That it indicated to you that he had been prepped for the call, to expect this issue to come up. What led you to that conclusion . It seemed unlikely that he would be familiar with a Single Company in the context of a call that had that was on the broader bilateral relationship, and it seemed to me that he was either tracking this issue because it was in the press or he was otherwise prepped. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to both of you. Good morning. On july 25th at approximately 9 00 a. M. You both were sitting in the situation room, probably not too much further away than you are right now, and you were preparing for a longawaited phone call between President Trump and president zelensky. Now, Colonel Vindman, in advance
of this phone call, did you prepare Talking Points as you did for the april 21st call . Yes, i did. What were those Talking Points based upon . They were so this is not in the Public Record and i cant comment to deeply, but what is the areas tha
Base of the Republican Party and to me. So i believe that he was at with very few defections. That may change, but right now i least affected by those and believed those and believed they were think thats a correct negative . Assessment by the white house, believed that they were that theyve got the senate tied negative and was conveying them up in a way that will protect to the president. So was it problematic that he the president from actually being removed from office. Believed they were negative i think the two variables, views . Yes, the whole thing was ned, would, in my guess, drawing problematic. Ambassador taylor testified on my past sort of in republican that on july 2nd, you told politics, would be public ukrainians that they needed to, quote, cooperate on opinion, should you see attacks investigations, end quote. Youre now saying that you dont on colonel vindman inching this recall saying those words; is from 51 support to 53, 54, 55. That correct . I dont believe i said th
That a businessman would have knowledge is limited in any when he is about to sign a transaction. But if you go after his integrity, right, if you go check. And by that he clearly meant after his public service, if you go after his military record, that President Trump was youre done. Thinking about or had in front but chuck, isnt there a high stakes problem with that, for of him the possibility of providing Security Assistance to trump and the republicans to say, because then the next question is, okay, who does know ukraine. It was similar to writing a check to someone who youre what trump said . Bolton and trump. About to send. He used that analogy very and they dont want those folks to come before congress. I absolutely agree. Im saying if there is a path to clearly to indicate that this try and point out that he has limited knowledge, thats the would be this would require path and its a narrow one. Something. If that person owed him does it ultimately work . No, it doesnt. Right.
Joe biden, come on over to ukraine its never going to happen spewing all they had to do apparently was announce an investigation. Okay, that is it for us. They hearing is set to resume shortly, but now we have special report up next. Spewing that evening, welcome to washington. I am bret baier. Continuing coverage of the impeachment hearings day 3, nine hours on capitol hill as you look alive at the chairman adam schiff getting ready to gavel into the next round of questions this from the lawmakers themselves, while we wait, we will bring in our panel here. Byron york, chief Political Correspondent of the national and josh holmes, former top advisor to mitch mcconnell, now president of the Cavalry Consultants as you look there at tom morrison, tim morris and heading back in for testimony, and kurt volker right behind him. Quickly down the row, your thoughts on today so far . Today is the day that we
found out there was a difference of opinion about this trumpzelensky call, some officia
About fighting corruption, we should also say specifically, burisma in 2016. Mr. Yermak provided me a statement. I wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. Giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to President Trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. The problem being that he is getting a bad set of information, a Statement Like this could potentially correct that. Was mr. Guiliani satisfied with the statement . No, he was not. He believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, would not mean anything. So in fact, mr. Guiliani wanted a statement that Referenced Burisma and the 2016 elections explicitly. One that would benefit, essentially, President Trump. It is to invest or come here is the text you sent to the ukrainian official on August August 13th. Lets put that up on the screen. You said, hi,