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 you re done. thinking about or had in front but chuck, isn t 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 you re what trump said? bolton and trump. about to send. he used that analogy very and they don t want those folks to come before congress. i absolutely agree. i m saying if there is a path to clearly to indicate that this try and point out that he has limited knowledge, that s the would be this would require path and it s a narrow one. something. if that person owed him does it ultimately work? no, it do
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 long-awaited 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 can t comment to deeply, but
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. let s put that up on the screen. you s
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 that s a correct negative? assessment by the white house, believed that they were that they ve 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. you re now saying that you don t on colonel vindman inching this recall saying those words; is from 51% support to 53, 54, 55. that correct? i do
obligation to account fully for my role in these events. did by obligation, you mean simply your legal obligation? or did you mean something bigger? well, both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. your moral obligation? i actually want to present an alternative theory. your family came here escaping the holocaust via uruguay. and your parents moved lucy and later you here where, frankly, you ve been an american success story. through dent of hard work and innovation, good idea, and knack to hire the right people and some luck, you ve built a considerable successful business. one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. they came here because they knew
that it was here that they could have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed. and no doubt, on some level, you re grateful and it s created a sense of patriotism in you. is that fair to say? very fair. why then, sir, with your courage