Zelenskys inauguration in may, i believe you testified it was one of the largest delegations . I believe it was. I cant be 100 sure. I believe it was the Largest National delegation. Okay. And included in the delegation was Secretary Perry . Secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself, senator ron johnson was there and also the charge daffaires at the u. S. Embassy at the time, joe pennington. We talked a little bit this morning, but president zelenskys inauguration came together rather quickly . It did. I believe we had about three days notice in which to put the delegation together. Theres been some discussion whether the Vice President was going to be able to lead that effort and as it turned out he was not able to lead it. Do you have any information as to why the Vice President was unable to join . I dont. And mr. Morrison, do you have any information as to why the
Vice President was unable to participate in the delegation . No. Ambassador volker, you testified during your deposition that aid in fact does get held up from time to time for a whole assortment of reasons. That is true. And sometimes the holdups are rooted in something at omb, sometimes its at the defense department, sometimes at the State Department, sometimes on the hill; is that correct . That is correct. And so when the aid was held up for 50 days for ukraine, that didnt in and of itself strike you as uncommon . No, its something that had happened in my career in the past. I had seen holdups in assistance. I assumed it was part of the decisionmaking process, someone had an objection and we had to overcome it. In fact there were concerns
that perhaps president zelensky wasnt going to be the reformer that he campaigned on . Uh, that was a supposition that i made because of the meeting with the president on may 23rd, i thought that could be whats behind it. In fact the aid was lifted shortly after he was able to convene a parliament . I believe he let me get the dates straight. I believe, yes, he was able to convene the parliament around the first of september and i believe the aid was released on the 11th of september. When he was able to convene the parliament, he was able to push through a number of Anticorruption Initiatives . That began with the parliament seated that day, it was a 24hour session, and it continued for some time. And that was an encouraging sign . It started off in a very encouraging way, yes. And other than these things going on in the background, with the pause in the aid, the u. S. Relations with ukraine, you testified, are you stated it
was about as good as you would want them to be . Can you repeat the question . Im sorry. You testified at your deposition that once the aid was lifted, despite all the things going on in the background, that u. S. ukrainian relations were strong, were yes. As good as you wanted them to be . Yes. You referenced the Security Assistance was lifted, the hold on that, at the meeting in new york, and there was momentum in putting pressure on the russians. That is correct. In your deposition you made it clear that President Trump had deeprooted Negative View of ukraine and their Corruption Environment . Yes. And you first became aware offing his views back in September 2017 . That is correct. Can you tell us a little bit about that . Yes. In september of 2017, i was invited by secretary tillerson to do a prebrief with President Trump before his meeting with
president poroshenko. I did the prebrief and took part in the bilateral meeting. So long before president zelensky was elected, President Trump had a Negative View . Yes, a strongly Negative View. Back in 2017, do you remember anything he said or did that led you to believe he had these Negative Views . Yes. I want to be very careful here because there was a bilateral meeting between the two president s, i dont want to stray into classified material. I can tell you that my impression was he had a very strongly Negative View of ukraine at the time. Fair enough. And you described the president s skepticism at your deposition as a reasonable position . Yes. And i believe you said most people who know anything about ukraine would possibly think that . Yes. And you viewed it as part of your role to help change his
mind, that president zelensky was a genuine reformer, that he was not running for office for selfenrichment, that he was indeed a good person . Thats correct. During the may 23rd meeting with the president in the oval office, cue just relate to us the concerns the president articulated about ukraine . Yes. The president came into the meeting and immediately started speaking. He had just a string of comments that ukraine is a terrible place, theyre all corrupt, theyre terrible people, they tried to take me down. I tried to explain along with the others that were there, each of us took turns speaking. I tried to explain that president zelensky agrees with
you, that he was elected because of that situation in ukraine, and he has a strong mandate from the people of ukraine to change it. And thats why its important that we show him very strong support now. But the president was not convinced and he said that zelensky is no different, that he has terrible people around him, thats not what i hear about ukraine, what were telling him, i hear that nothing has changed, talk to rudy, that kind of dialogue, as i described. And when the president said the ukrainians tried to take him down, did you have any idea what he was referring to . I did, i believe he was referring to rumors of efforts to interfere in the 2016 election by providing damaging information about the president or about Paul Manafort to the Hillary Clinton campaign. That was one of the rumors that had been out there and that had gotten some support from the
ukrainian Prosecutor General. And to the best of your knowledge, the president genuinely believed that, right . I believe he was concerned about it. I dont know what he actually believed. But he brought it up. Okay. And mr. Morrison, you were also aware of the president s skeptical view of foreign aid generally . Yes. And that there was an initiative that he was looking at foreign aid pretty broadly . Yes. And trying to scrutinize to make sure the u. S. Taxpayers were getting their moneys worth . Yes. And the president was also interested, was he not, in better understanding opportunities for increased Burden Sharing among the europeans . Yes. And what can you tell us about that . The president was concerned that the United States seemed to bear the exclusive brunt of Security Assistance to ukraine. He wanted to see if the europeans would step up and contribute more security
assistance. And was there any interagency activity, whether it be with the State Department or the defense department, coordination by the National Security council, to look into that a little bit for the president . We were surveying the data to understand who was contributing what and sort of in what categories. And so the president evinced concerns, the interagency tried to address them . Yes. And by late august, we just discussed with ambassador volker, that a new rada was seated. Did that give possibly some hope that president zelensky would be able to push through some of these reforms . Yes. Did you hope during this time period, the 55 days when the aid was paused, that potentially zelensky would be able to demonstrate his bona fides and subsequently be able to do get the president to lift the aid . Yes. In fact you traveled with ambassador bolton to the ukraine right around labor day weekend, correct . Yes. And you met with president zelensky on i believe it was august 29th . Ambassador bolton had a meeting with president zelensky and i staffed that meeting. And thats around the time the rada had met and they started to push through their reforms . As i recall the meeting, the date of the meeting between ambassador billiolton and Presi Zelensky was the first day of the new radda. Some of these included naming a new Prosecutor General . A new Prosecutor General, a brandnew cabinet, yes. And they pushed through some legislation that eliminated immunity for rada members . Yes, eliminated parliamentary immunity. I believe you provided some
color into this, your experience of this meeting, you said the ukrainians had been up all night working on some of these legislative initiatives. Yes. The ukrainians with whom we met were by all appearances exhausted by the pace of activity. And was ambassador bolton encouraged by the activity . Yes, he was. And was the meeting all together favorable . Quite. And at that point in time, after the meeting, ambassador bolton, did he head off to warsaw with the Vice President . I know you went to warsaw. We had a few stops between ukraine and poland. But yes, ambassador bolton proceeded to warsaw where we were expecting to ensure everything was staged properly for the president s arrival. Did you have an opportunity to brief the Vice President . I did not. Did ambassador bolton . He did. What do you remember from
what ambassador bolton shared with the Vice President about the zelensky meeting . So i was not there. The issue i remember most starkly was ambassador bolton was quite annoyed that ambassador sondland crashed the prebrief. Okay. But the ambassador had everything he needed to ensure that the either the president or the Vice President were wellprepared. But did you brief ambassador bolton before he had an opportunity to meet with the Vice President . I didnt need to. Ambassador bolton was there. Okay. But as far as you know, ambassador bolton communicated to the Vice President that the goingson in ukraine were positive . Thats my understanding. With president zelensky. And at this time ambassador bolton was advocating for the lifting of the aid . He had been for some time, yes. And did you participate in the warsaw meetings . We had a reduced schedule from what had been arranged for
the president , for the Vice President. But the Vice President met with president Duda Of Poland and met with president zelensky and i participated in both meetings. What do you remember from the meeting with president zelensky . It seemed very it seemed very positive. What was the message i mean, president zelensky raised the issue of the aid, correct . Yes. How did the Vice President respond . He represented his support for the aid. He represented the strong commitment of the United States to ukraine. And he explained that President Trump, because this was after the politico article had come out that made clear there was a hold, he explained that what we were doing was the United States government, the interagency, was examining what more europe could do in the security space, and taking a look at how ukraine was reforming what has been a history of corruption. And was there any discussion
during the meeting with president zelensky on the part of the Vice President about any of these investigations weve come to talk about . No. So burisma wasnt raised . No. 2016 election wasnt raised . No. And the Vice President didnt mention any investigations at all, did he . No. You mentioned the august 28th politico article. Was that the first time you believed the ukrainians may have had a real sense that the aid was on hold . Yes. So from the 55day period spanning july 18th through september 11th, it didnt really become public until august 28th . Thats correct. Ambassador taylor and i had a number of phone calls where we in fact talked about, do the ukrainians know yet, because we
both thought it was important that the president released the aid before the ukrainians found out about it. Ambassador volker, is that also your recollection . Yes, it is. That it wasnt until the politico article that thats correct. I received a text message from one of my ukrainian counterparts on the 29th Forwarding that article. Thats the first time they ra e raised it with of me. Can you share with us your communications in that time period about withholding the aid . Yes. I didnt have any communication with the ukrainians about the hold on aid until after they raised it with me for the same reason tim just gave, the hope that we could get it taken care of ourselves before it became something that they became aware of. Inside the u. S. Government, i was aware that the hold was placed, i was aware of that on july 18th. It was referenced at an interagency meeting. I got a readout from that
meeting from one of my assistants. I then immediately spoke with several people in the administration to object. I thought that this was a bad decision or a bad hold, maybe not a decision, but, you know, a process. And i wanted to make sure all the arguments were marshalled to get it lifted. I spoke with the pentagon, paula cooper, i spoke with the assistant of state Department Air force who was going to represent the State Department at the meeting. I believe i spoke with the National Security councils staff. I was actively trying to convey that this needed to be lifted. I wanted them to be able to use my name in doing so because i felt the best prospect for positioning ourselves for negotiations with russia is the strongest Defense Capability for ukraine. And during this time period, did you come to believe that any of these investigations were a part of the aid . No, i did not. On july 3rd you met in toronto with president zelensky. Theres been some you know, ambassador taylor and mr. Kent provided some testimony that they had some apprehension that part of this irregular channel that ambassador taylor referenced would rear its head in toronto. Im just wondering if you can tell us whether that in fact happened. Yes, thank you. I can only tell you what i know. There may have been other conversations or other things. But i know that we had a conversation, bill taylor and i believe Gordon Sondland and i, around the 28th of june that later connected to, i believe, a conversation with mr. Zelensky, although i may not have been part of the latter. That being said, i was convinced after that conversation we had gotten nowhere. We had our White House Briefing with President Trump on may
23rd. He signed a Letter Inviting president zelensky to the white house on may 29th. And for several weeks, we were just temporizing with the ukrainians, saying were working on it, its a scheduling issue, well get there, dont worry. I told bill and gordon that i was going to see president zelensky in toronto, and i feel an obligation to tell him the truth, that we have a problem here, were not getting the aid scheduled, here is what i think the problem is, its the negative information flow from mayor giuliani, and that he would also that i would advise him that he should call President Trump personally, because he needed to renew that personal relationship and be able to convey to President Trump that he was serious about Fighting Corruption, investigating things that happened in the past and so forth. So i did all of that with president zelensky in a pullaside after a formal bilateral meeting. And during that meeting in toronto or the series of
meetings, there was no discussion of preconditions, investigations or anything of that sort . No. No. And you were there with mr. Kent . Yes, i believe so. Did you ever have any discussions with him about preconditions or investigations . Not at that time. I think later on, these things came up, when we were talking about a statement, whether there were investigations. But i believe at this time in toronto it was really more referring to investigations generically, that that is how you go about Fighting Corruption and that president zelensky should reaffirm his commitment to President Trump in a direct phone call. Okay. And at any point in time, had mr. Kent raised any concerns to you about any of this . Not at that time. Next is the july 10th meeting, in ambassador boltons office. We talked a little bit about that this morning, i dont know if you caught the coverage. There was testimony that at some point, ambassador sondland mentioned investigations and reportedly the meeting ended abruptly. What can you tell us about that fact . Thank you. And let me answer that question first, i would like to come back to your prior question too, if i may. On the july 10th meeting, this was ail meeting that we had arranged between alex dimiliuk, National Security adviser bolton. Attending the meeting was also Secretary Perry, ambassador sondland, myself, i believe fiona hill, and also andriy yermak. The purpose was really a counterpart visit. I thought that this would be the best opportunity, the first high level meeting that we were having in washington with a senior u. S. Official, ambassador bolton, after president zelenskys inauguration. I thought it would be a great opportunity for the ukrainians
to make their case, they are the new team in town, real deal, about Fighting Corruption. I was rather disappointed with the meeting as it transpired. It struck me as down in the weeds, talking about reform of National Security structures in ukraine, legislation that they were working on, and not The Big Picture and not the bilateral relationship. So i was a bit disappointed by that. At the end of the meeting, i do recall having seen some of the other testimony. I believe ambassador sondland did raise the point of investigations in a generic way. This was after the meeting was already wrapping up. And i think all of us thought it was inappropriate. And the conversation did not pick up from there. The meeting was over. We all went outside. And we had a picture taken in front of the white house. And then all of us except ambassador bolton went down to
the ward room to talk through followup about how do we follow up on this meeting to keep the momentum in the relationship. And i think we broke up into several small groups. I remember having a conversation with Secretary Perry and one of his assistants about Energy Reform as part of that. I dont really other conversations following up on investigations on burisma. And to the best of your knowledge, there was certainly no precondition discussed, right . Uh, no, no. Again, the issue of the Security Assistance was one where i fought that this was really related to a general Negative View about ukraine. There was Nothing Specific ever communicated to me about it or the reasons why it was held. And we certainly didnt want to talk about it with the ukrainians. We wanted to fix it. And a couple of weeks later, the July 25th Call happened. And you were headed to ukraine during that time period . Yes. I was actually already on my way to ukraine. I think two days prior to that. And you received readouts from the u. S. Side and the ukrainian side. Cue te could you tell us about that . Yes. I was not on the phone call. I arrived in ukraine and had that lunch with mr. Yermak, you saw that, on the day of the phone call. I had been pushing for the phone call because i thought it was important to renew the connection between the two leaders and congratulating mr. Zelensky about the parliamentary election. The readout i received from mr. Yermak and also from the u. S. Side, im not sure who it was from the u. S. Side but it was a u. S. And ukrainian readout, were largely the same, that it was a good call, it was a congratulatory phone call for the president winning in the
parliamentary election. President zelensky reiterated his commitment to reform and Fighting Corruption in ukraine and President Trump did reiterate his invitation to mr. Zelensky to visit him in the white house. It was exactly what i thought the phone call would be so i was not surprised at getting that as the readout. Did you have any discussions with ambassador taylor about this . At that time. We were together in ukraine at that time. We went the next day to visit the Conflict Zone and im sure he heard the same readout that i did. You had a meeting with president Zealot Lensky on the . Yes, in the morning, before heading out to the Conflict Zone. Were any of the concerns raised by other witnesses about the call raised with mr. Zelensky . No. The only bare bones i received, that was all that was discussed in the meeting with president zelensky. To the extent theres been assertions that president zelensky was concerned about
demands President Trump had made i dont recall. I dont recall that . I do not recall being well, let me turn that around and say, he was very positive about the phone call. Okay. I dont recall him saying anything about demands. But he was very upbeat about the fact of the call. And there was no discussion on the part of president zelensky on how to navigate the various i dont recall that. Concerns that people have articulated about the call . I dont remember that. And mr. Zeldin asked you in the deposition, in no way, shape, or form, in either readouts from the United States or ukraine, did you receive any indication whatsoever or anything that resembled a quid pro quo; is that correct . Thats correct. And the same would go for this new allegation of bribery . I have only seen an allegation of bribery in the last week. Its the same common set of facts, its just instead of quid
pro quo now its bribery. I was never involved in anything that i considered to be bribery at all. Okay. Or extortion . Or extortion. Okay. Mr. Castor, may i address two specific points . Of course. One is, im reminded that the meeting with ambassador bolton and mr. Dimiliuk took place july 10th and i did not become aware of the hold on Security Assistance until july 18th. Thats another reason why that did not come up. That point in time you did not know the potential cause in Security Assistance was brewing . I did not, no. I heard about it for the first time on the 18th. May i make a second observation . I do remember having seen some of the testimony of mr. Kent, a conversation in which he had asked me about the Conspiracy Theories that were out there in ukraine. I dont remember what the date of this conversation was. And my view was, well, if there
are things like that, then why not investigate them . I dont believe thats anything to them, if there is, 2016 Election Interference is what i was thinking, we wanted to know about that but i didnt think there was anything in there to begin with. You testified to the extent ukrainians were going to investigate other ukrainians of wrongdoing, that was perfectly appropriate in your mind . That had been u. S. Policy for years. If certain ukrainians involved with Burisma Company that i think is the only plausible thing to look at there. As i said, i dont find it plausible or credible that Vice President would have been influenced in his duties. But whether individual ukrainians were trying to act in a corrupt way or to buy influence, thats plausible. Deputy assistant secretary kent last wednesday told us about, there was an investigation into burisma,
trying to recoup millions of taxpayer dollars, and the ukrainians were pursuing an investigation, there was a bribe paid. Were you tracking that . I was aware of those kind of things. I couldnt give you those kinds of details. I just know that there was a reputation around the company. Okay. And subsequent to those facts and the bribe being paid, the Burisma Company wanted to improve their image and added some folks to their board, including the president of poland, including hunter biden, are you familiar with that . Thats what i understand. To the extent that the ukrainians, the folks affiliated with burisma wanted those people for their board, for protection purposes, so they could continue to engage in misdeeds, if that was a fact worth investigating, you certainly would be supportive of ukrainians trying to get to the bottom of that, correct . Well, i cant speculate as to
any of the specifics of what was Motivating Burisma or not. Ukrainian government authorities investigating possible corruption by ukrainian citizens is a perfectly appropriate thing for them to do. Mr. Morrison, i want to turn our attention back to the July 25th Call. You were in the room. Did anything concern you on the call . No. And after the call ended, you, like Colonel Vindman, one of your next steps was to engage the nsc lawyers, and your reasons for doing that were slightly different than Colonel Vindmans. You articulated three three concerns. Do you want to share them with us or would you rather i do it . So i think i articulated two concerns, if im forgetting one, please remind me, but the two concerns i had were, one, i did not see representatives of nsc legal on the call so i wanted to make sure the Legal Adviser and his deputy were aware of the call. And i was also concerned about taking steps to protect the memcon limited disclosure for fear of the consequences of it leaking. And you were concerned about it leaking because you were worried about how it would play out in washingtons polarized political environment, correct . Yes. And you were also worried about how that would lead to the bipartisan support here in congress towards ukraine, right . Yes. And you were also concerned that it might affect the ukrainians perception negatively . Yes. And in fact all three of those things have played out, havent they . Yes. You didnt ask the lawyers to put it on the codeword system, correct . I want to be precise about the lexicon here. I did not ask for it to be moved to a compartmented system. Okay. You just wanted the transcript to be controlled . I wanted access to be restricted. Okay. And when you learned that the transcript had been stored on the Compartmented Server, you believed that was a mistake, correct . Well, it was represented to me it was a mistake. I was trying to pull up that memcon because we were in the process of pulling together ambassador boltons materials and the president s materials for what was a planned bilat
between potus and president zelensky. I did not understand why i could not pull up that package in the system. I spoke with the Nsc Secretariat staff, asked them why, and they did their research and informed me it had been moved to the higher Classification System at the direction of John Eisenberg whom i then asked why. That was the judgment he made. Thats not necessarily mine to question. But i didnt understand it. And he essentially told me, i gave no such direction. He did his own inquiry and represented back to me that his understanding was it was kind of an administrative error that when he also gave direction to restrict access, the Executive Secretariat staff understood that as an apprehension that there was something, umm, in the content of the memcon that could not exist on the lower Classification System. So to the best of your knowledge there was no malicious intent on moving the transcript to the Compartmented Server . Correct. And to your knowledge,
anybody on the nsc staff that needed access to the transcript for their official duties always was able to access it, correct . People that had a need to know and a need to access it. Once it was moved to the examp compartmented system, yes. The memcon of the July 25th Call was in your experience prepared normally . Yes. There isnt an exact transcription of whats said on the call, correct . Correct. But theres notetakers in the Situation Room and then they prepare a draft and its circulated among relevant parties . Essentially, yes. And you had responsibility for coordinating any edits . Yes. We look at the the shorthand, well call it a transcript, but the memorandum of conversation, and we ensure
that that transcription is as close to accurate as possible given our requirements under the president ial records act. Okay. And Colonel Vindman testified he thought it was very accurate. Did you as well . I viewed it as complete and accurate. Okay. Colonel vindman did articulate that he had a couple of edits, he wanted burisma inserted, i think it was on page 3 or 4, in place of the company in one of the sections were president zelensky was talking. Were you aware of that edit request . I understand he said in either this proceeding or the deposition that he wanted that request, yes. At the time did you understand that he had asked for that . I dont recall that. It was my practice, if an edit was if i believed an edit accurately represented the call, i would accept it. If i didnt hear it in the call, if it didnt exist in my notes, i wouldnt have made the
evidence. On page 4 he wanted to swap out the word company for burisma. And when that edit from Colonel Vindman was not installed, did he give you any negative feedback that it was crucial that that edit get in the document . Not that i can recall. Okay. Did he ever raise any concerns to you about the accuracy of the transcript . Not that i can recall. Did he ever raise any concerns to you generally about the call . When we were discussing the track changes version of the memcon, i believe he had some concerns about the call. I believe we both agreed we wanted that more fullthroated embrace of president zelensky and his reform agenda and we didnt get it. Okay. You indicated in your deposition that when you took over the portfolio for dr. Hill, july 15th, you were alerted to potential issues in Colonel Vindmans judgment . Yes. Did she relay anything specifically to you, why she thought that . Not as such. It was more of an overarching statement from her and her deputy who became my deputy, that they had concerns about judgment. Okay. Did any other nsc personnel raise concerns with you about mr. Vindman . Yes. Im sorry, Colonel Vindman. And what were some of those concerns that were brought to your attention . There were im sorry. We are not going to im going to instruct him not to answer, because i think that its beyond
the scope of what youre asking for. Thats concerns, mr. Castor, predated any involvement with ukrainian sector assistance. Well, during the deposition, i asked you, mr. Morrison, whether others race e raised th concern that Colonel Vindman may have leaked information. You did ask that, yes. And your answer was . Others have represented that, yes. Okay. And i asked you whether you were concerned Colonel Vindman did not keep you in the loop at all times with his official duties . Yes. And in fact, when he went to the National SecurityCouncil Lawyers following the July 25th Call, he did not first come to you; is that correct . Correct. And you were his supervisor in the chain of command, correct . Correct. And in hindsight, did you wish that he had come to you first before going to the
lawyers . Yes. And why is that . One, if he had concerns about something about the content of the call, thats something i would have expect to have been notified of. I also think just as a matter of practice, since we both went to the lawyers, we didnt necessarily both need to, and economy of effort may have prevailed. Okay. At any point subsequently, did he become frustrated that he felt cut out of some of the ukraine portfolio . Yes. And what was the nature of his concerns . Well, i think the easiest way to say it is, he was concerned with respect to, for example, the ukraine trip that he was not he did not go. He asked me why. It was my practice to have a number of the conversations with ambassador taylor one on one. There were certain other matters. Okay. And did you ever get the sense
that you resolved his concerns or did they linger . I explained to him my thinking, and that was that. Okay. Before my time expires, ambassador volker, i want to turn quickly to the what ambassador taylor describes as the irregular channel. He was a participant with you and ambassador sondland on hundreds of Text Messages, correct . Correct. And so did he ever raise concerns about what was going on during the time period of the early august time period . Only as you saw reflected in the Text Messages themselves, where he said, is this now a linkage or are we doing this. He had a concern about just in
general Rudy Giuliani, which i think all of us had, but the issue is what do you do about it, about the role that hes playing. And as you note, we were in wa that he was in charge of and the other was yes. I dont agree with his characterization of that, because i had been in my role for a couple of years. I had been the lead on u. S. ukraine negotiations and negotiating with russia and the interagency work and the work with our allies. And we had a Secretary Of Energy who was a cabinet official. And i think having support from various u. S. Officials for our strengthening our engagement with ukraine i viewed as a very positive thing. And if the concern is not us so much then, because were all u. S. Officials, but mayor giuliani, i dont view that as a channel at all because hes not a representative of the u. S. Government. Hes a private citizen. I viewed him as perhaps a useful barometer in understanding what may be helpful communication from the ukrainian government. But not someone in a position to represent the u. S. Government at all. Okay, thank you. Okay. Why dont we take a five or tenminute break. If i could ask the audience to allow the witnesses to leave the room first. We are in recess. We have been watching more riveting testimony in the public phase of Donald TrumpsImpeachment Proceedings. These were two of the most important witnesses of the entire inquiry, two former Trump Administration officials who witnessed firsthand the Pressure Campaign against ukraine. We heard from former u. S. Diplomat kurt volker and former nsc staff member tim morrison. Volker denied any link between the holdup of military aid and investigations that the president wanted. Today hes changing his tune, acknowledging that while he was not aware of any specific condition placed on the military aid for ukraine, he says it is now clear to him that there was after all a link. With us, with me, msnbc chief Legal Correspondent and host of the beat, ari melber. Were also joined by msnbc legal analyst maya wily who worked in the Southern District of new york, former senator from missouri, claire mccaskill, both our rear ends are glued to our seats because weve been sitting here so long. And ned price, former senior director and spokesperson for the National Security council, joins us. Were also joined by Axios Jonathan swan. Jonathan, i know youve been
covering multiple sort of threads today on the white house beat, but take me inside the dynamics for republicans and having these two witnesses who were supposed to sort of take the pressure off, perhaps, some of the drama of the morning. They really didnt do the fact pattern that trump is seeking to distract from any favors. They were obviously republicanrequested witnesses. If you closed your eyes and didnt know who had requested them, you might think they were the other side requesting them. Nothing that theyve said has been particularly helpful so far to the president s case. But in some senses the white house sees this as irrelevant. They are very firmly of the belief that no matter what happens effectively over the next few days, theyre going to be okay with the votes. Thats the thing theyre keeping an eye on. And theyre very confident, they
might be proven wrong i guess, but i can tell you everyone i talked to in there is very confident. Its not just spin. They genuinely believe that republicans are in lockstep with them in the senate and to a large extent in the house. There was a lot of concern within the white house when the president was livetweeting at ambassador yovanovitch and he was counseled not to do that. There were people concerned about that. So that was something that people were watching. Again, the facts havent been helpful. Its very clearly been established that all the people around the president who mattered, who have testified, were under the impression that there was this aid being held up in exchange for these promises. Again, the white house is betting that that will not matter and that republicans are going to march in line and support the president. Ari melber, it is i mean,
jonathan swan has done remarkable reporting on republicans like Lindsey Graham who has drawn red lines, or lines you would draw with your toe in the sand, theyre meant to be washed away, i suppose. But even the lines in the sand that republicans have been drawn at certain points have been wiped out by a stubborn fact pattern from even the most dedicated, longest serving republicans available in this inquiry. A couple of points. If there was true confidence, im not sure there would be this level of howling coming out of at least part of the donald Trump Supporters and jonathan mentioned last weeks attack on the witness. I mean, if ken starr is counseling viewers on fox news that the president made a mistake, clearly theres something hes worried about or reacting to. I think in looking at the substance of todays hearing, which is the news were processing right now, we have two people who donald trump picked to handle his ukraine goals who have moved away from him in the defense under oath
and towards this ukraine plot confession. Mr. Sondland, famously, well hear from him tomorrow, and today, mr. Volker. We were discussing this before he began with a member of the Intelligence Committee who was in a tightlipped way citing news accounts. Now you have the news, which is that volker and sondland are moving closer to whatever you want to call it, a ukraine plot, a conditioning Government Action on getting reelection help, which is a nono, or what we have reported as a potential impeachable offense, a bribery plot. They were joined briefly at the lectern by Mick Mulvaney in public, who is still fighting testifying. What we were discussing with the member of congress has now become, as they say, on the fwres congressional record, on record, actually there was a link. Hes not denying that, hes just saying he didnt know it. Thats something that defends himself but people arent interested in The Rise And Fall of mr. Volker very much. What hes saying is bad for the president and the other people involved in the plot. Claire, i spoke with a congressional source while dan goldman was interviewing the two witnesses, who was very pleased on two fronts. One, that once again john bolton was brought into this testimony. Its unlikely he will ever be a witness seated at one of those tables. But witnesses talking about what john bolton said and did and what john bolton said and did over and over and over again was to send all of his subordinates straight up to the white house counsels office. Yeah. And, you know, by the way, somebody needs to check Rudy Giuliani wherever he is, with a cigar somewhere, because there are tire marks over his back. I mean, the bus was driven over him. It was put in reverse. It went back over him and over him again. Clearly there is disdain on the part of these republicancalled
witnesses about who giuliani is and what he is doing as it relates to the United States security interests. The other thing is that this witness for the republicans gave a rousing Character Defense of joe biden. Yes. There is a real disconnect when the republicans say, call this witness, call this witness, and almost the first thing the witness did was say, any discussion that joe biden would be involved in coloring his official duties by something involving burisma is just ludicrous on its face. And that couldnt have been a good moment for the president , to have this witness say, hey, this is really a cookedup Cockamamie Deal by giuliani, which is essentially what the witness said. Sticking with cookedup cockamamie topics, is it cookedup and cockamamie for kurt volker to expect all of us
to believe, i have this october 3rd article in the New York Times that details, trump envoy pushed ukraine to commit to investigating biden, two of trumps top invoice in ukraine worked on a statement for the countrys new president in august. It was a lengthy statement committing zelensky to investigating the are we really to believe that he didnt remember until he started reading the transcripts from the Impeachment Proceedings that burisma was Hunter Bidens company . Its long been an undisputed fact in this, undisputed because we have the Text Messages. Kurt volker we know drafted this insert and sent it on to the ukrainians to mention burisma. What is untenable on his part is his continued contention that he didnt recognize the connection between the bidens and burisma. He said he was trying to thread a needle between doing what President Trump wanted, which was clearly for corrupt purposes to advance his own political
prospects, but still to do something that was in Ukrainian National interests and the American National interests. He was trying to do both. I think hes still trying to thread that needle. Tim morrison, who took over the job on july 15th, ten days before the july 25th phone call, he said today in the hearing, at first i didnt know any of these terms but i googled burisma and i recognized the connection between burisma and the bidens. It strains credulity to think that kurt volker didnt google this term. What did you make of his efforts, claire makes an interesting political point, this is a political process for the witnesses, also a legal process, theyre all exposed on the potential crime of lying to congress. What did you make of his efforts to sand the edges off his political brand, hes been a long serving diplomat in republican circles, he went out of his way to show respect for joe biden. And for marie yovanovitch, he had kind words for her as well. He is trying to thread the needle, get by in this hearing without saying anything thats demonstrably untrue or anything thats wildly unbelievable, but while still sort of going down this center lane and trying to, as you said, shave off some of the rough edges. I think he did that by acknowledging there was this linka linkage. There were still some rough edges. You dont change your statement to help donald trump. You change your statement to help yourself. Were watching these hearings so long, were sounding a little washington. Im going to step away and not sound washington. The Needle 24rthreading is abou how much bull you can serve up without offending everyone. Youre putting your finger on the question, nicolle, how do people expect us to believe this . If youre a Ukraine Expert and last week all the witnesses were
saying even before this hot mess was in the papers, there was an awareness that this was a linka linkage. Suddenly the envoy to ukraine who knows all this stuff doesnt know that. Two points from the testimony, the new material we have, he basically says he thought this investigation they were negotiating to get was, quote, only about whether any ukrainians acted inappropriately. But then he says that he was willing to explore drafting the statement because it was for giuliani, it was to, quote, convince giuliani to convey to trump a more positive assessment of the leadership in ukraine. You dont have to be an expert on this issue to know those two things dont square. Mr. Giulianis brief, his mission, which you cited in public accounts, fox news interviews, any glancing interaction, using ukraine to do stuff in america. So you cant say you were doing this for giuliani and also only with regard to jurisdiction for Intraukraine Prosecution of people you never met. It doesnt wash. Im not, to be fair and clear, im not saying he perjured himself. Im saying he said things that dont make sense. Let me bring into our conversation garrett haake. Hes on capitol hill for us. Garrett, what is the sense in the room . Ive heard from some Democratic Congressional sources who feel like dan goldman, the committee attorney, got the most out of these two witnesses for the case that the democrats are trying to present to the public. Reporter yeah, goldman i think was very much on with these two witnesses. Castor probably had his best five minutes of the day in the last five minutes of questioning in the sense that he got morrison to say that he didnt think there was anything wrong with that call and he started to raise those questions about vindmans credibility in a way that didnt feel as icky as what happened in the first hearing, right, he just made it about his Job Performance and questions about his judgment. I think you have to pull back a little bit here. Of all the public hearings well
see, every single one, this one should be the best for republicans. Its the only hearing in which both witnesses are republicancalled witnesses. If these are the best ones the republicans can put forward, its not really going to get the job done. I look at volker specifically here as somebody who republicans have been talking up nonstop since the minute his deposition was completed, you had republicans saying it needed to be released right away, he needed to be called right away. To the degree there is a republican star witness appearing in any of these hearings, thats kurt volker. And hes not giving them what they want. In fact im struck by how essentially everyone involved at every stage in this admits to the statement for white house meeting tradeoff. There is a quid pro quo that nobody really disputes, that they were writing this statement to get a white house meeting. Is it then that much of a stretch to assume there might be this bigger quid pro quo later . Volker just gives them the small quid pro quo in a very diplomatic, sort of professionalsounding way, but if you can have this one little thing over here it makes the
democrats job so much easier to connect it to the Bigger Picture of aid money for dirt quid pro quo. Garrett, its an interesting point, because Tim Morerison is to me the only person on the table from the Party Formerly known as republicans, tim morrison is what republicans used to look like and sound like and talk like especially when it comes to National Security. But facts are stubborn things and he did not shy away from his closed door testimony which was that in his view, and what he witnessed, aid was tied to not just the meeting, as youre saying, but it was also tied to those investigations that donald trump sought. We now all know they were into the 2016 election, into that shady debunked Conspiracy Theory about the server being in ukraine, and they were into the bidens. Reporter yeah, and its interesting, ive been talking to mostly republican members all day, and a lot of them tell me they think theres willful
ignorance on the democratic side, and the witnesses just put their fingers in their ear and never bothered to look into burisma or hunter biden. But youre saying the same thing from republican witnesses who say, i dont want to touch this, i didnt want to go anywhere near this. The willful blindness on the other side is not to ask the followup questions, what is this connected to that volker himself had to be refreshed by looking at other testimony of what these investigations, euphemistically referred to, were really about a . There is a lot of head in sand going on here from a number of these witnesses on those questions. Jonathan swan, im looking for some sand here. Let me ask you something about this, even the notion that anyone could feign ignorance about what Rudy Giuliani sought. We now have almost a dozen witnesses tying giulianis efforts, including giuliani, to Donald Trumps desires and
directions. Rudy giuliani was on Television Calling for these investigations in ukraine. There was reporting in the New York Times and other places that he was heading over there and only because the outcry was so loud and really spanned the ideological spectrum was that trip called off. How could someone with ukraine in their portfolio not know about all that . It does strain credulity. And i know people in the white house who had to follow Foreign Policy and when they saw giuliani on tv, they would sometimes turn the volume up to kind of get a sense of what he was on about. What is true is that the experience that you hear about, and this is not just relating to Foreign Policy but its also in Rudy Giulianis previous life as trumps attorney on the mueller investigation, is some of the white house staff did feel like spectators because Rudy Giuliani and the president were obviously having these conversations when he was in the residence, you know, in the morning, at night, whatever, and people were not
necessarily looped in on what he was doing. I just want to add one thing. I think i didnt convey myself clearly enough before. When i say theyre confident, its not because theyre seeing these hearings and going, wonderful, this is a spectacular day of hearings and everyone is perfectly great for us. Obviously thats not the case. And you saw Trump Venting his truf frustration. Its also been venting his frustration that all these state Department Employees are going and testifying. He wishes that pompeo could stop them all. What theyre confident about is that it Doesnt Matter politically. And an example being, when i interviewed Lindsey Graham and he said, you know, if i saw something that amounted to quid pro quo, that would be really troubling. Literally two days after the interview, Mick Mulvaney, the white house chief of staff, gets up on stage in the White House Briefing room and Jonathan Karl says, just to be clear, thats a quid pro quo, and mick says, get over it, happens all the time. We went back to Lindsey Graham and he said, no, havent seen
anything thats impeachable. Thats what gives the white house confidence, they do not believe theres going to be any real problems in the senate and Mitch Mcconnell is very committed to steam rolling this through. Its an amazing state of affairs. Chairman schiff has taken his seat. Were going to listen in closely. Let me just bring that back to you, claire. I understood what jonathan was saying but its a good clarification. And the version ive heard of that confidence is that all theyre looking at are the votes for conviction in the senate. And they dont see any scenario, no matter how bad this gets, and this is bad, and i think what jonathan is reporting is they acknowledge its bad, but they just dont see 20 republicans breaking with the white house to vote for conviction in the senate. And i painfully have to agree with them. Suggested as you said, this is a political process. All these senators are looking at at this process not through the lens of what does this mean for our country, what does this mean for Going Forward and the
precedent it sets. Theyre thinking about, what does this mean for me politically. So far he has hung on to the base of the Republican Party and with very few defections. That may change, but right now i think thats a correct assessment by the white house, that theyve got the senate tied up in a way that will protect the president from actually being removed from office. I think the two variables, ned, would, in my guess, drawing on my past sort of in republican politics, would be public opinion, should you see attacks on Colonel Vindman inching this from 51 support to 53, 54, 55. And the second, more big time statewide electoral defeats in red, red, red parts of the country. Potentially. At the same time, though, throughout his presidency, donald trump has been talking to 30, 35 of the country. I think as long as that 35 is with him, i think you see them