he said that he had already come to that same conclusion as your joy on he also mentioned both the accusations about vice president biden and about interference in the 2016 election and stressed that all he wanted to see was for ukraine to investigate what happened in the past and apply its own laws. concerning the allegations i stress that no one what to al-jazeera and we're listening to day 3 of the public impeachment hearings on capitol hill and we're listening to ambassador a former u.s. special envoy to ukraine who was closely involved in negotiations with ukraine officials at the heart of this impeachment inquiry he has testified that he did not take part in an effort to press ukraine to investigate the former vice president biden we're also hearing in this particular hearing from morrison who is tim morris and the former national security council official who says that he was not pressured into resigning from his job but the national security council did not

know the identity of the whistleblower and did not fear for retaliation for his testimony let's continue to listen in to these key witnesses in the impeachment hearings on day 32019 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 year mark stressed that he told mr giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway mr giuliani said he believe ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with mr year mark i said i did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position anyway i followed up with mr your mom and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. he said it would reference. 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 breeze 2016 election interference it was clear to me that he mr arumugam was only talking about whether any ukrainians had acted inappropriately at this time i was focused on our goal of getting presents alinsky and president trump to meet with each other and i believe that they're 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 i was comfortable exploring whether there was a statement ukraine could make about its own intentions to investigate possible corruption that would be helpful and given seeing mr giuliani to convey to president trump a more positive assessment of the new leadership in ukraine on august 16th mr year mark shared a draft with me which i thought looked perfectly reasonable it did not mention

breeze month or 2016 elections but was generic a better song london 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 breeze and 2016 again there was no mention of vice president biden in these conversations a master solon and i discussed these points and i edited the statement drafted by mr yarmuk to include these points to see how it looked i then discussed it further with mr. he said that for a number of reasons including the fact that mr looked sankoh was still officially the prosecutor general they did not want to mention or 2016 i agreed and the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. these are 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 that there had been further discussions with ukrainians about president zelinsky possibly making a statement in an interview with us 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 of come to light i've learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question 1st at the time i was connecting mr year mark and mr giuliani and discussing with mr yamagata baster soul and a possible statement that could 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 conveyed such a linkage to the ukrainians i opposed the hold on us security systems as soon as i learned about it on july 18th and i 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 us 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 1st 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 that they needed to do something to get the hold released i told them the opposite that they should not be alarmed it was an internal us problem and we were working to get it fixed i did not know others were conveying a different message to them around the same time 2nd i did not know about the

strong concerns expressed by then national security advisor john bolton to members of his n.s.c. staff regarding the discussion of investigations i participated in the july 10th meeting between national security advisor bolton and then ukrainian chairman of the national security and defense counsel alex to new york and as i remember the meeting was essentially over when ambassador solemnly made a general 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 wardroom i may have been engaged in a side conversation or had already left the complex because i do not recall further discussion regarding investigations or breeze my 3rd i did not understand that others believe that any investigation of the ukrainian company bree's mom which had a history of accusations of corruption was tantamount to investigating vice president biden i drew a sharp distinction between the 2 it has long been u.s.

policy under multiple administrations to urge ukraine to investigate and 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 in person meeting i had with mayor giuliani on july 19th very giuliani raised and i rejected the conspiracy theory that vice president biden would have been influenced in his duties as vice president by money paid to his son as i previously testified i have known vice president biden for 24 years 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 as you know from the extensive documentation i provided vice president biden was not a topic of discussion i was not on the july 25th phone call between president trump and president's olinsky i was not made aware of any reference to vice president biden or his son by president trump until the transcript of that call was released on september 25th 21000 throughout this time i understood that there was an

important distinction between barry's money by it and i urge the ukrainians to maintain such a distinction i did not know the president trump or others had raised vice president biden with ukrainians or i conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former vice president in retrospect for 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 as equivalent to investigating former president vice president biden i saw them as very different the former being appropriate unremarkable the latter being on acceptable in retrospect i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raised my own objections forth much as been made of the term 3 amigos in reference to secretary perry ambassador saul and of myself i never use that term and frankly cringe when i hear it because for me the 3 amigos were always referred to senator mccain senator lieberman and senator

graham in reference to their work to support the surge in iraq moreover i was never aware of any designation by president trump or anyone else putting ambassador sunland or the 3 of us as a group in charge of ukraine policy rather as i understood it each of us in our own respective official capacities continued to work together after our attendance of presence lewinsky's inauguration to push for greater u.s. support for ukraine. leading the diplomacy around ukraine negotiations have long been my official responsibility but i welcome the added support and influence of a cabinet member and already you're embassador 5th i was not aware that ambassadors on and spoke with president trump on july 26th well 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 questions thank you thank you gentlemen

for your opening statements will now proceed to the 1st round of questions as detailed in the memo provide the committee members of the 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or majority counsel followed by 45 minutes for the ranking member or minority counsel of following analysts a specified additional equal time for senate questioning will proceed under the 5 minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions and now recognize myself or counsel for the 1st round of questions. and best of all her i was going to just field to the minority counsel but there are a couple points you made in your opening statement that i wanted to ask about 1st. first you said that now former attorney general that same co was not credible. mr that sent go is the author of a number of allegations against the best you have out of each

a number of allegations that were shared with john solomon of the hill a number of allegations that have been repeatedly brought up by my republican colleagues why is it that you found mr lloyd that sankoh not credible and told mr giuliani so. thank you mr chairman 1st off the allegations themselves including those against city of on of each. did not appear to me to be credible at all i know her to be an incredibly competent professional someone i've worked with for many many years the suggestions that she was acting in some improper and inappropriate manner were not credible to me i've known vice president biden for a long time and 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 poroshenko appeared to not be in a favorable position going into the elections where it was increasingly apparent

then candidate zelinsky was going to win. as is often the case in ukraine a change in power would mean changing prosecutorial powers as well and there have been efforts in the past to at prosecuting the previous government i think mr lott saying go in my estimation and i said this to mary giuliani when i met with him was interested in preserving his own position he wanted to avoid being a fire to buy 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 as well because you probably would have avoided any efforts to prosecute president poroshenko as well so by making allegations like this and making sure they were reaching u.s. media i think that mr lott sankoh was trying to make himself appear to be an important and influential player in the united states. vesel me also ask you about

the allegations against joe biden because that has been a continuing refrain from some my colleagues as well why was it you found the allegations against joe biden related to his son or brisbane not to be believed simply because i've known vice president former vice president biden for a long time i know how he respects that his duties of higher office and it's 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 ford turn it over i was struck by something you said on page 8 of your statement which reads in hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the ukrainian company bryza as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden i saw them as 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. what is it now and vaster in retrospect that you recognize that you didn't at the time. that lead you to conclude that you. would or should have raised these objections and 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's a history with the company it's been investigated. that is well known. 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 to see whether things that they can do that are appropriate and reasonable as part of ukraine's own policy of fighting corruption that help clarify for our

president that they are committed to that very that very effort if there's 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 didn't see or didn't consider this distinction that for them it was synonymous well one of those people who saw it synonymous turns out with the president and states i take it you didn't know until the call record was released that the president on that call doesn't raise brás money he asked for investigation of the bidens is that right that is correct i take it since you say that you acknowledge that asking for an end of 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 him so. i would have objected to that yes or mr goldman

thank you mr chairman just one follow up on that ambassador volcker when you say thread the needle in your you mean that you understood the relationship between vice president biden's son and very small. but you were trying to separate the 2 of them in your mind is that right well i believe that they were separate that and i think this reference is the conversation i had with mr giuliani as well where i think that the allegations against vice president biden are self-serving 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 buy influence to me they are very different things and as i said i think the former is on acceptable i think the latter in this case is understood but you've understood the relationship between 100 by number recently and i knew that he had been a board member of the company yes let's go back as i was so important to maintain

a distinction let's focus on the july 25th call for a moment mr morrison july 25th was day number what for you as the senior director overseeing ukraine. officially took over on the 15th approximately 10 days very few days actually in the office you testified in your deposition that you received an e-mail on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sunland shortly before the call is that right yes and i believe in that e-mail ambassador sunland told you that he had briefed president trump about that in advance of the call as everett yes and i believe you also testified that ambassador sunland 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 make an effort to confirm whether or not the phone call between ambassador

sandlin and president trump actually occurred i did and did it did it happen yes another occasions when ambassador sunland told you that he spoke with president trump did you on some other occasions did you also see 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. to pull up a text message on the morning of july 25th. but tween it well. should be another one 0 yes sorry about your son lynn. with you ambassador volker and at 754 ambassador son in the morning ambassador son says call a.s.a.p. then at 935 ambassador volker you respond is the screen working in front of you or

just to the side. so if you go ahead and read what you said at 935 guess so i said hi gordon i got your message had a great lunch with your mach and then passed your message to him he will see you tomorrow think everything is in place and who is your mark. is the senior adviser to presidents going to give you great. now what was the message that you had received that the president selenski should be clear convincing orthe right 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 let's get this date for

this visit scheduled and did you understand from that message that ambassador sunland had spoken to president trump i wasn't sure whether he had or not he has mr marson just said said that he does speak with president drawn by knew that he had conversations in general i didn't 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 yes at 8 36 in the morning to andre yarmuk yes i believe because of the time difference this is actually in the afternoon in ukraine ukraine and so this is east coast time that's right so this is slightly less than a half hour before the call between president trump and president selenski right and can you just read what you wrote there yes and just after the launch that i had with it's a good lunch thanks heard from the white house assuming president z. convinces trump he will investigate get to the bottom what happened 2016 we will nail down date for a visit to washington good luck see you tomorrow. and does this accurately relay

the message that you had received from ambassador sohn yes now mr morrison did the national security council also prepare talking points for president trump for this call the n.s.c. 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's been a little bit of dispute about what that means can you explain how official u.s. policy is determine with through the inner agency process we operate under what's known as n s pm for national security presidential memorandum for it's available on the internet. that lays out how the president wants to be provided options for his decision and there's an extensive process to finalize any policy is that right sometimes did you.

mr morse and you did you listen to this call on the 25th as i write 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 mole more full throated. statement of support from the president concerning president's own skis reform agenda given where we were at the time with respect to the overwhelming mandate presence on skis servant of the party people had received in the rada election and that rada which is the ukrainian parliament that election had occurred 4 days earlier sounds right and president selenski 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 zilinskas anti-corruption agenda right at the time and

within the inner agency within the national security agencies here in the united states was there broad support for president selenski there was broad support for giving president's own skin 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 3 months that he had been in office is that right approximately 3 months yes. now i want to show a couple of eggs herbs from this call record to to each of you the 1st is president trump responding to a comment by president selenski related to defend 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 ukraine they say crowd strike i guess you have one of your wealthy people the

server they say ukraine has it and if we could go to the next digs excerpts where president trump says the other thing there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it it sounds horrible to me now mr morrison where these references to crowd strike the server in 2016 election. and 2 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 didn't you were not aware of anyone else within your you coordinate the interagency process you were not aware of anyone else who was doing that either is that right correct now you testified in your deposition that hearing this call confirms what you called the parallel process that your predecessor fiona hill had warned you about what it what did you mean by that. during the period in which dr hill and i were conducting hand off 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 and as pm for process and the payroll parallel process and in the context of discussing the parallel process she mentioned issues like aris ma.

which were not where they need to be at the time because i had never heard of them before. and upon hearing them in the call it wound up confirming ok there's something here and who did she and for me was involved in this parallel process as i recall it was definitely ambassador santu and i believe mr giuliani and after she informed you of this company 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 and did you find that it had some association with hunter biden yes now ambassador volcker you did not listen to this call but you testified that you were surprised and troubled when you read the call record after it was released on september 25th and you have to also said that after reading the call record it was clear to you that the biden and the 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 . so i don't recall that language from my testimony is from october 3rd testimony. yes it was thank you well what i do mean by that and i'd like to phrase it my own words now is i don't think that raising 2016 elections or vice president biden or these these things that i consider to be conspiracy theories that have been circulated by the ukrainians particular the former prosecutor general are really. there or they're not things that we should be pursuing as part of our national security strategy with ukraine we should be supporting ukraine's democracy reforms its own

fight against corruption domestically its struggle against russia its defense capabilities these are the heart of what we should be doing and i don't think pursuing these things. is a national interest mr morrison shortly after you heard the july 25th call. you testified that you alerted the n.s.c. legal advisor john eisenberg pretty much right away is that right correct and you indicated in your opening statement 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's not what is not what we recommend to the president discuss now in

a 2nd 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 n.s.c. legal advisor to restrict access before now did you speak to your supervisor dr cover men before you went to speak to john eisenberg no. did you subsequently learned that the call record had 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 administrative error now isn't it also true though that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted so i do i believe i could have instructed the appropriate steps to do so yes so why did you go to the n.s.c. legal advisor 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 in a sequel visors office as they were often on head of state calls but not always and i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg as a legal advisor and his deputy watching i was there 2130 g.m.t. a day 3 of the public impeachment hearings on capitol hill and listened to 2 key witnesses in these hearings at tim marcion the former national security council official who listened in on a phone call between the ukrainian president and cut folk of the former u.s. special envoy to ukraine who was closely involved in negotiations with the ukrainian officials his testimony was that he did not know of a linkage between aid to security aid and investigations into democrats and he also said the team did not knowingly take part in an effort to press ukraine to investigate the former vice president biden and he would have raised objections if

he'd seen a probe into a company that has tantamount to an investigation into one president a former vice president by a pardon by let's continue to listen in to the hearings the correct chain of events here is correct now investor volcker in the july 25th call. president selenski volunteers to president trump that rudy giuliani had already spoken with one of his associates and that president selenski hopes giuliani will come to ukraine and in response president trump proceeds to mention mr giuliani on 3 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 was tried to take him down and then 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 sunline and secretary perry to talk to giuliani isn't that correct he. i didn't take it as an instruction i want to be clear about that he said that's not what i hear you know when we were giving him our assessment about present zelinsky and where ukraine is it is that's not what i hear i hear terrible things that he's got terrible people around him talk to rudy and i understood in that context him just saying that's where he hears it from i didn't take it as an instruction so when he said talk to rudy you didn't take it from him to mean to for you to talk to rudy no i didn't take it that way i took it as that you just just part of the dialogue that i hear to i hear other things you hear them from rudy giuliani or from other people that's not what's going on he's surrounded by terrible people talk to rudy you know it just seemed like part of the dialogue.

well after that meeting did you in fact talk to rudy after that meeting not immediately no. member this was may 23rd and we continued to proceed with our effort to get the white house visitor present olinsky scheduled and to keep ramping up our support for the new ukrainian president and all believe the new ukrainian government. i did however july 2nd as i was becoming concerned that we were not succeeding at this telepresence alinsky i think we have a problem and the problem being this negative feed of information from mr giuliani . and ultimately i think as you testified in your opening statement you introduced mr year mark 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 ukraine still desperately wanted that oval office meeting for president selenski correct that is correct and you also wanted that for president selenski is

that right that is correct why was that oval office meeting so important to president selenski 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 against the legacy of corruption and political that had been there had a massive showing in the presidential elections 73 percent support he believed he was leading a movement of major change in ukraine and that president trump was did not see that or didn't appreciate that but if he had a chance to sit down and speak with president trump face to face he believed that he could be very convincing about that and i agree with him that certainly was your assessment right there it was my assessment and i believe it was also a president's alinsky believed and certainly that you understood from your experience in ukraine that there would be a significant boost in legitimacy at home for president selenski if there were photos of him in the oval office etc yes that is correct now you knew that you

testified in your opening statement that mr giuliani and mr year mock selenski as a met on august 2nd where did they meet they met in madrid and what 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 yarmuk after that and he said yes and we are prepared to make a statement and that then kicked off the series of discussions that i said in my testimony what will get into that. in a 2nd but mr giuliani did not explain to you what needed to be included in that statement and that call he call you he said something more general as i recall i recall him saying corrupt fight corruption that their commitment to being different mr yamaka told me when i spoke with him as i recall that the statement would

include specific mention of the response and 2016 right let's go through some of the text messages so we know exactly who said what and 1st let's start on on august 9th this is a text exchange between you and ambassador sonly and where ambassador sandlin writes at the top morrison ready to get dates as soon as your ma confirms and what did you respond i said excellent with 2 exclamation points how did you sway him with a smile afterwards besar son responded not sure i did i think poetess really wants the deliverable what did you say to that but how does he know that and vassar son says yep clearly lots of convos going on. now mr morris and you referenced in this text message had you discussed confirming a date for a white house visit for president selenski with ambassador sandlin around this time i likely would have. been did you have any discussions with him about

a statement for that ukraine was there that they were trying to get ukraine to make i did not were you aware that. do you do you yourself know what ambassador song meant by the deliverable i did not at the time i think i have an understanding now and what is the understanding now there seems to have been discussions about a statement various drafts of which have been discussed in various proceedings. but this to your knowledge was part of that parallel process you were talking about yes we can now go to the next exhibit which is another text exchange just a few minutes later between ambassador sunline and u.n. ambassador volcker where ambassador sohn lynn says to avoid misunderstandings might be helpful to ask andre for a draft statement embargoed so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover

even though z. zelinsky does a live presser they can still summarize in a brief statement thoughts and how did you respond agree and this relates to the statement that mr giuliani wanted is that right ambassador volcker it relates to the statement that he and mr yeah mike had discussed and now to the next day on august 10th there's another text exchange between you and mr yair moch. who is the same aid that mr giuliani had met in in madrid and if you could read what you wrote at the top at 5 o 2 pm right i wrote i agree with your approach that's ironed out statement and use that to get data and then present zelinsky can go forward with it and mr yarmuk responds once we have a date we will call 'd for a press briefing. announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot

of the u.s. ukraine relationship including among other things but a recent election meddling in investigations and what did you respond sounds great now the date that he's referring to that is the date for the white house visit that's correct. now 2 days later on august 12th you receive another text message from mr yarmuk 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 want to declare that this is unacceptable we intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes which in turn will prevent a recurrence of this problem in the future now ambassador volcker this was a draft was it not of the statement that you and mr giuliani and mr yamaka and

buster son have been discussing this is the 1st draft of that from mr yarmuk after the conversations that we had and it does not mention very similar the 2016 election interference correct. and you testified in your deposition that you and ambassador sonly and mayor giuliani had a conversation about this draft after you received it is that right that is correct and juliette mr giuliani said that if the statement did not include very small and 2016 election it would not have any credibility right that's correct now this was the same rudy giuliani that president trump was discussing in that may 23rd meeting and asked you to tell you and the others to talk to correct that is the same mr giuliani and even at that point on 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 let's go back in may you know i can may. now he was insisting on a public commitment from president selenski to do these investigations correct well now what do we mean by these investigations. the 2016 election respond 2016 s and at the time that you were engaged in the coordinating for this statement did you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a public statement from president selenski to carry out the investigations that the president was seeking i didn't find it that unusual i think when you're dealing with a situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about presence alinsky being committed to really changing ukraine after his entirely negative view of the country that he would want to hear something more from president alinsky to be convinced that ok i'll give this guy a chance and he will perhaps he also wanted

a public statement because it would lock mr president selenski in to do these investigations that he thought might benefit him well again were we when we say these investigations what i understood us to be talking about was ukrainian corruption well and what we're talking about has been recently on the 2016 election let's just write we can agree on that and so when we're talking about these investigations isn't 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 in the white house meeting scheduled then that would be useful. and that would be helpful to get that

white house meeting correct in fact it was a necessary condition as you understood at that point i wouldn't call it a necessary condition and in fact when it became clear later that we were not able to. agree on a an agreement that the ukrainians were comfortable with i agree with ukraine is just a drop it's not worth it now i understand that but your is it your testimony that based on the text that you wrote linking the investigations in the 2016 election on july 25th to the white house meeting you're saying that by this point in august with this back and forth that you were unaware that this public statement was a condition for the white house meeting i wouldn't have called it a condition it's a it's a nuance i guess but i viewed it as a very helpful if we could get this done it would help improve the perception that president trump and others had and then we would get the date for a meeting if we didn't have a statement i wasn't giving up and thinking that oh well then we'll never get a meeting let's go to the next day where there's another text exchange and at the

top could you just read the 1st us text there it says hi andrea good talking following his text with insert at the end for the 2 key items we will work on official request and then you'll see the highlighted parchin of the next text the other is identical to your previous one and then it just adds including the that correct looting these involving very some of the 2016 elections is that right that is correct and that was what mr giuliani insisted on adding to the statement that's what he said would be necessary for that to be credible and the ukrainians ultimately did not issue the statement is that right and is correct and president selenski ultimately did not get the oval office meeting either did it 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 morse and

you accompanied vice president pence to warsaw when he met with president selenski is that right i was in warsaw when the vice president was as a gated as the president's representative i was accompanying ambassador bolton understood you were at the bilateral meeting with the with the vice president and presidents a landscape correct i was and in that meeting. were the ukrainians concerned about the hold on security clearance security clearance military assistance rather. but yes what did they say it was the 1st issue that presidents and ski raised with vice president pence. they were very interested they talked about its importance to to ukraine its importance to the relationship and what was vice president pence's response to the vice president represented. that it was

a priority for him and that we were working. to address and he characterized president trumps concerns about the state of corruption and ukraine and the president's priorities ation of getting the europeans to contribute more to security sector assistance and did he'd 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 don't know that he necessarily acknowledged to hold we he mentioned that we were reviewing the assistance and that's the way i heard it that's the way i would characterize it. and. and those were the points he raised to help presidents you understand where we were in our process and to your knowledge

though on sort of the staff level as the coordinator of all the inner agency process you were not aware of any review of the ukraine security assistance money where 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 prior directed to generate for for the president's consideration as to the state of interagency support for continuing ukraine security sector assistance and the entire energy agency supported the continuation of the security assistance isn't that right that is correct now after this larger meeting with vice president pence and president selenski you testified at your deposition that you saw ambassador sandlin immediately go over and pull andre yarmuk aside and have a conversation is that right i mean of his president once he left the room vice president has left the room and in sort of an ante room. and.

presidential advisor your mac. had this discussion yes and what did ambassador sunland say to tell you that he told mr yarmuk 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 sunland 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 to help accomplish which was our giving the president gave gratian he needed to determine that the security sector assistance could go forward so now there's a whole other wrinkle to it right there was the appearance of one based on what investors on represented and you told ambassador taylor about this conversation as well is that right i i promptly reached out to about for taylor to schedule

a secure phone call and in your deposition you testified that his testimony other than one small distinction between president selenski and the prosecutor general was accurate as to what you told him 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 ministerial matter of relating to the location of the meeting is that correct correct now 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 to him what ambassador sunland had said tell the lawyers did you go tell the lawyers when i returned to the states yes and did he explain to you why he wanted you to tell the lawyers you did not now a few days later on september 7th you spoke again to ambassador sunline who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with president trump isn't that right

that sounds great yes what did ambassador sandlin tell you that president trump said to him if i recall the scrubber station correctly this was where investors on one related that. there was no quid pro quo but presidents alinsky had to make the statement and then he had to want to do it and. by that point did you understand that the statement related to the biden in 2016 investigations i think it did yes. and that that was a essentially a condition for the security assistance to be released i understood that that's what investors on believed after speaking with president trump that's what he represented now you testified that hearing this information gave you a sinking feeling well why was that well i believe if we're on september 7th. the end of the fiscal year is a temper 30th these are one year dollars the duty and the department state funds

so we only had so much time and in fact because congress imposed a 15 day notification requirement on the state department fons number 7th september 30th that really means a temper 15th in order to secure a decision from the president to all 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 why did he say to tell the lawyers he did not explain his direction but he's not going to he doesn't tell you to go tell the lawyers because you're running up on the 8 day deadline there right again i don't know why he he directed that but it seems reasonable it's consistent with what i was going to do anyway because and you were going to go tell them because of that that concern bright you were concerned about what you were hearing and busser sandland relay to you correct. so just so we're clear you you reported to concerning conversations that you had with ambassador sandlin to the lawyers in

early september in which you understood from him that the president was withholding 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 sawmill in was was saying were requirements yes right and you understood though that the investigations that ambassador sohn was referring to were the 2 that were president trump reference 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 volcker 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. about her volcker was in town to provide an update on some of his activities. and then he provided that update and then we had a one on one conversation about this this track this separate process and what do

you recall saying to him about the separate process i think i was interested in understanding his 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 what do you do you recall this conversation thank you i i do remember a conversation with him i'm not sure about the timing. i left around that time to go on a trip and so i may have been a little bit earlier not sure about the timing and know what i do remember the discussion being is him asking me what is my impression of the role that ambassador solemn place. and my response to that was well i find it helpful that he has political contacts in the white house that i don't have those contacts and working the national security the diplomatic front but i don't have the political contacts

and so he's able to use those to support the same goals that we are working toward and i view that as helpful well that's a good segue to their next exhibit which is a september 8th text exchange with you and ambassador taylor and ambassador sunline and at the top ambassador sandland says guys multiple convos with z. that selenski period poetess period let's talk and then ambassador taylor about 1516 minutes later says gordon and i just spoke i can brief you meaning you ambassador volker if you and gordon don't connect probably one hour later and ask your taylor says the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance the russians love it and i quit and then at the bottom about 5 hours later how do you respond and say i'm not in the loop to talk monday so you are not in the loop in terms of all of these conversations that ambassador

taylor mr morris and ambassador sunland were having yes that's correct and now ultimately the hold was lifted on september 11th is that right ambassador volcker that's 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 don't believe so no but you were aware of the requests to preserve records were you not. we we received a number of those requests i have a general recollection of one as are waiting to ukraine and one final question when was the hold lifted. as i understand it the president gave a direction the evening of september 11th which is 2 days after congress announced an investigation were you aware that i believe i was familiar with the letter from the 3 committee chairman. that concludes the majority 45 minutes before i turn to the already or you both are counsel ok or do you need a break ok ranking member nunez who recognize for

45 minutes well masser mr morris and i have some bad news for you t.v. ratings are way down way down i don't hold it personally i don't think it's you guys or whatever drug deal the democrats are cooking up here on the dyess american people are buying i know you've both answered this in your opening statements but i just want to bring a little more clarity to it. will start to start with you are did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the white house those are and you were the top person for ukraine in the white house correct at the n.s.c. level i would argue about sort of bolton would be by reporting to investor bolton i was a senior official yes or investor volcker you have

a storied career we're very thankful for your service and you were the special envoy to ukraine that is correct if anyone at the white house ever asked you to bribe or extort anything out of any wanted any time now thank you i want to thank you both for being here and all yield to mr castor. thank you mr innes thank you both for being here today and also for participating in the lengthy depositions vaster volcker you were the 1st one on october 3rd and from our senior with us on how in. so thank you for your participation mr marson i also want to thank you a long time hill staffer i certainly have appreciation for that on nearly 20 years thank you and i'm bassett or volcker had her pennsylvania resident absent credible part of the country very proud of it i'm from nearby. when i walk through some of your positions you are a senate confirmed ambassador to nato for stent that is correct and then you were

at the state department and your portfolio spanned much of what i believe george kent has currently i was the principal deputy assistant secretary so i had all of working for the assistant secretary had all of europe and eurasia and particular responsibility for nato western europe the european union and then you. you're involved in national security council you had a you're the director for nato in western europe and that is correct and then you were the senior director for european and your asian affairs and i was acting for several months 6 months or so ok i didn't much like him to deny mr marson. and we'll know did all the witnesses that we have interacted with have just. heaved praise on you ambassador your vonage said you are a brilliant diplomat so that's very high praise and for over 2 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 didn't you yes i did the taxpayers got there certainly got their money's worth didn't they not for me to say. and. you believe america's policy towards ukraine has been strengthened during your tenure as the special representative absolutely when i look back at the record i think we we did an awful lot to support ukraine is it fair to say that's in part due to president draft president trump approved each of the decisions made along the way. providing lethal lethal defensive equipment and the non-recognition statement on kermie i think being to the most important ones and for many years there have been in the initiative in the inner agency to advocate for lethal defensive weaponry for ukraine is that correct that is correct and it wasn't our president trump and his administration came in that went through that is correct.

the delegation to president selenski inauguration in may. leave you testified it was one of the largest delegations i believe it was i can't be 100 percent sure you watching i was there were listening to the impeachment inquiry into president trump which seeks to establish whether president improperly tried to pressure ukraine's president dyleski to investigate one of his main democratic challenges joe biden for the 20 twentieth's action hearing from key witnesses today tim marston a former national security council official who listened in on a phone call between trump and the ukrainian president and you see there on your screen as a former u.s. special envoy to ukraine who is closely involved in negotiations with the ukrainian officials would you claim he was out of the news in terms of any linkage between the security aid.