Ukraine had a statement about Fighting Corruption and mr. Yermak would say burr mace in 2016. Mr. Yermak provided me a draft statement, and 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 id observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. The problem that hes getting a bad set of information, Statement Like this could potentially correct that. So was mr. Giuliani satisfied with this statement . No, he was not. Why not . He believed that it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything new. So, in fact, mr. Jewel yagiu wanted it to State Burisma and
one specifically for President Trump. Mr. Ambassador, heres the text you sent to the ukrainian official on august 13th, lets put that up on the screen. You said hi, andre. Good talking. Following is the text with an insert at the end for the two key items. Mr. Ambassador, those two key items were specific references to investigations of burisma and the 2016 election, isnt that right, sir . That is correct. Did mr. Giuliani dictate those key items to you, sir . I had just had a conversation with mr. Yermak to describe the conversation that wed just had with mr. Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani said that it would need to include these things for it to be convincing to him. I put them in so we understood what he was talking about and i shared it with andre to say this is what he is talking about. And you included them in the proposal to the ukrainians . I put it back in to be clear
to the ukrainians this is what the conversation was. Mr. Ambassador, if you believe the statement that mr. Giuliani dictated in august was not a good idea, sir, why were the ukrainians still considering giving an interview with the same themes in september . Well, if i may, congressman, i conveyed this to the ukrainians in order to be clear so we knew what the conversation was about ask it was following up on the prior conversations. The ukrainians said they had reasons not to do that and they described those reasons and i agreed with them and we agreed to just scrap the statement. From that point on, i didnt have any further conversations about this statement. So i dont know how it came up or why it came up that there would be a possibility that president zelensky doing an interview with u. S. Media either about Something Like this and in the end he didnt do that either. Mr. Morrison, you said that
the president s request during the July 25th Call were not consistently with u. S. Policy. I emphatically agree with you, sir, yet these Text Messages show that ambassador volker spent much of august pressing ukraine to meet those requests and we can only be grateful. I guess that the president essentially got caught and Congress Passed a law to ensure the funding was released to ukraine before it was too late. I thank you both for your service. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Both gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I want to start if i can with you, mr. Morrison. In discussing the 7 25 phone call and the concerns that the lieutenant had, and he came to you with edits for the transcript and you stated that you accepted all of his edits, is that correct . I i would have accepted
all of the edits they believed were faithful to what was actually discussed. Did high e come to you that word demand was in there . I dont recall that. He didnt either. How soon after the phone call did he meet with you on that particular issue . We got the draft as was normal, fairly quickly after the call. That same day. That same day. So today he said i reported my concerns to mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a Foreign Government investigate a u. S. Citizen and political opponent. He was going to mr. Eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation, yet he did not at any point on the edits say that there should be a demand and you know, he didnt do that, but he did say that he didnt come to you with his concerns because you werent available, but that
same day he came to you with edits. Was that correct . I believe thats generally correct. Yes, sir. He said you werent available and you didnt hear the president make a demand, did you . No, sir. So some time between the call and today Lieutenant Colonel vindman must have been hearing some voices and he heard demand at the time, but he didnt hear it that day, and he didnt make it an issue that day, but today he does. I think thats pretty bizarre. When Lieutenant Colonel vindman went to legal, mr. Eisenberg, do you know if he was advised not to speak to you . I dont have any first hand knowledge of that, no, sir. Do you know if he was advised to contact the igic . No, sir, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. So you dont know what he was advised when he went to legal . No, sir, i do not. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Volker, i want to tell
you that i appreciate your Opening Statement and you talk about letters signed and sharing leadership in your assigned country and agreeing with and sometimes disagreeing with the leadership of your own country when you felt it was appropriate. Youre the boots on the ground for the administration. Lets face it, youre part of that team that is there to serve the country and in that way, and that all to me sound like the works of a very good diplomat and i want to thank you for that. Thank you, sir. Its truly appreciated. Corruption was a concern legitimately in ukraine, and in many ways and mr. Jordan pointed out some of the things that were done by ukrainians In Plain Sight. I might use that term, In Plain Sight by putting op eds in our newspapers and its certainly more than one country could be trying to influence our
elections. Would you agree with that . I would agree with that. We keep hearing that that whole thing about ukrainians. Thats all been debunked and its just the russians and that comes from an ic community that some of the people that have come up with those conclusions are some of the very same people that were going find out if we havent already are deeply involved in this russian collusion hoax. Its what he intended to be as a president . Would you say thats accurate . Yes. That was one of the key facts to take our own judgment and report back to the president. And thats what your job should be and you became comfortable with this president , correct . Yes, i did. And you worked to assure our president that you were comfortable with this president , is that correct . Thats correct. In some ways you have to work sometimes through any mean available and that might include
working with Rudy Giuliani if he could be helpful to you to get that message and advice to the president , would that be correct . I believe the messages being conveyed to mr. Giuliani were a problem because they were they were at variance with our official message to the president was and not conveying that positive assessment that we all had, and so i thought it was important to try to step in and fix the problem. And in that, i think, you term that a useful barometer of where things were . Yes. There are useful barometers in covering a lot of different fashions like Dennis Rodman in north korea and taylor in france saying youve got a friend if they can help a cause. Its not illegal. Good job, ambassador. Thank you very much. I yield back. Ms. Speier . Mr. Chairman and thank you both for your participation here today and for your service. I want to take us out some 30,000 feet for a minute and talk about coverups but for the
fact that the whistleblower came forward we wouldnt know anything about this, but for the fact that the Inspector General of the cia found it to be both urgent and credible, we wouldnt know anything about it. Mr. Morrison, you said that after you heard the call you went directly to the attorneys in the National Security council and recommended that they be limited access and they were subsequently put into a special server. The white house has not released any documents to this committee. You, mr. Volker, thank you. You as a private citizen with your own personal phone and your Text Messages with mr. Giuliani and mr. Sondland and mr. Mayak and whomever else, but for those Text Messages that weve been putting up on the screen all day
we would have nothing. Nothing. And this coverup would be complete. Thats something we should think about. Now on july 19th you had breakfast with Rudy Giuliani at the trump hotel, is that correct . Thats correct. In that conversation at one point he brought up mr. Lutsenko and you said whateverly brought up is not credible, is that correct . Yes. Im going to quote you here. Ive known him for a long time. Hes a person of integrity to giuliani. Simply not credible to me. Joe biden would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money or things for a son or anything like that. Weve had many discussions over the last few days about these
investigations into burisma and biden and the 2016 Crowd Strike Server and you in that conversation with mr. Giuliani basically debunked all of that. Now tattoo on at that breakfast, who else was with you at that breakfast . There was someone that mr. Giuliani brought along. I later learned that this was lev parnas who weve learned a lot about since then. So mr. Lev parnas was at that breakfast that mr. Giuliani had with you, and we now know that mr. Parnas has since been indicted for campaign, Foreign Campaign contributions to President Trumps Political Action committee, is that correct . Ive seen that. All right. On may 23rd you were in that discussion with the president and at one point he referred to
zelensky having terrible people around him. Who do you think he was calling terrible people around him . There were two people that came to mind. One of them was a former investigative journalist and later named Sergei Levchenko and he is bringing forth a black ledger alleging to Paul Manaforts relations with ukraine. That was one person. The other person referred to was the person being named as president zelenskys chief president ial administration andre bognan and he was with one of the members in the ukraine, and there were times about him being appointed to the administration. Do you think of them as terrible people . I dont think of either one as terrible people. All right. Mr. Morrison, earlier in testimony that was solicited
from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you indicated that others had represented to you that Colonel Vindman leaked. Do you remember saying that . Yes, maam. All right. Colonel vindman this morning, under oath said that he did not, does not leak. Now would you, therefore, want to maybe rearrange your comments about the references you made to Colonel Vindman . No, maam. So even though under oath he said that he has never leaked, you believing people who said to you that he may have leaked . Maam, i didnt believe or disbelieve them. Im relaying what they told me. They told you and so you decided to continue to put that forward even though you had no no maam. I yield back. Maam, im sorry. If i can answer. No, maam. Thats incorrect. They, dr. Hill and mr. Araf and others in the nsc raised concerns about alex. Those concerns were noted. I didnt take them for face value. I treated them as representations of others. I was on alert, but i formed my own judgments. I took no action because of the statements of someone else that i couldnt independently validate. Mr. Stewart . Thank you, gentlemen. Welcome to impeachapalooza 2019 trying to impeach donald j. Trump through the sheer force of boredom. It turns out impeachment is very boring if you dont have condemning and compelling evidence. Good news and bad news. Ill be very, very brief. Were going on tenplus hours of this. I will yield back some of my time. The bad news is most of my
colleagues after me wont. So weve still got some time to go. Ambassador volker, very quickly, do you think that someone should be immune from investigation of suspected, ethical or criminal activity just because they were a candidate for office even for the office of the president of the United States . I dont think anyone should be above the law. Of course, not. That would be absurd to assume that, and that would be absurd if you answered that question. What if they occurred another country . Would it be improper to seek the host countrys help such as we do with interpol or other agencies . There are Chapels Fnnels for citizens that commit crimes abroad. You would seek help. That is correct and we have treaties. Thats painfully obvious and thats exactly and the only thing that the president was
doing here. Mr. Morrison, i want to refer briefly to Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony where he described the six people, five or six people that were in the Situation Room listening to the phone call between the two president s, Colonel Vindman described these individual says as exceptional. He stated there was no reason to question their integrity and professionalism. This was in the closeddoor testimony. Do you agree that theyre National Security staff as great people. Yes. People of great integrity and professionalism . Yes, sir. Did any of these exceptional individuals, people of unquestioned integrity and professionalism indicate to you that they had thought that the president of the United States engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior as a result of this phone call . Not that im aware of, congressman. Did any of them suggest to you in any way that they thought
the president was involved with bribery or any such thing associated with that . Not that im aware of, congressman. It only leaves two possible explanations, either these individuals are described as having great integrity. Either thats not true which i dont believe or they just interpreted an ambiguous conversation as did Colonel Vindman and i never understood why President Obama was provided into the ukraine. Ambassador, can you refer why they would do that. I can only pertain to the administration at the time, was there a perception that germany would oppose it and there was a perception that germany would be in the lead and provocative to russia or escalate the conflict as i said extensively at the time. I dont agree with those arguments and i believe that the record has borne out that providing those lethal defensive
arms was actually very important. I agree with you, ambassador. I think you got it right and i think President Trump got it right and with that, i yield back. Mr. Quigley . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, i want to direct your attention to a meeting you had with Ambassador Taylor and mr. Yermak on September 14th in kiev. Do you recall this meeting, sir . Believe we had dinner and it was around the time of the s conference. Do you remember discussing with mr. Yermak ukraines intent to investigate their former president , mr. Poroshenko . I remember raising the issue of the possibility of prosecutions. They brought it up you raised it and they talked about their intention excuse me, congressman. Im sorry, to be clear, was there a lot of talk in kiev at that time about whether the new team would be prosecuting the former president , and i had met
with president poroshenko. Id met with others in the opposition, as well, and i wanted to call mr. Yermaks attention to the potential problems of this. Im very familiar with other examples of countries in the region that have gone for prosecutions of the former government and these have created deep divisions in society, and so i cited president zelenskys inauguration speech. Im sorry, his National Day Speech from august 24th that was all about unifying the country, and i cautioned mr. Yermak to say that pursuing prosecution of president poroshenko risks deepening the divisions in the country and exactly the opposite of what president zelensky has said he wants to do. Its fair that you described that you discouraged it from such action. I raised concerns about what the potential impact would be. What was mr. Yermaks
response . I believe that i am refreshed in this by seeing the testimony of others. Mr. Taylor, Ambassador Taylor and mr. Kent. I believe that based on that testimony that mr. Yermak said, what . Like asking us to investigate clinton and biden . So it was something along the lines of its okay for you to ask us to investigate the manner in which you are, these socalled investigation, but you dont want to investigate our own president. Is that a fair way to describe this . I dont understand what he was referring to because to my knowledge we werent asking to replace clinton or biden and i was puzzled by the remark and thats why i didnt respond. Did you investigate what he might have meant or investigate anybody . I took it as a deflection from the point i was making about unifying ukraine . All this time, i mean, mr. Giuliani and this time in that may to september, he mentioned the biden investigation. He mentioned biden over 50 times and 20something times in relation to ukraine. None of that