An investigation on a political rival . Mr. Morrison . In that hypothetical, no, i dont think he should do that. Yeah. And ambassador volker, im sure you agree. Yes. And the same would be true if it were a governor withholding the budget requests of the state police unless the state police agreed to conduct an investigation on a political rival. You would agree . Correct. Yes, sir. In your view is it any different for a member of congress . Of course not, right . Would you agree that the president has the same obligation as the mayor, as the governor, as the member of congress to not withhold aid unless he gets an investigation into a political rival, mr. Morrison . Yes, sir, i would agree with that hypothetical. I would agree. And were having a debate here both sides as to how to
read whats plainly before us. The president ial phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisers and the National Security council of Talking Points and instead chose to talk about the bidens and talk about hunter biden and ask for an investigation. So we are just going to have to debate that. But isnt the principle that no person including the president is Above The Law absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain we continue to guarantee ambassador morrison . Im sorry, ambassador volker. Pardon me. Yes. And mr. Morrison. The rule of law of is essential to our democracy. Its so true. You know, weve had some discussions and challenge from the other side that the
president has authority in Foreign Policy to do what he likes. And in fact he does. You know, a recent precedent by President Trump to take our troops out of syria and allow the Turkish Norsforces to go in literally meant that some kurdish families went to bed Saturday Night and woke up sunday morning, packed their kids and fled for their lives. A lot of people including both sides of the aisle totally disagreed with that. But the president has the authority to do it impulsive as that decision may have been, as unwise as it may have been and threatening to our National Security. Were not talking about that here. And ambassador volker, ive listened to your testimony and i take it and thank you for Making Efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan ukraine policy, help ukraine get rid of
corruption, help resist russian aggression. But what you came to learn painfully is that there was a Sidebar Ukraine Policy with giuliani as the advocate and it appears ambassador sondland is very much involved, is that correct . I dont know everything about that, sir. You dont. But as you have been involved and with the benefit of hindsight, while you were working on what you thought was stopping aggression and eliminating corruption, there was a side deal here to get investigations going, correct . So yes. So my Oive Wbjective was Purelys On Support for ukraine. And ive learned through other time about the president s statement about investigating biden and other conversations i did not know about. Thank you for that and thank you for your candor about Vice President bidens integrity and
service. But the bottom line here is at the end of the day were going to have to make a judgment what the president was up to with respect to a request for a favor and how it repudiated the policy that was the bipartisan effort in ukraine and raises questions about he in the hypothetical example i gave of the mayor, held himself to be Above The Law. I yield back. Mr. Maloney. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Ambassador volker, i was struck by your Opening Statement, moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in october. And i know you gave a reason for that, which is that you were in the dark about a lot of these things. Is that fair to say . That is one thing is that i learned a lot out of the testimony you learned a lot. And what you said on page 8 im
referring to your statement that you gave this morning excuse me, this afternoon. That i did not know this is quoting. I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President biden with the ukrainians or had conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President biden, right . Correct. You Didnt Know Burisma meant biden . I had separated the two. Yagi got it. You didnt know. You were on may 23rd with the meeting with the president when the president said talked to rudy and you now know meant biden but you missed it on may 23rd . No, sir. I understood at the time hunter biden and Vice President bidens son had been a board member i understand. But you didnt read tathat as a request to investigate the bidens at that time . I you were at two meetings at
the white house where ambassador sondland raised the investigations but you didnt know it was about the bidens, and thats your testimony at the time . I didnt think he was talk about anything specific. You heard him talk about investigations, and you thought it was inappropriate, but i didnt know it was the bidens, i just thought it was inappropriate. And i guess when they were in the ward room and ambassador sondland and burisma raised biden in 2016 you misunderstood that. That is correct. And in august you spent a good part of this time with this statement with rudy giuliani. You were the Guy Making The Change and interacting with the ukrainians. You were putting in rudys changes which called for Investigating Burisma and the 2016 elections. Which you now know meant bidens, right . You didnt know it at the time but now we know it. And September 1st you were in w
warsaw, and you were there when ambassador sondland told Andrey Yermac he wasnt going to the get the aid unless he investigated the bidens it was some time later. I got it. But now we know, right . Now you know what it meant. And you said in retrospect i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raised my own objections. That is correct. What are the objections you would have raised, sir . What i would have raised is that people are conflating investigating the bidens with investigating this Ukrainian Company but if you had checked with the president asking for investigations of the bidens as you sit here now you said i would have raised my own objections if you knew it was the bidens. If i knew we were talking about investigating the vice
president and the bidens and i would have objected to that. You heard it on the call and you said in Ret Row Spect it would have been confusing, correct . Correct. I think confusing is the right word because they were clearly hearing Something Different from the president in one conversation and different from me as a u. S. Special representative maybe they understood that Investigating Burisma and investigating 2016 in fact plent the bidens even though you didnt. At the time you were talking to yermac, hed talked to sondland at the same time and so the point being they were put in an impossible position. They were being asked to do something inappropriate, and you now know that, right . And you would have raised your own objections. I know they would have asked in the phone call to do that. In the Phone Conversations i had with ukrainians we were not asking to do that. And even at that point the ukrainians perhaps with knowledge of this phone call said we just dont want to go there. Right. So in Ret Row Spect, though, you would have raised objection. You would have said it was inappropriate for the president to do this. Right. And mr. Morrison, can i just ask you, sir, so im stuck on this issue of you didnt see anything wrong with the call but you went straight to nsc legal to report it. Is that your testimony to us today . Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrison, and to both of you thank you so much for your service. Thanks for being here. Its been a long day. Mr. Morrison, just to follow up with the question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call and basically saw nothing wrong with it. Yet you skipped your chain of
command to go to Legal Counsel i guess to find out what to do because you were concerned about the political fall out, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct . Maam, i dont agree with the premise, no. Could you tell me why you felt the need you saw nothing basically wrong with the call yet you skipped your Chain Of Command to go to counsel because of what . What was the reason for that . I dont know that i again, i dont agree with the premise, maam. I dont think i did skip my Chain Of Command. If i did see Something Wrong i would have and who is your direct report . The deputy National Security advisor. And the name of the person . Dr. Charles cupperman. Did you speak with him before you spoke with Legal Counsel . No, i did not. But you dont think you skipped your chain of kmancomman
going directly to counsel . I viewed my focus as one of administrative matters. I was involved in locking down the transcript. Thats an administrative matter. I was interested in making sure that the Legal Advisor was aware of the call because i didnt see anybody from the Legal Advisors office and why were you so concerned about the Legal Advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or content of the call . Because i did not see anybody in the 4r50e8 Advisors Office in the Listening Room and i wanted to make sure it was a senior person. And what is it you wanted the emto be aware of specifically . I wanted them to be aware of the call because i wanted them to know what had transpired. What concerned you to the point where you wanted them to know what had transpired that you went directly to Legal Counsel to inform them of . My equivalent of the head of
nsc legal was and is john eisenberg. He was my equivalent in that position. I wouldnt go to Somebody Subsordinate to him didnt you testify ural you were concerned about the political fall out based on the Political Climate in d. C. . Yes, maam. Okay, all right. And how long have you supervised Lieutenant Colonel vindman . Maam, approximately i guess not approximately. July 15th to october 31 or so. Okay. Ambassador volker, you testified you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the Security Assistance being released. Do you still standby that Testimony Today . I believe it was important. I met with Staff Members of the Senate Armed Services committee. I had then solved a letter the
senator signed and sent to Chief Of Staff mulvaney and i was briefed on a couple of phone calls from some Senate Members as well. Mr. Chairman, i yield the reminder of my time. Ambassador volker, i want to followup up on a couple of questions of ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. Youre aware im sure of the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel vindman that he was contacted by someone within the Ukrainian Embassy concerned about it prior to its becoming public . I was not aware of that but i take that. Are you aware of ms. Crofts testimony and transcripts being ereleased that in fact ukrainians found out quite quickly after the hold being placed in july and the ukrainians kept it a reason to keep it secret. So the ukrainians did find out
before it was public at least according to these two witnesses. But nevertheless the ukrainians certainly found out it was public when it was published in the newspaper, right . That is correct. On august 29th. And at the time they found out from the newspaper, they still hadnt had the white house meeting, and they still didnt have the aid. And at that point they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the bidens, correct . That is correct. Good evening to both of you and thank you for your service. Ambassador volker, on page 7 of your Opening Statement today you said since events surrounding your earlier testimony, october 3rd, quoteunquote, a great deal
of Additional Information and perspectives have come to light. I have learned many things i did not know at the time in question, correct . Yes, that is correct is. That includes conversations that occurred as well as meetings that occurred of which you werent a part . Correct. Thats correct. Sir, you obviously were not a part of the July 25th Call, is that right . That is correct. You were not aware that ambassador sondland according to your Opening Statement had a call with President Trump on july 26th, correct . That is correct. On September 1st you werent present for the Sidebar Meeting between ambassador sondland and special advisor yermac, isnt that right . That is krektd. And you certainly werent part of the phone call between ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland in which ambassador sondland according to multiple people now said that everything,
a white house meeting as well as military aid were dependent on public announcements of investigations, isnt that right . That is correct. And certainly, sir, you werent part of the phone call on September 7th between ambassador sondland and President Trump in which President Trump insisted that president zelensky go to a mic and publicly announce investigations of President Trumps domestic rivals, isnt that right . That is correct. And certainly you werent part of the September 8th phone call between ambassador sondland and ambassador im sorry, President Trump. Where President Trump again insists that these announcements have to happen, isnt that right . That is correct. Sir, you say you werent a witness to any kind of quid pro quo or conditionality between Military Assistance and investigations, what someone called missiles for
misinformation today. Isnt that right . That is correct. But, sir, you werent present for many if not all of the phone calls and conversations where these alleged instances of quid pro quo occurred. Isnt that right . That is correct. Sir, let me turn your attention to another topic thats come up today. Or actually came up last friday. You have high regard for ambassador yovanovitch, correct . Yes, i do. I apresume you were aware as the ambassador was testifying President Trump actually tweeted very disparaging remarks about her, right . I saw that moment. And i presume you disapprove of those type of tweets, correct . I dont think thats appropriate. Youve supervised many, many people over the years during your career in the Foreign Service, right . Yes, i have. And you would never do that to one of your direct reports or
anybody who worked in your organization, right . No, i would not. Its just wrong. I believe even when you feel you need to criticize, criticism is private, praise is public. And i also believe youre a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran merchandise you would not attack someone who is currently serving in the military whos doing their duty, correct . I respect the service of our members in uniform. In fact, theres a certain man that we both admire, the late senator john mccain. Yes. Who unfortunately was attacked not only when he was alive but after he died by the current president. Isnt that right . That is true. And i presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain, right . Yes. I knew john mccain very, very well for a very long time. He was an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country. Well, today, sir, as
Lieutenant Colonel vindman was testifying our president used the official twitter account of the office of the president to attack Lieutenant Colonel vindmans credibility. I presume you dont approve of those types of tweets either, do you . I was not aware of that. And as with ambassador yovanovitch, its not appropriate. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your service. And thank you mr. Morrison, for yours as well. That concludes the member questioning. I now recognize Ranking Member for any closing comments he has. Thank you. As the first day of this weeks Impeachment Tv Marathon draws to a close id like to remind the American People what were watching. The public hearings are the c l culmination of three years of incessant democrat efforts to impeach the president. First they tried to manufacture evidence that the president colluded with russia. To accomplish this task the dnc and the Clinton Campaign worked with a former british spy christopher steele. Steele assembled a dossier of false information alleging the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. That dossier was largely assembled from russian and ukrainian sources that the democrat contractors worked with. Next, they primed their hopes on the work of robert mueller. Mueller spent two years and millions of Taxpayer Dollars seeking evidence of a crime that we know wasnt committed. Muellers failure was a devastating blow to democrats who clearly hoped his work to be the basis for the removal of the president. Today we are witnessing the ukraine hoax, the direct to tv sequel to the russia collusion hoax. But the plot of the ukraine hoax is hard to follow. It shifts from day to day. First the democrats claim they had evidence of quid pro quo, then extortion and witness
intimidation. Now democrats are pinning their hopes on bribery. Like any good hollywood production, democrats needed a screen test before releasing their latest attack on the president. They leveraged the secrecy of the House Intelligence Committee to interview a cast of characters in Prep Operation for these public hearings. With the medias enthusiastic support they built a narrative based on selectively leaked testimony. Speaker pelosi and the democrats on this committee are seeking the truth. They will want to know the answers to the following questions that they refused to ask. To what extent did the whistleblower coordinate with the democrats on this committee and or staff. What is the full extent of ukraines Election Meddling against the Trump Campaign in 2016 . Why did burisma hire hunter biden, and what did he do for them, and did his Position Impact any u. S. Government actions under the obama
administration . The American People were promised a grave and somber Impeachment Inquiry. Instead they got the Salacious Spice Screened comedy that theyve been working on for three years. Good night. See you in the morning. I thank the gentleman. And i thank you both for your Testimony Today. I would highlight a couple of things about what weve heard this afternoon. First ambassador volker, your written testimony in which you say in hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption of Company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them as very different. The former being appropriate and unremarkable. The latter being unacceptable. In retrospect you said i should
have seen that connection differently. And had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. Ambassador, we appreciate your willingness to amend your earlier testimony in light of what you now know. And i think youve made it very clear that knowing what you do today, that in fact the president sought an investigation of his political rival, Vice President biden, you would have not have countanced any effort to encourage the u n ukrainians to engage in such conduct. I appreciate also you were able to debunk i hope for the last time the idea that joe biden did Something Wrong when he in accordance with u. S. Policy sought to replace a corrupt prosecutor. Something that not only the u. S. State department wanted, not only the European Union wanted and not only the imf wanted but was the consensus position of
the United States National Security infrastructure. You didnt get a lot of questions ability that today as other witnesses did because i think you effectively said that was all nonsense and we appreciate your candor about that. Mr. Morrison, i think what is most remarkable about your testimony is the acknowledgement that immediately after the Vice President met with president zelensky in warsaw, you witnessed Gordon Sondland meeting with Andrey Yermac and sondened told you he informed the ukrainians if they wanted that 400 million in military aid, they were going to have to do the investigations that the president wanted. And you were later informed and this is also significant as you testified here today that ambassador sondland had a subsequent conversation with President Trump and informed you that it wasnt going to be enough for the ukrainian
prosecutor general to announce the investigations the president wanted. President zelensky had to do it himself if he wanted to get that aid, let alone the meeting in the white house. Now, youve been asked to opine on the meaning of the term bribery, although you werent asked to opine on the meeting of the terms high crimes and misdemeanors. But bribery for those watching at home is the conditioning of official acts in exchange for something of personal value. The official acts were talking about here are a white house meeting that president zelensky dr desperately sought and as you have acknowledged ambassador volker was deeply important to this country at war with russia. To show the United States had this new president s back. That meeting was important. That meeting is an official act. T so the withholding of Military Assistance to get these investigations which you now have acknowledged ambassador volker was wrong for the president to request, the idea of withholding that military aid to get these political investigations should be enathama and repugnant to every american because it means the sacrifice not just of ukrainian National Security but american National Security for the interests of the president personally and politically. My republican colleagues all they seem to be upset with this is not that the president sought an investigation of his political rival, not that he withheld a white house meeting and 400 million in aid, Flair Objection is he got caught. Their objection is someone blew the whistle and they would like this whil blower identified, and the president wants this whistleblower punished. Thats their objection. Not the president engaged in this conduct, but that he got caught. Their defense is, well he ended up releasing the aid. Yes, after he got caught. That doesnt make this any less odious. Americans may be watching this and asking why should the United States care about ukraine. Why should we care about ukraine . And this was the import i think of the conversation, the new infamous conversation in that Kiev Restaurant with Gordon Sondland holding the phone away from his head because the president was talking so loud. What does the president ask in that call the day after the now infamous call with zelensky, what does he ask in that cellphone call, not whether they had passed some new reform, no are the ukrainians going to do
an Investigation Meaning into biden and sondland answered theyre going to do it. Theyll do essentially anything the president wants. But whats more telling is it conversation i think sondland had with the Foreign Service afterwards in which the president says basically donald trump doesnt give a expletive about ukraine. He cares about the big things. And mr. Holmes said ukraines at war with the russians, thats kind of a big thing. And sondland says, no, no, he cares about big things that affects his personal interests. This is why americans should care about this. Americans should care about what happens to our allies who are dying. But americans should care about their own National Security and their own president and their own constitution. And they will need to ask themselves as we will have to ask ourselves in congress, are we prepared to accept that a
president of the United States can leverage official acts, Military Assistance, white house meetings to get an investigation of a political rival. Are we prepared to say, well, you know, i guess thats just what we should expect in a president of the United States . I dont think we want to go there. I dont think our Founding Fathers would have wanted us to go there. Indeed, i think when the Founding Fathers provided a remedy, that remedy being impeachment, they had the very concern that a president of the United States may betray the National Security interests of the country for personal interests. They put that remedy in the constitution not because they wanted to willynilly overturn elections. No, because they wanted a powerful anticorruption mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land. Were adjourned. I ask the audience to please allow the witnesses to leave the room before they exit. A rousing and impassioned closing by the chair adam schiff of the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff is someone who is as youve seen throughout these proceedings usually quite controlled. Does not often raise his voice, is usually quite measured. Has dispatched his duties with a kind of understatement generally. Interesting to see his summation there after what has been by far the longest day of testimony. Today was day three in only the fourth Impeachment Inquiry hearings in this country. It was also the longest day. It had the most witnesses. There was a morning session and an Afternoon Session. The Afternoon Session just wrapping up, got started around 3 00, going about 5 1 2 hours. That featured two of the witnesses you see there exiting the room right now who were republican witnesses. Youll recall that the minority was able to petition for the witnesses. Two of the witnesses they asked to come before the committee was todays witnesses. The former Special Envoy to ukraine by the name of kurt volker and an official at the nsc who had russia and ukraine in his portfolio. He was only in that position for about four months. He left it the day he testified in his first deposition. Those two witnesses were seen by republicanases the most amenable and friendly to their vision of what happened today. And there were moments in fact when they agreed with the republican questioners. But by and large what emerged today both in the Afternoon Session which just concluded and the morning session with two individuals on that infamous phone call was yet more damning evidence of the president s plot to extort ukraine, to provide a
thing of personal value that is investigation into his political rivals in exchange for as adam schiff put it, an official act. The official act being the release of 400 million in u. S. Aid that had been passed on a bipartisan basis. The morning session as i mentioned began with Jennifer Williams whos a staffer actually currently in the Vice President s office. Shes from the state department and a Foreign Service official detailed with the Vice President. She was on the call and briefed Vice President pence in details after that call. Perhaps most notable and someone well be talking about a bit i believe today and for a while after that, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, an individual Who Emigrated To the u. S. As a refugee from the former soviet republic of ukraine. One of the many jewish refugees who left the former soviet union, came here with his identical brother, the two of them working side by side. Lieutenant colonel vindman receiving a purple heart, an expert on ukraine and also a kind of conscience of the day, i think its fair to say. The person who was most disturbed by the contents of the phone call. The person who immediately went to raise those concernwise the National Security council lawyer. The person who was the most urgent about the moral transgression that he saw. A person who came under considerable attack and insinuation from members of the Republican Committee republican members of the committee who came under attack as you heard the last congressman note from the white house itself while he work ins the white house through an official white house account on the day he testified. A truly bizarre set of circumstances. It should be noted after these 11 hours, many of the witnesses weve seen so far are employees of the president. Had been appointed in the case of kurt volker by the president , worked for the president , worked in the white house. Much of the defense of this white house seems to be everyone in the white house is untrustworthy and terrible. I want to bring in now for a little bit of recap of what we learned today congressman Hakeem Jeffries of new york, a member of the Judiciary Committee which of course will ultimately oversee and draft possible articles of impeachment should it come to that of President Trump. From your perch watching this, the third day, the longest day of testimony in the inquiry, what were your takeaways . The evidence of wrongdoing by donald trump continues to hide in plain sight. And the essential concern remains the same. On that july 25th phone call, donald trump pressured a Foreign Government to target joe biden, an american citizen, for political gain. And thereby solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election while at the same time they were withholding 391 million in aid that had been allocated to ukraine in a bipartisan way without
justification. And not a single witness including those that the republicans suggested come before the Intel Committee has been able to dispute those central allegations. And so this is textbook abuse of power. The witnesses continue to confirm that the National Security interests of the United States of america have been undermined. And were going to continue to present the truth to the American People and see where that leads. What do you say to those members, the republican members of the committee who say it is the president s job, duty and sole right to determine what the National Security of the United States. All these bureaucrats you keep throwing us, all these functionaries and staffers and officials you keep clogging up the hearings with, it doesnt matter what they think, it only matters what donald trump thinks . What matters is congress on a bipartisan basis, democrats and republicans, progressive and
conservatives, allocated that 391 million to ukraine in military and economic assistance because ukraine is a friend, russia is foe. Ukraine is democracy, russia is a dictatorship. And the United States is probably the only thing standing between Vladimir Putin and russia completely overrunning ukraine as part of his fantasy to reconstruct the glory days of the soviet union. That would undermine the National Security interests of the American People. That is exactly why congress acted in a bipartisan way. And what donald trump did is he elevated his own personal political interests and subordinated the National Security interests of the American People. He effectively turned the oval office into the Trump Campaign 2020 reelection headquarters. Thats an abuse of power. Do you are you confident that this process will end up in your committee, amouultimately . Dev nunes implying this was taken out of his hands for some kind of purpose of gamesmanship. First of all, Dud Devin Nunes have any credibility reasonably anywhere in the United States of america after continuing to embarrass himself over the last two years . Hes somebody who clearly believes that the house is not a separate and coequal branch of government, that he works for donald trump and hes acting like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Administration, so he has no credibility as it relates to this situation. Now, were going to continue to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the constitution. As speaker pulose has continued to urge us, were going to proceed in a serious and solemn fashion. Well see what happens at the conclusion of the Intel Committees public investigation and presentation of information. And if they make a recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, well take that recommendation and do whats necessary at that point. But that hasnt been determined. All right, congressman Hakeem Jeffries, thank you very much. I want to bring in now one of the member of the House Intelligence Committee who just finished questioning one of the witnesses today, democratic congressman Eric Swalwell of california. I want to go through some of the witnesses. I want to start with kurt volker, a whoon who essentially had to amend some of his prior testimony. I think the first witness called for deposition in closed door testimony, had to amend that testimony because there were some inconsistencies between his recollections and what one of the witnesses sds. Did you find him forthcoming today . Yes, i did. Its hard to believe that He Didnt Entiry appreciate what was going on here. But even if he was i guess at worst or at best naive, he still corroborated what everyone else said, which was this shakedown scheme was being run. That biden essentially meant
burisma. And chris, its often in investigations that witnesses for a variety of reasons are not entirely forthcoming the first time theyre asked to give a version of events. But they evolve. And we have a witness tomorrow in a very similar position. But i think the best we can do is point out how volkers testimony is corroborated by so many others that it is believable that burisma meant biden. And whenever he came to understand that, thats what evidence in this case shows. In the morning session, numerous colleagues of yours sought to undermine the credibility of Lieutenant Colonel vindman. The president today made a kind of crack about him wearing his uniform which was then echoed by a colleague of yours, Congressman Stewart who said it. He said it in a complementary fashion but it was hard to interpret it that way. The real loyalties of Lieutenant Colonel vindman was actually with ukraine, perhaps disloyal and were you surprised by that
insiniation, those lines of questions from your colleagues . I was not surprised based on the way ive seen other witnesses treated by my colleagues. I continue to be disappointed especially by the ones in the military on the other side Whose Service we should all honor, but they did not respectfully honor Lieutenant Colonel vindmans service. But all that on the other side, chris, because that is only intended to distract from the powerful evidence that Lieutenant Colonel vindman provided. And thank god he spoke up at the time he did. Hes not a johnny come lately on this. On july 10 he reported. On july 25 when he heard the president shakedown the president of ukraine, he reported it. When he was being recruited by the ukrainians in the way that they were, he reported it. He is someone, you know, regardless of party or who it affects, he stands up and does the right thing, and that came out today. Final question here, mr. Morrison. Chair schiff just mentioned this in his closing and it struck me as well perhaps the clearest most succinct articulation to extract a quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it came in testimony that Gordon Sondland told him frankly that he told the zelensky advisor, look, you only get the aid if you announce the investigations. What did you think of that testimony by mr. Morris . It was powerful and aligns with everything we know in this case. And chris, the president can tell ambassador sondland over and over its not a quid pro quo, its not a quid pro quo. And you can say its not a duck, its not a duck, but if the looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. Chris, its a duck. Its an extortion scheme. Its bribery, and theres nothing thats going to change that irregardless of any legal interpretation that the republicans want these witnesses
to make. And thats whats so surprising here is that they keep asking witnesses to make legal judgments, when its so clear from the evidence that everyone was uncomfortable with what the president wanted them to do and would not carry it out on his behalf. Congressman Eric Swalwell, of course a member of the Intelligence Committee and a host of todays hearings. Thank you very mup. My pleasure, chris. It was as i said a long day of Testimony Today. I want to take a minute and walk through some of the ilights or some of the most important moments. A full day of testimony split into two parts. In the morning we heard from two witnesses who were actually on the July 25th Call with President Trump and ukrainian president zelensky. That would be Jennifer Williams currently detailed to office of the Vice President , and the man i just mentioned Lieutenant Colonel alexander vindman. Both of these individuals are Career Professionals who currently work for the Trump Administration. You would call them trump white
house officials if you were courting them anonymously and they testified trumps call was not a perfect call, but it was alarming and possibly illegal. Now, ms. Williams, prior to the July 25th Call, approximately how many calls between the president of the United States and foreign leaders had you listened to . I would say roughly a dozen. Had you ever heard a call like this . As i testified before, i believe what i found unusual or different about this call was the president s reference to specific investigations, and that struck me as different as other calls id listen toed. You testified it was political in nature. Why did you think that . I thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President biden and his son
struck me as political in nature given that the former Vice President is political opponent of the president. You too were on the white house call, am i right . You heard it with your own ears . Correct. Not secondhand, not hearsay. Correct. You heard the president s voice on the call. I did. And you heard him raise that subject again that ambassador sondland had raised before about investigating the bidens, right . I did. And i want to ask you when you heard him say that what was the first thought that went through your mind . Frankly, i couldnt believe what i was hearing. It was probably an element of shock that maybe in certain regards my worst fear of how our ukraine policy could play out was playing out and how this was likely to have significant implications for u. S. National security. That was the morning. And then this afternoon the hearing had just ended. We heard from two witnesses again requested by republicans. That would be tim morrison, former white house aid with the National Security council, a long time to be clear hill staffer for multiple republican law makes. Hes part of the professional class of republican aids and staffers. Thats his career. And ambassador kirk volker, the former u. S. Ambassador to uwran, a career diplomat who served under both republican and democratic pres who got this job named by President Trump. And what we got from volker were attempts to explain away some glaring inconsistencies win his previous testimony. He said that maybe he didnt quite realize he was in the middle of a corrupt attempt at extortion. In hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of possible investigation of the Ukrainian Company burisma the
former being. The other republican witness tim morrison was very straightforward, careful in his Testimony Morrison testified when he learned more about the extortion scheme he always went right to the lawyers. Heres what happened after he ergs u ambassador Gordon Sondland told morrison he had told the ukrainians the military aid was just flat out dependent on an announcement of investigations. Did you tell ambassadorbolten about this conversation as well in. I reach out to him and requested his availability for a secure phone call. And what his response. Call the lawyers. Did you go tell the lawyers . When i returned to the states, yes. A few day later on September 7th you spoke again to ambassador sondland who told you hed just gotten off the phone with President Trump . Is that right . That sounds correct, yes. Just to be clear that is lifelong republican staffer called as essentially a Defense Witness for the Republican Party of the president saying multiple times he went and told the lawyers what was happening because of alarm of the situation. That was the Defense Witness today. Joining me now michelle goldberg, oped columnist for the new york times, and also the cofounder and Executive Director of the Nonprofit Organization protect democracy. And walter dellenger. Michelle, what struck you today watching this . I think volker got off very easy. Volker i think clearly if not outright committed perjury in his deposition, clearly dissembled and they let him get away with suddenly remembering a bunch of things hed previously forgotten and also they let him
get away with essentially this thing that i dont think anyone can plausibly believe, this sophisticated Foreign Policy professional had the sophisticated Foreign Policy professional whos actually crafting language for the ukrainian president to release about these investigations but he has no idea what these investigations are really about, he has no idea why donald trump is incredibly interested in an investigation into this one particular Ukrainian Energy company. I mean, i dont think anybody can possibly believe that although devin nunes could possibly pretend to. And i think they could have reamy torn him apart, and instead of they pretended to believe him and went easy on him because as said despite being a witness of defense he did end up confirming. Walter, im curious what you made of today in which you had this bizarre situation. You had folks that one works in the Vice President s office, a detaily from the state department, another on the National Security council, works for the president. Then you have a Special Envoy who was appointed by the president and someone else an nsc official all testifying and the white house sort of saying these people are all untrustworthy and you shouldnt listen to them. And in the case of vindman being attacked by a white house account hours after he testified. What do i make of that, its an extraordinary situation, chris. My main take away was a bit of concern that the democrats by focusing being drawn into the a discussion of bribery which there was a case to be made it certainly was and extortion and solicitation of a bribe, dont lose sight of the mueller report. Dont lose sight of the fact that the most profound part of this is an attempt on the part of the president to corruptly
determine the next president ial election. And we start out in 2016, it was not a russian hoax. Every agency agreed it was a massive and systematic interference in the campaign. And what 20161 about, this reference to investigating 2016, it is try to hold the russians harmless by blaming the ukrainians for what happened. And that is telling Vladimir Putin weve really got your back. Were not only going to sanction you, were going to point the finger at somebody else. Thats why that ask was so important. So you have i think impeachable offenses that are so much worse than any violation of the federal criminal code. An attempt to misuse the power of the presidency in order to corrupt a forthcoming democratic
election. You served in the White House Counsel Office under president barack obama. The lawyers that john bolton was instructing his Deputy Tuesday Go To were folks that were in that office, they were sort of the lawyers tasked to the nsc, but theyre White House Council officials. What are you thinking as youre hearing the Realtime Recollection of the folks around this call and others who are raising these legal alarms . You know, chris, people used to come to me all the time in the White House Councils office to make me aware of things or raise concerns to me. I cant recall a single time that someone came to me about something because they had zero concerns that there was anything wrong with it at all. Thered be no point. So when i listened to especially rep demings questioning tim morrison, his testimony didnt make sense. But theres one other thing that really struck me about today and its not even about the facts
about bribery which are incredibly compelling. I think one of the most moving parts of the day, which was when Lieutenant Colonel vindman in his Opening Statement addressed his father. And he said, dad, 40 years ago you made the right decision in moving us from the soviet union to the United States. And dont you worry about me because i can tell the truth today and ill be okay. And tonight the Washington Post is reporting that the army is prepared to move Lieutenant Colonel vindman and his family to an army base if necessary to protect him. Because the president and his supporters are attacking him. And i want to speak to every republican member of congress because i know a lot of those republicans are wondering what to do. Is that really the country you want to live in . Is that really fidelity to your oath to allow that to happen . And at what point do you come out and say thats not okay, Lieutenant Colonel vindman is patriot and we should defend him . I want to play the clip you just mentioned. This is Lieutenant Colonel vindman who came to this country as an infant, essentially a toddler brought by his parents making that statement. Take a listen. Dad, im sitting today in the u. S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals, talking to our elected professionals its proof you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the is soviet union and come here to the United States of america in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth. You know, michelle, youre tearing up right now, but what i find moving about that is that its refocusing on and to walters point how existential the stakes are here. We either have a country in which the president wants you to do something corrupt you do it, and thats the way it works. And the nation itself and its functionings of the state revolve around a cultive personality of the winds of the strongman on top. There are many who function like that in the world. Or you have a country where the law is meaningful, where independent Civil Servants make moral and legal judgments in which coequal branches of government can offer checks. And thats really what the Essential Question before everyone right now is about. So i think i was on your show the day after the election and i was profoundly alarmed and depressed. And i think even then i didnt think within three years the United States would fall so far towards being a sort of authoritarian state like turkey, like russia where the leader does what he wants. You know, the party closes ranks around him, and hiss word is law and everybody else basically submits and risks their safety if they defy him. So i think what weve seen again and again not just with colonel vindman, with masha yovanovitch, weve seen these people, these kind of emissaries from america we remember just three years ago, you know, these people who
are completely sefused with these extremely earnest patriotic values. You know, the sort of values the Republican Party used to valorize. And theyre basically coming before us all as a test. Do you want to be that kind of country, or do you want to be a country where the president says do me a favor though and everything falls in line . Walter, the gravity of the president inviting foreign interference, soliciting foreign aference to corrupt fundamentally the next election, part of what i think you see in the testimony you saw today in the surprise and shock of people around the call, you see it today even if you sort of charitably credit mr. Volker, ambassador volker in some ways people failing to grasp whats happening in front of them because its so outside the bounds of acceptable that they actually cant understand what they are seeing happen because they are so not expecting a u. S. President to do what he is very plainly doing. Chris, i think were witnessing i hate to use this phrase of a constitutional crisis. Its overused. But i think were seeing a slow motion constitutional crisis. When you could have a mob behind the president , when hes calling out the whistleblower and you see the anger in the faces behind him, and a refusal to comply that theyve made a unilateral decision in the Executive Branch that the congressional inquiry is illegitimate. Thats the end of oversight as we know it if its allowed to stand. The identity of the whistleblower who they clearly want to out despite whistleblower preces to
walters point there and also try to insiniate lieutenant vindmans loyalty is split. And calling for the record in incredibly strong terms what was happening. Listen. Colonel vindman multiple white wing conspiritists make this accusation your fam heal like Many American families emigrated to the United States. Theyve accused you of espionage and dual loyalties. The three minutes spent asking you about the offers made to make you Ministry Of Defense that may have come cloaked in a brooks baurt suit in parliamentary language that was designed exclusively to give the right wing an opening to question your loyalties. I want the American People to understand what that was all about. You just spoke about this a
moment ago. I did find that line of questioning pursued by mr. Caster whos the counsel for the minority in this hearing pretty unsettling. But it speak tuesday the fact that they have chosen the route of essentially attempting to discredit these witnesses even though in a weird way the actual facts of the matter arent really in dispute. Whats in dispute is the gravity of them or the interpretation of the seriousinous of the president. But oats really not in duspute as far as i can tell the main pillars of fact here. And were in the fact sort of phase of this Impeachment Inquiry and really the only question left on the table here for the American People viewing this at home is when the president asked ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rivals, was he doing that to advance the interests of the United States, or was he doing that to advance his own personal interests . You and have have discussed in the show imagine he had asked
excuse me president zelensky for a Million Dollars . Would he deposit that in the u. S. Treasury because if he would deposit in the treasury the problem is all the evidence suggests it was heading for his personal bank account. You had rudy giuliani, his lawyer, tweet out this was all in the personal defense of my client. You know, george kent testified look, this was all about digging up political dirt. You had volker today saying i now see this about an investigation into the bidens. And the u. S. Gave military aid to ukraine in 2017 or 2018 or to the Trump Administration and trump never asked about corruption then. He only did it after biden had declared. In fact, one of the most amazing bits of Testimony Today is Lieutenant Colonel vindman saying he determined the and as a general principle matter he was giving Talking Points to raise that in the first call and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.