Concerning the allegations, i stressed that no one in the new team governing ukraine had anything to do with anything that may have happened in 2016. They were making Television Shows at the time. I also said that it is not credible to me that former Vice President biden would have been influenced in any way by financial or personal motives in carrying out his duties as Vice President. A different issue is whether some individual ukrainians may have attempted to influence the 2016 election or thought they would buy influence. That is at least plausible given ukraines reputation for corruption. But the accusation that Vice President biden acted inappropriately did not seem at all credible to me. After that meeting, i connected mayor giuliani and mr. Yermak by text and later by phone. They met in person on august 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which i
did not attend, mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past and mr. Yermak stressed he told mr. Giuliani it is the Governments Program to root out corruption and implement reforms and they would be conducting investigations as part of the process any way. Mr. Giuliani believes the ukrainian president needed to make a statement about Fighting Corruption and that he had discussed this with mr. Yermak. I said i did not think this would be a problem since that is the governments position anyway. I followed up with mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. He said it would reference burisma and 2016 in a wider context of bilateral relations and rooting out corruption anyway. There was no mention of Vice President biden. Rather in Referencing Burisma in 2016 Election Interference it was clear to me that he, mr. Yermak was talking about whether
any ukrainians had act the inappropriately. At this time, i was focused on our goal of getting president zelensky and President Trump to meet with each other. And i believed that their doing so would overcome the chronically negative view President Trump had toward ukraine. I was seeking to solve the problem i saw when we met with President Trump in the oval office on may 23rd. As a professional diplomat, ip was comfortable exploring whether there was a statement ukraine could make about its own intentions to investigate possible corruption that would be helpful and in convincing mr. Giuliani to convey to President Trump a new Positive Assessment of the leadership in ukraine. On august 16th mr. Yermak shared a draft with me which i thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. Ambassador sondland and i had a further conversation with mr. Giuliani who said that in his view in order to be convincing that this government represented
real change in ukraine the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. Again no mention of Vice President biden in these conversations. Ambassador sondland and i discussed these points and i edited the statement, drafted by mr. Yermak, to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that mr. Lut sunko was still the Prosecutor General they didnt want to mention burisma or 2016 and a greed and putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17 to 18. My last contact with mr. Giuliani according to my records was on august 13th until he tried to reach me on September 20th after the Impeachment Inquiry was launched. At this time, that is to say in the middle of august, i thought the idea of issuing this
statement had been definitively scrapped. In september i was surprised to learn there had been further discussions with The Ukrainians about president zelensy possibly making a statement in an interview with u. S. Media similar to what we had discussed in august. Since these events and since i gave my testimony on october 3rd, a great deal of Additional Information and perspectives have come to light. Ive learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question. First, at the time i was connecting mr. Yermak and mr. Giuliani and discussing with mr. Yermak and ambassador sondland a possible statement to be made by the ukrainian president i did not know of any linkage between the hold on Security Assistance and ukraine pursuing investigations. No one had ever said that to me and i never con sayed such a linkage to The Ukrainians. I opposed the hold as soon as i learned about it on july 18th and thought we could turn it around before The Ukrainians
ever knew or became alarmed about it. I did not know the reason for the hold. But i viewed it as a u. S. Policy problem that we needed to fix internally and i was confident we would do so. I believe The Ukrainians became aware of the hold on august 29th and not before. That date is the first time any of them asked me about the hold by forwarding an article that had been published in politico. When i spoke to The Ukrainians about the hold after august 29th, instead of telling them they needed to do something to get the hold released, i told them the opposite. That they should know be alarmed, it was an internal u. S. Problem and were working to get it fixed. I did not know others were conveying a different message to them around the same time. Second, i did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then National Security adviser john bolton to members of his nsc staff regarding the discovery of investigations. I participated in the July 10th Meeting between National Security adviser bolton and then
ukraine chairman alex den illuck and the meeting was over when sondland made a comment about investigations. I think all of us thought it was inappropriate. The conversation did not continue and the meeting concluded. Later on in the room i may have been engaged in a side conversation or already left the complex because i do not recall further discussion regarding investigations of burisma. Third, i did not understand that others believed that any investigation of the Ukrainian Company burisma which had a history of accusations of corruption was tant amount to investigating biden. It has long been u. S. Policy under multiple administrations to urge ukraine to fight internal corruption. I was quite comfortable with ukraine making its own statement about its own policy of investigating and Fighting Corruption at home. At the one inperson meeting i
had with mayor giuliani on july 19th, mayor giuliani raised and i rejected the Conspiracy Theory that jd biden would have been influenced as Vice President by money paid to his son. As i previously testified, ive known Vice President biden for 24 years and he is an honorable man and i hold him in the highest regard. At no time was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate former Vice President biden and from the extensive documentation Vice President biden was not a topic of discussion. I was not on july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky and not made aware of any arisen until the transcript was released on september 19th, 2019. I understood there was a distinction between burisma and biden and i didnt know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President biden with ukrainians or conflated the
investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President. In retrospect, for The Ukrainians, it would clearly have been confusing. In hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian Company burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden, i saw them as very different. The former being appropriated unremarkable and the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raised my own objections. Fourth, much has been made of the term three amigos in reference to Secretary Perry and ambassador sondland and myself. I have never used that term and cringe when i hear it because that will refer to Senator Mccain and lieberman and fluts wore the surge in iraq. I was never aware of any designation putting the three of
us as a group in charge of ukraine policy but even in our own capacity continued to Work Together after our attendance of president zelenskys inauguration to push for greater u. S. Support for ukraine. Leading the diplomacy around ukraine negotiations had long been my official responsibility but i welcomed the added support and influence of a Cabinet Member and our eu ambassador. Fifth, i was not aware that ambassador sondland spoke with President Trump on july 26th, while ambassador taylor and i were visiting the conflict zone. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, allow me to thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I believe that u. S. Foreign policy and National Security interests in ukraine are of critical importance and i would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen for your Opening Statements. Well proceed to the first round of questions. As detailed in the memo provided Committee Members it will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or majority
counsel followed by 45 minutes for the Ranking Member or minority counsel and unless i specify extended questioning well proceed under the fiveminute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. I recognize myself or counsel for the first round of questions. Ambassador volker, i was just going to yield to the minority counsel but there are a couple of points you made in your Opening Statement that i want to ask about first. First you said that now former attorney general lutsenko was not credible. Mr. Lutsenko is the author of a number of allegations against ambassador yovanovitch, allegations shared with John Of The Hill and brought up by my republican colleagues. Why is it that you found mr. Lutsenko not credible and told mr. Giuliani so . Thank you, mr. Chairman. First off the allegations themselves including those against ambassador yovanovitch did not appear to me to be credible at all. I know her to be an incredibly competent professional. Someone ive worked with for many years. The suggestion that she was acting in some inappropriate manner were not credible to me. Ive known Vice President biden for a long time. Those accusations were not credible. And then separate from that, i also was aware of the political situation in ukraine. We had a situation where president porro senko appeared to not be in a favorable position going into the elections where it was increasingly apparent thencandidate zelensky was going to win. As is often the case in ukraine, a change in power would mean change in prosecutorial powers as well and there have been
efforts in the past at prosecuting the previous government. I think mr. Lutsenko in my estimation and i said this to mayor giuliani when i met with him, was interested in preserving his own position. He wanted to avoid being fired by a new government in order to prevent prosecution of himself, possible prosecution of himself, possibly also this is something that president poroshenko would have welcomed because he probably would have avoided any efforts to prosecute president poroshenko as well so making allegations like this and Making Sureer that reaching u. S. Media, think mr. Lutsenko was trying to make himself be an important and influential player in the United States. Ambassador, let me ask you about the allegations against joe biden because that has been a continuing refrain from some of my colleagues as well. Why was it you found the allegations against joe biden related to his son or burisma not to be believed . Simply because ive known
former Vice President biden for a long time. I know how he respects his duties of Higher Office and it is just not credible to me that a Vice President of the United States is going to do anything other than act as how he sees best for the national interest. And finally, ambassador, before i turn it over, i was struck by something you said on page eight of your statement which reads in hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian Company burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them as different. The former being appropriate and un unremarkable and the lateral being unacceptable and should have raised my own objections. What is it now, ambassador, in retrospect that you recognize that you didnt at the time that leads you to conclude that you
would or should have raised these objections . Yeah. That others did not see the distinction between these things as i saw it. As i said, there is a history of Corruption In Ukraine. There is a history with the company of burisma in a has been investigated. That is wellknown. There is a separate allegation about the Vice President acting inappropriately. His son was a board member of this company. But those things, i saw, as completely distinct. And what i was trying to do in working with The Ukrainians was to thread a needle so see whether things they could do that are appropriate and reasonable as part of ukraines own policy of Fighting Corruption that help clarify for our president that they are committed to that very that very effort. If there is a way to thread that needle, i thought it was worth the effort to try to solve that problem. As it turns out, i now
understand that most of the other people didnt see or didnt consider this distinction that for them it was synonymous. Well one of the people who saw synonymous turns out to be the president of the United States. I take it you didnt know until the call record was released that the president in that call doesnt raise burisma, he asked for an investigation of the bidens, is that right. That is correct. I take it since you say that you acknowledge that asking for an investigation of the bidens would have been unacceptable and objectionable, that had the president asked you to get ukraine to investigate the bidens you would have told them so. I would have on theed to that, yes, sir. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just one followup on that, ambassador volker. When you say thread the needle, you mean that you understood the relationship between Vice President bidens son and
burisma but you were trying to separate the two of them in your mind, is that right . Well i believe they were separate. That and this references the conversation i had with mr. Giuliani as well where i think the allegations against Vice President biden are selfserving and not credible. Separate question is whether it is appropriate for ukraine to investigate possible corruption of ukrainians that may have tried to corrupt things or or buy influence and to me they are very Different Things and as i said i think the former is unacceptable and the latter is understood. But you understood the relationship between hunter biden and burisma. I knew he was a board member of the company. That is why it was so important to maintain a distinction. Lets focus on the July 25th Call for a moment. And mr. Morrison, july 25th was day number what for you as the senior director overseeing
ukraine . I officially took over on the 15th approximately ten days, very few days actually in the office. You testified in your deposition that you received an email on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sondland shortly before the call, is that right . Yes. And i believe in that email ambassador sondland told you that he had briefed President Trump about an advance of the call, is that right . Yes. And you also testified that ambassador sondland had told you on another occasion that he could call the president whenever he wanted, is that right . Yes. And on july 25th did you, in fact, Plaqmake An Effort To Con Whether or not the phone call between ambassador sondland and President Trump actually occurred . I did. And did it happen . Yes. On other occasions when
ambassador sondland told you he speak with President Trump, did you on some other occasions did you also seek confirmation of that fact . On some, yes. And on those occasions when you did seek to confirm that they had spoken, what did you find . They had. Now i want to pull up a text message on the morning of july 25th. Between well its it should be another one. Oh, yeah, sorry. Ambassador sondland, with you, ambassador volker, and at 7 54 the ambassador in the morning ambassador sondland said call asap. Then at 9 35 ambassador volker, you respond. Is the screen working in front of you or just to the side . So if you could go ahead and read what you said at 9 35. Yes. So i said hi gordon. Got your message. Have a great lunch with yermak
and passed your message to him. He will see you tomorrow. Think everything is in place. And who is yermak . Andrey yermak is the Senior Adviser to president zelensky of ukraine. Nows what what was the message that you had received . That president zelensky should be clear, convincing, forthright with President Trump about his commitment to Fighting Corruption, investigating what happened in the past, get to the bottom of things, whatever there is and if he does that, President Trump was prepared to be reassured that he would say yes, come on, lets get this date for this visit scheduled. And did you understand from the message that ambassador sondland had spoke tone President Trump . I wasnt sure whether he had or not. He has mr. Morrison just said that he does speak with
President Trump. I knew that he had conversations in general. I didnt know specifically about one leading up to this. Now on the screen in front of you is another text message from you that same morning. At 8 36 in the morning to and youy yermak. Yes. I believe because of the time difference this is actually in the afternoon in ukraine. In ukraine. So this is east coast time. That is right. So this is slightly less than half an hour before the call between President Trump and president zelensky. Right. And you could read what you wrote there. And just after the lunch that i had, good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house. Assuming president z convinced trump he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 well nail down date for visit to washington. Good luck. See you tomorrow. Kurt. And does this accurately relay the message that had you received from ambassador sondland . Yes. Now, mr. Morrison, did the National Security council also prepare Talking Points for President Trump for this call . The nsc staff did, yes. And per usual custom are these were these Talking Points based on the official United States Policy Objectives . They were. And since there has been a little bit of dispute about what that means, could you explain how official u. S. Policy is determined with through the Interagency Process . We operate under what is known as nspm 4. National security memorandum four on the internet how the president wanted to be provided options for his decision. And there is an extensive process to finalize any policy, is that right . Sometimes. Did you mr. Morrison, you listened to this call on the 25th, is that right . I did. Where did you listen from . The white house situation room. In your deposition, you testified that the call was not
what you were hoping to hear. What did you mean by that . I was hoping for a more fullthroated statement of support from the president concerning president Zelenskys Reform Agenda Given where we were at the time with respect to the overwhelming mandate president zelensky servant of the party people had received in the rada election. And that rada election had occurred four daves earlier. Sounds right. And president zelenskys party won in a landslide, is that right. They received more than a majority in their own right. So at least in ukraine there was tremendous support for zelenskys anticorruption agenda, is that right . At the time. And within the interagency, within the National Security agency here in the United States, was there broad support for president zelensky . There was broad support for
giving president zelensky a chance. And to that point he had shown that he was he had at least put his money where his mouth was for the three months that he had been in office, is that right . Approximately three months, yes. Now i want to show a couple of excerpts from this call record to each of you. The first is President Trump responding to a comment by president zelensky related to Defense Support from the United States and the purchase of javelins and President Trump then says, i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with crane. They say crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it. And if we could go to the next excerpt where President Trump said the other thing, there is a lot of talk about bidens son,
that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you could do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Now mr. Morrison, were these references to crowdstrike, the server, and 2016 election, and to Vice President biden and his son, were they included in the president s Talking Points . They were not. And were they consistent with what you understood at that time to be official u. S. Policy . I was not aware of any of much of this at the time. And, in fact, subsequent to this call, you did nothing to implement the investigations that President Trump implement the request for the investigations that President Trump asked for, is that right . I did not understand any instruction to do so. And you were not aware of anyone else within your you coordinate the Interagency Process and not aware of anyone
else doing that either, is that right . Correct. Now, you testified in your deposition that hearing this call confirmed what you called the parallel process that your predecessor fiona hill had warned you about. What did you mean by that . During the period in which dr. Hill and i were conducting Handoff Meetings so that i could be up to speed on the various things that were occurring in the portfolio at the time, she mentioned the traditional nspm 4 process and the parallel process and in the context of discussing the parallel process she mentioned issues like burisma which were noteworthy to me at time because i had never heard of them before. And upon hearing them in the call, it wound up confirming, okay, there is something here. And who did she inform was
involved in this parallel process . As i recall, it was definitely ambassador sondland and i believe mr. Giuliani. And after she informed you of this company burisma, what, if anything, did you do to determine what that was . After that particular handoff meeting, i proceeded to look it up on the internet. I googled it. Did you find it had some association with hunter biden . Yes. Now ambassador volker you did not listen to this call but you testified you were surprised and troubled when you read the call record after it was released on September 25th and also said that after reading the call record it was clear to you that the biden, burisma and 2016 Election Investigations that President Trump discussed on the call were designed to serve the president s political interests, not the national interest. What did you mean when you said
that . Sir, i dont recall that language from my testimony. That is from my october 3rd testimony. Yes, it was. Thank you. Well what i do mean by that and i would like to phrase it in my own words now, is that i dont think that raising 2016 elections or Vice President biden or these things i consider to be Conspiracy Theories that have been circulated by The Ukrainians, particularly the former Prosecutor General, are sort of theyre not things that we should be pursuing as part of our National Security strategy with ukraine. We should be supporting ukraines democracy, reforms, its own fight against corruption domestically and the struggle against russia and defense capabilities and these are at the heart of what we should be doing and i dont think pursuing these things serves a national interest. Now mr. Morrison, shortly after you heard the July 25th Call, you testified that you alerted the nsc Legal Adviser John Eisenberg pretty much right away, is that right . Correct. And you indicated in your Opening Statement or at least from your deposition that you went to mr. Eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout if the call record became public and not because you thought it was illegal, is that right . Correct. But you would agree, right, that asking a Foreign Government to investigate a domestic political rival is inappropriate, would you not . It is not what it is not what we recommend the president discuss. Now in a second meeting with mr. Eisenberg, what did you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking . I recommended we restrict access to the package. Had you ever asked the nsc Legal Adviser to restrict access before . No. Did you speak to your supervisor dr. Kupperman before you went to speak to John Eisenberg . No. Did you subsequently learn the call record will been put in a highly classified system . I did. And what reason did mr. Eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system . It was a mistake. He said it was just a mistake . It was an administrative error. Now, isnt it also true, though, that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to . I believe i could have instructed the appropriate staff to do so, yes. So why did you go to the nsc Legal Adviser to recommend that . Well i was also concerned that based on the participants in the Listening Room that day, i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the nsc Legal Advisers office as they were often on Head Of State calls but not always and i
wanted to make sure that John Eisenberg as the Legal Adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. And you wanted them to review it because he were concerned about the potential political consequences not because anything is wrong. And political consequences is an umbrella term to describe a series of effects i feared about what would happen if and when the content of the transcript or the mem com leaked. So to make sure i understand this correctly, mr. Morrison, you heard the call, you recognized that President Trump was not discussing the Talking Points that the nsc had prepared based on official u. S. Policy, and was instead talking about the investigations that fiona hill had warned you about and then you reported it immediately to the nsc Legal Adviser, is that the correct chain of events here . That is correct. Now, ambassador volker, in the July 25th Call, president Zelensky Volunteers To president President Trump that Rudy Giuliani had already spoken with one of his associates and that president zelensky hopes giuliani will come to ukraine. And in response President Trump proceeds to mention mr. Giuliani on three separate occasions during this call. You testified about a may 23rd meeting in the oval office where the president spoke quite negatively about ukraine and how it tried to take him down. And that he also repeated some of the allegations that mr. Giuliani was making, is that correct . Yes. And those allegations were in the media, were they not . Yes. And during that meeting, President Trump told you and ambassador sondland and Secretary Perry to talk to giuliani, isnt that correct . He i didnt take it as an
instruction. I want to be clear about that. He said thats not what i hear. When we were giving him our assessment about president zelensky and where ukraine is headed, that is not what i hear. I hear terrible things. Hes got terrible people around him. Talk to rudy. And i understood in that context just saying that is where he heres it from. I didnt take it as an instruction. So when you said talk to rudy, you didnt take for him to mean you talk to rudy. No, i didnt take it that way. I took it as that just part of the dialogue that i hear i hear other things and i hear them from Rudy Giuliani and from other people, that is not what is going on. Hes surrounded by terrible people and talk to rudy, it just seemed like part of the dialogue. After that meeting did you, in fact, talk to rudy. After that meeting, not immediately, no. This was may 23rd and we continued to proceed with our effort to get the white house
visit for president Zelensky Scheduled and to keep ramping up support for the new ukrainian president and ultimately the ukrainian government. I did, however, on july 2nd, as i was becoming concerned that we were not succeeding at this, to tell president zelensky i think we have a problem. And that problem being this negative feed of information from mr. Giuliani. And ultimately i think as you testified in your Opening Statement you introduced mr. Yermak to mr. Giuliani and they eventually met, is that right . That is correct. Now during this whole time in july and after the call into early august when they met, crane still desperately wanted that Oval Office Meeting for president zelensky, correct . That is correct. And you also wanted that for president zelensky, is that right . That is correct. Why was that Oval Office Meeting so important to president zelensky . I think that he felt that he was not well understood by President Trump. He is a charismatic leader who
ran a Remarkable Campaign in ukraine and against the legacy of corruption and he had a massive showing in the president ial election, 73 support. He believed he was leading a movement of major change in ukraine and that President Trump didnt see that or appreciate that. But if he had a chance to sit down and speak with President Trump facetoface, he believed that he could be very convincing about that and i agreed with him. That is certainly your assessment, right. It was my assessment and also what president zelensky believed. And certainly you understood from your experience in ukraine that there would be a significant boost in legitimacy at home for president zelensky if there were photos of him in the oval office, et cetera, is that right. Yes, that is correct. Now you testified in your Opening Statement that mr. Giuliani and mr. Yermak, zelenskys aide, met on august 2nd. Where did they meet . They met in madrid. And did you learn that mr. Giuliani requested anything of The Ukrainians at that meeting . Only when i spoke with mr. Giuliani afterwards. He said that he thought ukraine should issue a statement. And then i spoke with mr. Yermak after that and he said yes and were prepared to make a statement. And that then kicked off the series of discussions that i said in my testimony. Well get into that in a second. But mr. Giuliani did not explain to you what needed to be included in that statement, in that call you had . He said something more general, as i recall. I recall him saying fight corruption, that their commitment to being different. Mr. Yermak told me when i spoke with him as i recall that the statement would include specific mention of burisma and 2016. Lets go through some of the Text Messages so we know exactly who said what. And first lets start on august 9th. This is a Text Exchange between
you and ambassador sondland where ambassador sondland writes at the top, morrison ready to get dates as soon as yermak confirms and you said and i said yes and how do you sway him with a smile afterwards. He responded im not sure i did. I think potus really wanted the deliverable. And what did you say to that . But how does he know that. And ambassador sondland said clearly lots of convos going on. Now mr. Morrison, youre referenced in this text message. Had you discussed confirming a date for a white house visit for president zelensky with ambassador sondland around this time . I likely would have. Did you have any discussions with him about a statement that ukraine was that they were trying to get ukraine to make . I did not. Were you aware that do you
yourself know what ambassador sondland meant by the deliverable . I did not at the time. I think i have an understanding now. And what is your understanding now . There seems to have been discussions about a statement and various drafts of which had been discussed in various proceedings. But this, to your knowledge, was part of the parallel process you were talking about . Yes. If we could go to the next exhibit which is another Text Exchange a few minutes later between ambassador sondland and you, ambassador volker where ambassador sond said to avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask andrey for a Draft Statement embargoed so we could see exactly what they propose to cover. Even though z, zelensky, does a live presser they could still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts . And how did you respond. Agreed. And this related to the
statement that mr. Giuliani wanted, is that right, mr. Volker. It relates to the statement that he and mr. Yermak had discussed. Now to the next day on august 10th, there is another Text Exchange between you and mr. Yermak who is the same aide that mr. Giuliani had met in madrid. And if you could read what you wrote at the top at 5 02 p. M. I wrote i agree with your approach. Lets iron out statement and use that to get date and then president zelensky can go forward with it. And mr. Yermak responds, once we have a date, we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of u. S. ukraine relationship including among other things burisma and election meddling in investigations. And what did you respond . Sounds great. Now the date that hes herring to, that is the date for the white house visit . Thats correct. Now two days later on august 12th you receive another text message from mr. Yermak which reads, special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some ukrainian politicians. I wanted to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future. Now, ambassador volker, this was a draft, was it not, of the statement that you and mr. Giuliani and mr. Yermak and ambassador sondland had been discussing . This is the first draft of that from mr. Yermak after the conversations that we had. And it does not mention burisma or the 2016 Election Interference. It does not. You testified in your deposition that you and ambassador sondland and mayor giuliani had a conversation about this draft after you received it, is that right . That is correct. And mr. Giuliani said that if the statement did not include burisma and 2016 election, it would not have any credibility. Is that right . Thats correct. Now, this was the same Rudy Giuliani that President Trump was discussing in that may 23rd meeting and asked you to you and the others to talk to, correct . That is the same mr. Giuliani. And even at that point in may 23rd you were aware of these investigations that he was publicly promoting, correct . I knew that he had adopted or was interested in all of those Conspiracy Theories that had come from lutsenko. Back in may you knew that . Back in may. Now he was insisting on a public commitment from president zelensky to do the
investigations, correct . Well, now, what do we mean by these investigations . Bhoouurisma and 2016 electio burisma and 2016, yes. And at the time that you were engaged in coordinating for this statement, did you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a Public Statement from president zelensky to carry out the investigations that the president was seeking . I didnt find it that unusual. I think when youre dealing with a situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about president Zelensky Being committed to really changing ukraine after his entirely negative view of the country, that he would want to hear something more from president zelensky to be convinced that, okay, ill give this a guy a chance. And perhaps he also wanted a Public Statement because it would lock president zelensky in to do these investigations that he thought might benefit him . Well, again, when we say these investigations, what i
understood us to be talking about was ukrainian corruption. Well, what were talking about is burisma and the 2016 election. Lets just correct. And we can agree on that and so when we talk about these investigations, isnt it clear that a Public Statement would be important to mr. Giuliani because it was politically useful to the president . The way i saw it is that it would be helpful. It would be a way of being convincing to mayor giuliani and also the president that this team in ukraine is serious about Fighting Corruption reform, that they are different and if that would be helpful in getting a more positive attitude and the white house meeting scheduled, then that would be useful. And that would be help toffle get that white house meeting. Correct. In fact it was a necessary condition as you understood at that point. I wont have called it a necessary condition. And when it became clear later that we were not able to agree on a agreement that The Ukrainians were comfortable with, i agreed with ukraine just
to drop it. It is not worth it. I understand that. But is it your testimony that based on the text that you wrote linking the investigations and the 2016 election on july 25th to the white house meeting, youre saying that by this point in august with this back and forth that you were unaware this Public Statement was a condition for the white house meeting . I wouldnt have called it a condition. Its a nuance i guess. But i viewed it as very helpful if we could get this done and it would help improve the perception that President Trump and others had and then we would get the date for a meeting. If we didnt have a statement, i Wasnt Giving Up and thinking that oh, well then well never get a meeting. Lets go to the next day where there is another Text Exchange. And at the top you could read the first text there. Yes. It says hi, andre. Good talking. Following the text with insert at the end for the two key items well work on official request. And then youll see the highlighted portion of the next
text. The other is identical to your previous one and then it just adds including these involving burisma and the 2016 elections, is that right. That is correct. And that is what mr. Giuliani insisted on adding to the statement . That is what he said would be necessary for that to be credible. And The Ukrainians ultimately did not issue this statement, is that right. That is correct. And president zelensky did not get the Oval Office Meeting either, did he . Not yet. Now, i want to move forward to september. And Early September when the Security Assistance begins to more overtly be used as leverage to pressure The Ukrainians to conduct these investigations that President Trump wanted. Mr. Morrison, you accompanied Vice President pence to warsaw when he met with president zelensky, is that right . I was in warsaw when the Vice President was designated as the
president s representative. I was accompanying ambassador bolton. Understood. You were at the bilateral meeting with the Vice President and president zelensky, correct . I was. And in that meeting sh were The Ukrainians concerned about the hold on Security Clearance Security Clearance, Military Assistance rather . Yes. What did they say . It was the first issue that president zelensky raised with Vice President pence. They were very interested. They talked about it its importance to ukraine. Its importance to their relationship. And what was Vice President pences response . The Vice President represented that it was a priority for him and that we were working to address that he characterized President Trumps
concerns about the state of Corruption In Ukraine and the president s prioritization of getting the europeans to contribute more to Security Sector assistance. And did he directly explain to The Ukrainians that those that those were the actual reasons for the hold or was he just commenting on general concerns of the president . I dont know that he necessarily acknowledged a hold. We he mentioned we were reviewing the assistance and that is the way i heard it. That is the way i would characterize it. And those were the points he raised to help president zelensky understand where we were in our process. And to your knowledge, though, on sort of the staff level, as the coordinator of the Interagency Process, you were not aware of any review of the ukrainian Security Assistance money, were you . Well, we were we had been running a review. We had been running an Interagency Process to provide the president the information that i had been directed to generate for the president s consideration as to the state of interagency support for continuing ukraine Security Sector assistance. And the entire interagency supported the continuation of the Security Assistance, isnt that right. That is correct. Now after that larger meeting with Vice President pence and president zelensky, you testified at your deposition that you saw ambassador sondland immediately go over and pull andre yermak aside and have a conversation, is that right. I mean it was president zelensky and Vice President pence left the room and in an ante room ambassador sondland and adviser yermak had this discussion, yes. And what did ambassador sondland tell you that he told mr. Yer mack . That The Ukrainians would
have to have the Prosecutor General make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. And you testified that you were not comfortable with what ambassador sondland had told you. Why not . Well, i was concerned about what i saw as essentially an additional hurdle to accomplishing what i had been directed to help accomplish which was giving the president the information he needed to determine that the Security Sector assistance could go forward. So now there is a whole other wrinkle to it, right . There was the appearance of one based on what ambassador sondland represented. And you told ambassador taylor about this conversation as well, is that right . I promptly reached out to ambassador taylor to schedule a secure phone call. And in your deposition you testified that his testimony other than one small distinction between president zelensky and the Prosecutor General was accurate as to what you told him, is that correct. About that conversation, yes. And generally speaking you confirmed everything that ambassador taylor told you except for that one thing and a small other Minister Matter in relate to a meeting. Correct. Did you tell ambassador bolton about this conversation as well. I reached out to him as well and requested his availability for a secure phone call. And what was his response when you explained what ambassador sondland had said. Tell the lawyers. Did you go tell the lawyers. When i returned to the states, yes. And did he explain why he wanted you to tell the lawyers . He did not. A few days later on September 7th you spoke again to ambassador sondland who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with President Trump, isnt that right . That sounds correct, yes. What did ambassador sondland tell you that President Trump said to him. If i recall this conversation correctly, this was where ambassador sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but
president zelensky had to make the statement and that he to want to do it. And by that point did you understand that the statement related to the biden and 2016 investigations . I think i did, yes. And that that was a essentially a condition for the Security Assistance to be released . I understood that is what ambassador sondland believed. After speaking with President Trump . That is what he represented. Now you testified that hearing this information gave you a sinking feeling. Why was that . Well, i believe if were on september 7, the end of the fiscal year is September 30th and these are oneyear dollars and the d. O. D. And Department Of State funds so we only had so much time and, in fact, because Congress Imposed a 15 day notification requirement on the state department funds, September 7th and September 30th that really means september 15th
in order to secure a decision from the president to allow the funds to go forward. Did you tell ambassador bolton about this conversation as well . I did. Yes. And what did he say to you. He said to tell the lawyers. And why did he say to tell the lawyers. He did not explain his direction. But he doesnt tell you to go tell the lawyers because youre running up on the eightday deadline there, right . Again, i dont know why he directed that. But it seemed reasonable and consistent with what i was going to do anyway. And you werent going to go tell them because of the concern, right . You were concerned about what you were hearing ba hearing ambassador Sondland Relay to you. Correct. So just so were clear, you reported two concerning conversations with ambassador sondland to the lawyers in Early September in which you understood from him that the president was with holding Security Assistance as additional leverage to get ukraine to publicly announce the specific political investigations that President Trump had discussed on the july
25th call, is that accurate . I was concerned about what ambassador sondland was saying were requirements, yes. And you understood that the investigations that ambassador sondland was referring to were the two that President Trump referenced on the July 25th Call, correct . By this point, yes. And during this Early September time period, mr. Morrison, did you have any conversations with ambassador volker about any of this . I believe we had one conversation. And what do you recall about that conversation . I believe on or about September 6th ambassador volker was in town to provide an update on some of his activities and he provided that update and then we had a oneonone conversation about this track, this separate process. And who do you recall saying to him about the separate process. I think i was interested in understanding his understanding of events. Did you explain to him what
your understanding of events was . I think i was primarily on receive mode. And ambassador volker, do you recall this conversation . Thank you. I do remember a conversation with tim. Im not sure about the timing. I left around that time to go on a trip and so it may have been a little bit earlier. Im not sure about the timing. And what i do remember the Discussion Being is tim asking me what is my impression of the role that ambassador sondland plays. And my response to that was, well, i find it helpful that he has political contacts in the white house. I dont have those contacts of working the National Security, the diplomatic front but i dont have the political contacts and so if hes able to use those to support the same goals that we are working toward, then i viewed that as helpful. Well, that is a good segue to our next exhibit which is a September 8th Text Exchange with
you and ambassador taylor and sondland and at the top sondland said guys, Mult Very Con Voes With Z and period potus, period, lets talk. And then ambassador taylor 15, 16 minutes later says, gordon and i just spoke, i can brief you, meaning you, ambassador volker, if you and gordon dont connect. Approximately one hour later, ambassador taylor said the nightmare is they gave the interview and dont get the Security Assistance. The russians love it and i quit. And then at the bottom, about five hours later, how do you respond . Im not in the loop. Talk monday. So you were not in the loop in terms of all of the conversations that ambassador taylor, mr. Morrison, ambassador sondland were having . Yes, thats correct. And now ultimately the hold was lifted on september 11th, is that right ambassador volker. That is my understanding. And mr. Morrison, were you aware that prior to september
11th that the white house that there was a whistleblower complaint circulating around the white house . I dont believe so, no. But you were aware of a request to preserve records, were you not . I we, we received a number of those requests. I have a general recollection as one related to ukraine. And one final question, when was the hold lifted . As i understand it, the president gave that direction the evening of september 11th. Which is two days after congress announced an investigation. Were you familiar with that. I believe i was aware of the letter from the three committee chairman. That concludes the majority of the 45 minutes. Before i turn to its minority, are you both and your counsel okay or do you need a break . Okay. Ranking member nunes, you are recognized for 45 minutes. Well, ambassador and mr. Morrison, i have some bad news for you. Tv ratings are way down. Way down. I dont hold it personally. I dont think its you guys. But whatever drug deal the democrats are cooking up, here on the dais, American People arent buying it. I know you both answered this in your Opening Statements but i just want to bring a little more clarity to it. Mr. Morrison, ill start with you. Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the white house . No, sir. And you were the top person for crane in the white house, at the nsc level . I would argue ambassador bolton would be. Reporting to ambassador bolton. I was the senior official, yes. And ambassador volker, you have a storied career and thankful for your service and you were the Special Envoy to ukraine. That is correct. Did anyone at the white house ever ask you to bribe or extort anything out of anyone at any
time . No, sir. Thank you. I want to thank you both for being here and ill yield to mr. Caster. Thank you, mr. Nunes, thank you both for being here today and participating in the lengthy depositions. Ambassador volker you were the first one on october 3rd and mr. Morrison you were with us on halloween so thank you for your participation. Mr. Morrison, i also want to thank you. A long time hill staffer. I certainly have appreciation for that. Nearly 20 years, so thank you. And ambassador volker, pennsylvania resident. Absolutely. That is a critical part of the country. Very proud of it. Im from nearby. Just want to walk through some of your positions. You were Senate Confirmed ambassador to nato for a stint . That is correct. And then you were at the state department and your portfolio spanned much of what i believe george kent has currently. Was the Principal Deputy assistant secretary so i had all
of the eurasian and responsible for nateu and the european union. And then youre involved in the National Security council, the director for nato in the western europe. That is correct. And then senior director for eurasian affairs. I was act for several months. Same job as mr. Morrison had and well note that all of the witnesses that we have interacted with have just heaped praise on you. Ambassador yovanovitch said you were a brilliant diplomat so that is very high praise. And for over two years you served as the special representative for ukraine negotiations. That is correct. And you served for free. That is correct. You served on a voluntary basis. I did. And you put a lot of time and effort into that job, didnt you . Yes, i did. And taxpayers certainly got
their moneys worth. Not for me to say. And you believe americas policy towards ukraine has been strengthened during your tenure as the special representative . Absolutely. When i look back at the record i think we did an awful lot to support ukraine. Is it fair to say that is in part due to President Trump. President trump approved each of the decisions made along the way. Providing lethal defensive equipment and the Nonrecognition Statement on crimea i think being two of the most important ones. And for many years there had been initiative in the interagency for lethal support for ukraine. That is correct. And it wasnt until President Trump and his administration came in that that went through . That is correct. The delegation to President Trump zelenskys inauguration in may, i believe you testified it was one of the largest
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.