
successful. They got caught they didnt get the political investigations and they still had to release the money. Now, they still havent gotten the white house meeting, but they had to release the money. Because a whistleblower blew the whistle. A whistleblower the president wants to punish. And pause congress announced theyre doing investigations and very soon thereafter the president was forced to lift the hold on the aid. They argue, well this makes it okay, that it was a failed effort to bribe ukraine, a failed effort to extort ukraine. That doesnt make it better. Its no less odious because it was discovered and it was stopped. And we have courageous people like yourself who come forward, who report things, who do what they should do, who have a sense, as you put it, colonel, of duty, of duty. Not to the person of the president , but to the presidency and to the country. And we thank you for that. At the end of the day, i think this all comes back to something we heard from another Career Foreign Service officer just last friday in a conversation he overheard with the president in a restaurant in ukraine, in which the president , not Rudy Giuliani, no anyone else, the president of the United States wanted to know, are they going to do the investigations . This is the day after that July 25th Call. Are they going to do the investigations . And hes ensured by ambassador sondland theyre going to do it. And what does sondland relate to this Foreign Service officer after he hangs up that call . The president doesnt give a expletive about ukraine. He only cares about the big things that help his personal interests. Thats all you need to know. And it isnt just about ukraine. Of course, ukraine is fighting
our fight against the russians, against their expansionism. Thats our fight, too. Thats our fight, too. At least we thought so on a bipartisan basis, thats our fight, too. Thats why we support ukraine with a military aid that we have. Well, the president may not care about it, but we do. We care about our defense, we care about the defense of our allies. And we darned well care about our constitution. We are adjourned. I please ask the audience to allow the witnesses and the members who have to go vote to leave first. Good afternoon. Its an emotional end to what weve been watching all day. Im nicole wallace. Weve all been watching the third day of public testimony in the Impeachment Inquiry into donald j. Trump. The questioning of Lieutenant ColonelAlexander Vindman became increasingly acrimonious this afternoon as republicans sought to undermine his credibility, going after everything from his
request to be addressed by his Military Rank to his job performance. But in an Emotional Exchange just a few minutes ago, one that prompted spontaneous applause in the room, vindman made clear why he was willing to sit there today and endure those attacks. It was for the good of the country that he has served and defended, the country his father risked everything to reach after leaving the soviet union, seeking a better life for his family. Colonel vindman was a firsthand witness on that July 25th Call, along with Jennifer Williams from the Vice President s staff, who testified alongside him today. That call, unbeknownst to them, would end up at the center of the impeachment into donald trump, putting them at the center as well. Let me just read from what prompted that spontaneous round of applause. The only other time weve seen that was at the end of a day of testimony from marie yovanovitch. Vindman saying, this is america. This is the country ive served and defended, that all of my brothers have served and defended, and here, right matters. Joining us today, msnbc chief legal correspondent, host of the beat, ari melber. Were also joined by msnbc legal analyst, maya wiley, who previously worked in the Civil Division of the u. S. Attorneys office in the Southern District of new york. Former democratic senator from missouri and current msnbc political analyst, claire mccaskill. Former u. S. Attorney, now professor at the university of Alabama School of law. Also an msnbc contributor, joyce vance. Msnbc National Security analyst, jeremy barb, who served as former Chief Of Staff at the cia and the Department Of Defense joins us. And msnbc National Security analyst, ned price, who is a former senior director and spokesperson for the National Security counsel, where Alexander Vindman worked. Jeremy bash, let me start with you. All day long, a theme kept coming out with the republicans
wanted it to or not. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman has a single ideology and it is patriotism and service to the United States. That seemed to be this inconvenient fact that republicans kept trying to squash and quash and smear. In your view, do you think they landed any punches . What do you think the impact was of this first session of testimony today . Well, on the call, i thought Colonel Vindman was very effective. Per his training, per the way he was taught in the United States army, he told the truth. He laid out the facts, he talked about the fact that Gordon Sondland had told the ukrainians that unless they investigated the bidens, they would not receive military aid. And right away Colonel Vindman reported that inappropriate, unlawful conduct to the counsel of the National Security counsel, and further, when he heard the phone call by the president , he did the same. And he did something very courageous, perhaps even more courageous than his own service in the battle zone, he spoke out
today against the most powerful person in our country and possibly the world, the commander in chief, the president. And he did it because, as he said, here, right matters. I thought he was highly effective. The state of the republican defense also hasnt changed, nicole. In some ways, they have tried to defend this and said there was no quid pro quo. Colonel vindman and others said, actually, there was. Theyve tried to say this wasnt a demand, it was a favor. Colonel vindman said, no, it was a demand. So i think really the state of the defense is where representative stefanick said, which is, it was appropriate for the president to make this request to zelensky and i think thats going to be the heart of the matter, which is, whether its appropriate for a president to use his office, to use taxpayer money, to use military aid to demand investigations of political rivals. If republicans think thats okay, theyre going to stay on the president s side. If they dont think its okay, they have a reason to break. Were watching Jennifer Williams depart. She was from the Vice President s staff. Jeremy bash, she unequivocally testified today that there was no National Security purpose for withholding the military aid. She also deprived republicans of any semblance of an excuse that there was a substantiative reason, that there was a policy check. Even in the questioning of congresswoman stefanick, which was sharp and well prepared, both witnesses testified to the fact that the ukrainians had checked of all of the boxes. Theyd been certified. I think its by the Department Of Defense that they had taken the appropriate actions to address any questions or concerns about corruption. Is that your understanding . Thats right, nicole. In fact, again, thats the heart of the issue, and Jennifer Williams, who is on the Vice President s staff, on detail from the State Department, a career professional, made clear, there was no reason any policy reason, no defense reason, no diplomatic reason, no economic reason for the United States and the president to launch
investigations of his political rivals. Its not only inappropriate, its wrong. She said she found it inappropriate that the president would utilize this channel to demand investigations into political rivals. And i think, again, the republicans, thats the state of their defense. They have to defend the Substantiative Conduct by the president. They have nowhere else to go here. They can try to tear Colonel Vindman down, they can try to say hes not american or hes not a soldier, but thats what theyre left to, is which is defending Donald Trumps conduct. Nicole, just jumping in, we would be remiss on what we just saw on the camera for folks watching at home, which was Jennifer Williams walking out of this landmark day of testimony, going up against the president of the United States, along with Colonel Vindman, and she walked out and she hailed a cab. She hopped into a red washington, d. C. Cab. Which reminds you that these people, these are individuals, the colonel obviously still a member of the u. S. Military and has extra security and a little different, but theyre both
facing all kinds of pressure and some threats. The whistleblower remains anonymous under the same type of concern. And yet they dont have all the support and power and prestige fulltime of the presidency. She hops in a red cab and drives off with the rest of her day. Before we get to the law and the bribery and conspiracy, i think thats such a portrait of the Public Service that we saw today and i think that resonates with people. And the window into what their lives are like now is also remarkable. Colonel vindman saying, hes not sure that theres been any retribution, but theres some meetings that he hasnt been included in. So paying a price for his patriotism in realtime. Paying the price. And that goes to this clear Dividing Line within the United States government under the Trump Administration as this plot escalated. Donald trump jr. Not known for his thoughts ton ambassadors around the world. The president not known to memoryize the names of ambassadors, let alone their background. And yet here were looking at another cab hailing. So again, this is not people
jumping into secured, Armored Beast Vehicles the way some of the top officials in the administration get to. These are public servants. They serve in both parties. Senator, i wanted to ask you, looking at the hearing today, we basically saw the way the Intelligence Committee operates when the cameras are on. This is a committee that has been famously credited, perhaps in other eras, pretrump, for a type of decency and bipartisanship, as nicole and others have noted, that was gone today. What did you think in particular of the roles of the two parties during an investigation, where i would note, they didnt land a lot of Substantiative Line of questioning against these witnesses. Yeah, in the era of trump, more than just the norms of the white house, that have been so disrupted. So have the norms of congress. I think in the senate, the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services committee are Stild Holding On by their fingernails to some bipartisan. Thats gone in the house. Today was exhibit a. You saw absolutely no one, even will hurd, has now jumped into the pool and no one is standing up and actually saying, hey, wait a minute, lets dont try to trash this guy. Im just going to tell you this, i want this guy and his brother protecting me. I want them standing up for america. They may not have they may be hailing cabs, ari, they may not have the power of the people who roll up to the capitol with five or six suvs and people with guns. Ill tell you what they have that the president doesnt have. They have character. Mmhmm. They have character. And that was on full display today. And frankly, what became so obvious by the end of the hearing, the republicans had nothing theyve got nothing. They cant say hearsay anymore. They cant, like, say that the whistleblower is on some kind of political jihad, because hes been corroborated or she has been corroborated over and over and over again. Theyve got nothing left other than the media sucks and the democrats dont like the president. And that is not a very good defense of selling National Security for your political purposes. You know, jeremy, im struck by the, as claire was just talking about, by the corroboration. And i think it leaves you wondering, the republicans are now willing to sacrifice the reputations of five patriots. Ned price, you worked on that National Security staff as its spokesperson. What does it say to you that juan vindman as the best of the best that when you work for a president on the National Security counsel staff, you get to bring in the best of the best. Vindman was the best of the best when it came to his expertise in u. S. Ukrainian relations. What does it say to you as ari
is saying, every republican on this committee willing to question not just his expertise, but his loyalty. They did not repeat it, but nobody said hey, i take issue with my republican colleagues questioning of your patriotism and loyalty. As you said, i was fortunate enough to be able to serve on the National Security counsel staff where vindman is now and i can say that we heard republicans today attacking Lieutenant Colonel for doing one thing and one thing only and frankly doing it well. Thats doing his job as a director on the staff. Thats because the National Security counsel is really the fulcrum of the inner Agency Within the Executive Branch connecting the State Department with the Intelligence Community and Treasury Department to make sure that within an administration, the left hand know what is the right is doing so when republicans try to smear and malign Lieutenant Colonel vindman for talking to someone
at the department of state, for talking to someone at the Intelligence Community, that is essentially smearing and maligning him for doing what hes e supposed to do and actually vindman i thought was quite explicit on that front. He said to representative jordan, i was doing my job. They also underlined another point that i dont think is exculpatory for the president. Certainly not in the way they intended. We heard republicans underlune the fact that vindman has never met President Trump and that is striking because this is the key person whos supposed to coordinate ukraine policy for the administration. Y you krien policy is something that President Trump has shown great interest in. I think that just underscores the fact that President Trump is not in this for National Security. Hes not in this out of Foreign Policy interests. Hes in this for his own interests and finally, if i could just say this is a dark moment for our country. We are witnessing an impeachment of a president for doing something that i think is absolutely shameful but i have to say and its almost ironic, that there have been moments in the course of this where it sort of stiffens your spine and you swell with pride at being an american and i felt that way today when i heard Lieutenant Colonel vindman talk b about america and his familys coming here and his Brothers Service and saying in america, in ameri america, here right matters. I think that was one of those moments. Lets listen to that. Frankly, i couldnt believe what i was hearing. It was probably an element of shock that maybe in certain regards my worst fear of how our ukraine policy could play out was playing out. This was likely to have significant implications for u. S. National security. My sitting here today talking to
our elected officials that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union to come here to the United States of america in search of f a better life for our family. Do not worry. Ill be fine for telling the truth. You realize when you came forward out of sense of duty that you were putting yourself in direct opposition to the most powerful person in the world. Do you realize that, sir . I knew i was assume ago lot of risk. Im struck by the word, the phrase, do not worry. You addressed to your dad. Was your dad a warrior . He did serve. It was a different military. And would worried if you were putting yourself up against the president of the United States, is that right . Hed deeply worry about it because in his context, there was the alternate risk. And why do you have confidence that you can do that and tell your dad not to worry . Congressman, because this is america. The country i have served and defended. That all my brothers have served
and here, right matters. Thank you x sir. I yield back. Incredible moment. It was so striking. Its a reminder of why these hearings matter. To see these people with our own eyes. That was really the moment where you saw the Slogan Eeering of me America Great again with those who actually live the other dream. They serve and sometimes come from other countries. As long as they are loyal and serve america, thats the American Dream and its always been when we welcome those in. This is someone who is part of a jewish minority fleeing oppression that was welcomed here and president s of both parties. Indeed law and rhetoric have historically welcomed people. The bush and reagan mrgss. Thats wider for the narrower case that was being made through vindman and what i always thought was striking, today really dispensed with the euphamisms. You dont get that from the military and National Security folks. These people make decisions that take lives. They kill people in battle. And then there are hard calls to make, they go through the Chain Of Command. Our first instinct, the first isnt go to lawyers. They make hard calls. Drone calls, military calls, cia calls. When those folks go to the lawyers, its because somethings way over line. In this case, it was not a defensible explanation. A reason to condition anything in the u. S. Government power. Weapons, military money, government meetings at the white house. To help the incumbent president get reelected. Indeed that undermines a democracy in the view of these firsthand witnesses. Thats whats so powerful. Does that mean that donald trump committed Impeachable Offense . I dont know. We have a system where congress adjudicates that but today was the most devastating day because of those people in blunt and Plain English explaining why they stood up then and now with considerable risk. Its really hard when you work on a white house staff to sort of you know, the reason that there are so as few eye witnesses there are the because its difficult to do what he did. To take yourself up to the White House Counsels Office and sound the alarm about what we saw. But to aris point, its that really sharp distinction in Colonel Vindmans mind between right and wrong that propelled him up the stairs if its still upstairs to the White House Counsels Office. In a point in time in our country when weve looked at so much that comes out of this white house and felt it was quintessentially unamerican, that today Alexander Vindman gave the country an opportunity
to reclaim patriotism. You watch his testimony. Hes who you want your children to grow up to be. Hes brave. Hes righteous and i think to your point, a lot of folks in government see conduct that makes them uncomfortable. Alexander vindman didnt just go back and sit behind his desk. He took it to the person in his Chain Of Command who he was supposed to go to and we saw quibbling from the republicans on that point that he didnt go to morrison, his director. He went to the lawyers. Thats where youre supposed to go when this happens and he can did it perhaps less because he saw illegality. Hes not a lawyer, but he knew a Strong Ukraine was critical to the United StatesNational Security and he stood up to protect our country. We should be standing up and cheering like the folks in the room did. And the republican attempt to make this about the president s authority seems to land flat when you consider the fact Vindman Wasnt Questioning The President s authority, he was
questioning the conduct which was completely outside stated u. S. Policy. Stated u. S. Policy toward ukraine was to stand with this fragile democracy against russia. His alarms went off because it didnt seem to be the case with the president. No ones questioning Donald Trumps absolute authority to set Foreign Policy. Vindmans concern was that the president didnt seem to be following his own stated policy. I think thats absolutely right and i would add theres a, theres a two sides to this sword because on one hand, of course the president has the power to for on u. S. Policy, but not against the national interests. Thats why its an impeachment. Thats whats so devastating. Hes not saying the president had the right to do it. Hes saying thirddegr ining th do with National Security. As ned said, this actually flew in the face of our National Security interest and there is no one in this administration, in the Trump Administration, folks that donald trump himself