after more than four hours of testimony this morning in one

of two impeachment inquiry hearings, the intelligence committee has gavelled out for votes on the house floor, and they have wrapped up as i said part 1 of two hearings today. we want to get your thoughts and what you have heard so far. 202-748-8921 for republicans and 202-748-8822 for independents and for democrats 202-748-8920. and if we have others then we will wait for the calls. lets me show you what president trump had to say earlier today about the testimony. >> please, go. >> can you tell us -- >> i don't know him. i don't know as he said lieutenant colonel, and somebody had the misfortune of calling

him mister and he corrected them, but i never saw the man. he wears the uniform when he goes n butin, but don't know vi. even he said that the transcript is correct. and if anybody reads the tran scripts and i had two calls from the president of ukraine and there was no pressure, none whatsoever ax and th whatsoever, and they probably can't understand what is going on with this country, but vindman, i watched him for a while this morning, and i think that he, i am going to let people make their own determination, but i don't know vindman. i never heard of him, and i don't know any of these people other than i have seen one or two couple of times. they are ambassadors, but these are the names, like taylor. like kent with the bow tie, and wonderful bow tie and maybe i will get one for myself some day, but i don't know who kent is.

i don't know who taylor is. and all of these people are saying that they heard a conversation of the conversation of another conversation that was had by the president. what is going on is a disgrace. it is an embarrassment to the nation, and in the meantime, we can't get usmca approved because nancy pelosi is grossly incompetent. she is incompetent, and you are about to find that out. thank you all very much. president trump earlier today commenting on the testimony of colonel vindman and ms. williams who testified go t caller. good afternoon, i should say now. and what did you think about today's testimony? >> caller: well, you know, i really thought that we were going to get a real stick it moment. you know, we don't have it.

and i don't know how we're going to get trump out of office if we don't have a stick it moment. but nothing, nothing that i heard really made it concrete he did anything other than just wanted to check in on an already existing investigation on biden. are we going to get more? something of more substance that's really going to show america that trump is not a fit president? because i haven't heard anything yet. >> and karen, have you been watching last week and will you continue to watch today and this week? >> caller: yes. yes. >> okay. karen's thoughts there. robert in tennessee, a republican. robert, what do you think? >> caller: i just think this is a sham. i'm totally embarrassed for this american system.

watching it unfold on my eyes right now, and it's just an embarrassment to our country. >> why do you say that, robert? >> caller: just because, i mean, schiff acts like -- you know that schiff has ties with that and he tries to muffle the witnesses as soon as the republicans are getting close to it. >> okay. david in maryland. hi, david. >> caller: hello. yeah. i just -- am i on? >> you are. >> caller: yeah, i think the testimony is underwhelming. i don't think that it really shows something that i think of as a high crime and misdemeanor. i do think it shows to me inappropriate behavior. i think that's something i've seen a lot from trump. i don't like his personality. i don't like the tone that he sets, but i think that impeachment over the evidence that has been presented is really an overreach by democrats. and i'm an independent, myself, but i don't know what i'm going

to do. i don't like trump's personality. i prefer a lot of his policies over the democratic opponents. i can't get behind somebody like bernie sanders or warren. and so i just -- i'm left thinking that this is all going to be very harmful to the american public. even though trump's behavior is inappropriate, i don't think the evidence presented amounts to something that a president ought to get impeached over because you're overturning an election. and that -- i just think it's going to be harmful to our country. >> okay. david there in maryland with his thoughts. well, lawmakers have gavelled out for the -- of the intelligence committee hearing. they are voting on the house floor. there's a series of votes pertaining to a government continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through december 20th. they've got some procedural votes right now. they're expected to take a final vote on that around 2:30, 3:00 p.m. eastern time.

now, the second part of the impeachment inquiry hearings will start around 2:30. we'll see if those votes delay that. kurt volker, the former special envoy to ukraine will be testifying along with tim morrison who's a top russian expert. former top russian expert for the national security council. he ced fiona hill who will be testifying on thursday. both the boss of lieutenant colonel vindman. his name brought up quite a few times today. our coverage continues on c-span3 throughout the afternoon as well as c-span.org and again you can also download that free c-span radio app as well. let's go to yolonda in phoenix. democratic caller. >> caller: yes, i think the -- i think the committee is doing a good job in regard to questioning all these witnesses,

and right now there is no proof of bribery, they used that word several times. but that's what it comes down to. and i never did like trump. i still don't. i think he is a horrible president. and i just hope that the committee can get enough evidence and impeach him. he is not food for the country. he does not care about our intelligence. he doesn't care about other countries that need our help. the man is nothing but a businessman and a horrible one to boot. so i hope that the committee can come up with some solid, good evidence to get this horrible human being out of office.

>> yolonda, you haven't heard it yet? >> caller: yes, i have. i've watched the whole thing. >> who stands out to you? which lawmaker or which person, i guess, in these proceedings stands out to you? their questioning? >> reporter: i thi >> caller: i think the gentleman -- i can't think of his name. he's kind of an emotional -- that's what i thwarted when i was watching. he sits on the bottom floor. he thanked the colonel for his service and he thanked the other person for her service and included, you know, the colonel's father and all this. and he stood out. he stood out for me because that is show iing -- looks like an ethical man.

speaks very eloquently and with a bit of emotion in it. and the head of the committee, he's right in stopping some of these republicans from their rhetoric. i mean, they're constantly attacking obama. they brought up hillary. they don't stay on task. and the task being that this president committed something that no other president has done. >> okay. yolonda, the member of congress that you're thinking of is sean patrick maloney. he's a democrat of new york. and if you go to c-span.org and play back this morning's hearing, you'll see on your video player gold yellow stars at the bottom. that indicates key moments from today's proceedings. one of them is the moment you were talking about in case you want to watch it again.

you can also clip it, send it out on social media as well. trey in oregon, a republican. >> caller: hi there. >> good morning. good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. two things stand out to me. okay? we have lieutenant colonel vindman says he doesn't know who the whistle-blower is. yet his counsel has asked him not to testify to who he had talked to. secondly, adam schiff says he doesn't know who the whistle-blower is and he adamantly stopped him from answering nunes' question on who he had spoken to outside the white house. those two people. so one of those people is the whistle-blower. one of which is protected which

they won't let come in as a witness because of how the whole thing started. secondly is how do they both know -- they both don't know who the whistle-blower is when they stopped everyone from answering the question. so they are definitely hiding stuff. they don't want the truth out. the second thing is the facts have not changed. so far if this were a trau legal proceeding, the first day of witnesses would not even be able to be called because of hearsay, hearsay. so they're telling a story. yeah, there's probably some stuff that may or may not have been questionable that the president has done. but on the other side of it, when you say quid pro quo or bribery, the u.s. government is giving out millions and billions of dollars. but they don't just give them

out without getting something in return. so everything is a quid pro quo or you don't give out a billion dollars without expecting some type of compliance in return. so every president has done that on foreign policy from day one. they're investigating president trump for looking into corruption and bribery and accusing him of doing what he's asked giuliani and attorney barr and everybody to look into from the 2016. the democrats are covering up a lot. >> all right. trey, and by the way, the moment you were talking about where the witness colonel vindman is asked about the other person that he spoke to and the chairman

interrupts, they talk about not wanting to disclose the whistle-blower names. that, too, will be a key moment on our website if you go to c-span.org. you go to this morning. again, you can click on your video player and you'll see all the key moments highlighted there. let's go to sylvester in illinois. sil vester? >> caller: yes. how you doing? >> doing well. what do you think so far? what stan ods out to you? >> caller: well, you know, i've been watching this and watching this. i'm independent. i'm not democrat or republican. but my problem here is both of them are so corrupt. all of our politicians are corrupt. but they want now all of a sudden ever since trump has decided to be the president, now they want to all come out and want to criticize him. but you criticizing him and doing the same thing that he's doing. none of these -- none of our

politicians, they're up there, they been up there for years and years and years. it's time for them to go. we need some young, new blood up there who want to benefit this country. and not all these other countries. i understand we have to help these countries, but we need to take care of america first. take care of these people first. then help these other countries. but my thing is what they're doing now is a joke. i have never seen something like this in all my life. you know the president can't defend himself. i don't care whether i like him or not. he should be able to defend himself. he released the transcript and there is nothing there. all he said there is, hey, can you do me a favor. >> okay. sylvester. we'll take your calls throughout the day when there are breaks in the proceedings. right now we want to bring you back to earlier today.

opening statements by the witnesses. jennifer williams, top aide russia export to vice president pence. and lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. >> thank you, chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, and other members of the committee for the opportunity to provide this statement. i am prepared to answer your questions to the best of my abilities. i've had the privilege of working for three different presidential administrations. two republican and one democratic. i join the state department in 2006 after serving in the department of homeland security under secretary michael ch chertoff. administered by a personal hero of mine. former secretary of state condoleezza rice. as a career officer, i'm committed to serving the american people in advancing american interests abroad.

in support of the president's foreign policy objectives. i've been encouraged in that journey by the thousands of other dedicated public servants who i'm proud to call colleagues across the foreign service, civil service, military, and federal law enforcement agencies. i have served overseas tours in kingston, jamaica, beirut, lebanon, and london, united kingdom. i've worked wi eed on middle ea issues to the depth secretary of state. and this spring, it was the greatest honor of my career to be asked to serve as a special adviser to the vice president for europe and russia. over the past eight months, i've been privileged to work with the dedicated and capable men and women of the president to advance the agenda.

at the national security council, state department, dp of defense, and other agencies to advance and promote u.s. foreign policy objectives. in this capacity, i've advised and prepared the vice president for engagements related to ukraine. . on november 7th, i appeared before the committee for a closed door deposition pursuant to a subpoena. i'd like to take this opportunity to briefly summarize my recollection of some of the events i expect the committee may ask me about. on april 21st, volodymyr zelensky won the ukrainian presidential election. on april 23rd, the president called to congratulate zelensky. during the call which i participated in, the vice president accepted an invitation to attend president zelensky's upcoming inauguration providing the scheduling worked out. the vice president had a narrow window of availability at the end of may and the ukrainian

parliament would not meet to set a date for the inauguration until after may 14th. as a result, we did not expect to know whether the vice president would be -- could attend until may 14th at the earliest. and we made only preliminary trip preparations in early may. on may 13th, an assistant to the vice president's chief of staff called and informed me that president trump had decided that the vice president would not attend the inauguration in ukraine. she did not provide further explanation. i relaid that to others involved in planning the potential trip. so that it cowl identify ahead of dell kags. on july 3rd, i learned that the office of management and budget had placed a hold on fund designated for ukraine. according to the information i receive, omb was aligned with the administration's priorities.

i subsequently attended meetings of the policy coordination committee where the hold on security assistance was discussed. during those meetings, representatives of the state and defense departments advocated that the hold should be lifted. and omb representatives reported that the white house chief of staff had directed that the hold should remain in place. on september 11th, i learned that the hold on security assistance for ukraine had been released. i have never learned what prompted that decision. on july 25th, along with several of my colleagues, i listened to a call between president trump and president zelensky. the contents of which has been publicly reported. prior to july 25th, i had participated in roughly a dozen other presidential phone calls. during my closed door deposition, members of the committee asked about my personal views and whether i had any concerns about the july 25th call. as i testified then, i found the

july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls i had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. after the july 25th call, i provided an update in the vice president's daily briefing book indicating that president trump had a call that day with president zelensky. a hard copy of the memorandum transcribing the call was also included in the book. i do not know whether the president reviewed my update or the transcript. i did not discuss the july 25th call with vice president or any of my colleagues in the office of the vice president or the president. on august 29th, i learned that the vice president would be traveling to poland to meet with president zelensky on september 1st. at the september 1th meeting which i attended, president zelensky asked the vice president about news articles reporting a hold on u.s. security assistance for ukraine. the vice president responded that ukraine had the united

states' unwavering support and promised to relay their conversation to president trump that night. during the september 1st meeting, neither the vice president nor president zelensky mentioned the specific investigations discussed during the july 25th phone call. thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman, ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to address the house permanent select committee on intelligence with respect to activities relating to ukraine and my role in the events under investigation. i've dedicated my life to the united states of america. for more than two decades, it's been my honor as an infantry officer i served multiple overseas tours including south korea and germany and i was deployed to iraq for combat operations. since 2008 i have been a foreign

area officer in political military affairs. in washington, d.c., i was the political military affairs officer for russia, for the chairman of the joints chief of staff. and russian malign influence. in july of 2018, i was asked to serve at the white house national security council. at the nsc, i'm the principal adviser on ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. my role at the nsc is to coordinate policies to go through the full range and economic national security issues the countries in my portfolio. my core function is to coordinate policy with departments and agencies. the committee has heard from many of my colleagues about the strategic importance of ukraine as a work against russian aggression. it is important to note that our

country's policy of supporting ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, promoting ukraine prosperity, instructing a free and democratic ukraine as a counterto russian aggression has been a consistent bipartisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations. and that president zelensky's election created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our strategic objectives. in the spring of 2019, i became aware of two disruptive actors primarily ukraine's then-prosecutor and rudy giuliani promoting false narratives that undermined the united states' ukraine policy. the nsc and the interagency partners including the state department grew concerned about the impact that such information was having on our country's ability to achieve our national security objectives. on april 21st, 2019, volodymyr

zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform. president trump called president zelensky on april 21st, 2019, to congratulate him on his victory. i was the staff officer who produced the call materials and was one of the staff officers who listened to the call. the call was positive and president trump kpres xpressed desire to work with zelensky and extended an invitation to visit the white house. in may i attended the inauguration of zelensky. following the visit, the members of the delegation after the debriefing, president trump signed a letter to president zelensky and extended another invitation to visit the white house. on july 10, 2019, danyliuk visited washington, d.c. for a

meeting with national security adviser bolton. ambassador volker and sondland and secretary rick perry also attended the meeting i attended. we fully anticipated they would meet the meeting between the presidents. ambassador bolton cut the meeting short when ambassador sondland started to speak about ukraine delivering investigations in order to secure the meeting with president trump. following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which ambassador sondland emphasized ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016 elections, the bidens, and ba ru -- burisma. i stated this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. dr. hill also implemented. on july 21st, 2019, president zelensky won a parliamentary

election in another landslide victory. the nsc promoted that president trump call zelensky to congratulate him. on july 25th, 2019, the call occurred. i listened in on the call in the situation room with white house colleagues. i was concerned by the call. what i heard was inappropriate. and i reported my concerns to mr. isenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. but i was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation -- it was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens and ba reeurisma, itd result in ukraine lawsing bipartisan support, undermaining u.s. security, and advancing russia in the region. i want to emphasize in the committee when i reported my

concerns relating to ambassador sondland and then july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i proouft privately reported bys in the proper channels in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had national security implications for our country. i never thought that i'd be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american public about my actions. when i reported my concerns, my thought was to carry out my duty. to advance the president's and our country's foreign policy objectives. i focused on what i have done throughout my military career. promoting national security spres. i want to take the moment to recognize my colleagues who have appeared and are scheduled to appear here. the character attacks on these honorable public servants is

reprehensible. this has been the custom of our country since the time of our founding fathers. but we are better than personal attacks. the uniform i wear today is that of the united states army. the members of our all volunteer force are made up of a patchwork of people from all ethnicities, regions, socioeconomic backgrounds who come together under a common oath to protect and defend the united states of america. i am humbled to come before y you -- the army is the only profession i have ever known. that gave my family refuge from oppression. for the last 20 years it has been an honor to represent and protect this great country.

when my father was 47 years old, he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the united states so his three sons could have a better and safer life. his decision inspired a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and mays and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. all three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. my little brother's here behind me tea. our collective military service is a special part of our family's story in america. i also recognize my simple act of appearing here today just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this committee would not be tolerated in many places an the world. in russia my act of expressing concern to the chain of command

in an official and private channel would have repercussions and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. i am grateful to my father -- for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an american citizen and public servant where i can live free. free of fear for mine and my family's safety. dad, i'm sitting here today in the u.s. capitol talking to our elected professionals is proof you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union and come 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 thank you again for your consideration. i'll be happy to answer your questions. >> those were the opening statements of this morning's witnesses. carol lenning of "the washington

post" tweeted out today new information that the army said they're ready to relocate lieutenant colonel alex vindman and his family to an army base to protect him. comes after the president and gop allies have attacked the impeachment witness. his testimony earlier today and the white house issuing a statement from the white house press secretary this afternoon saying we have learned nothing new in today's illegitimate impeachment proceedings. however, buried among the witnesses' personal opinion and transcripts released to the public, both said the transcript was accurate and nothing president trump. today's hearing only further exposes that they are simply blinded by their hatred to president trump. again, that is from the white house pres secretary this afternoon about this morning's

impeachment hearing. we're learning this afternoon's hearings are slated to start around 3:15, 3:30 p.m. eastern time because of the votes taking place on the house floor right now. and as we told you, those votes related to a continuing resolution to keep this government funded through december 20th. until then, more of your reaction to the impeachment inquiry hearings today. charles in ohio. democratic caller. >> caller: how you doing? >> hi. >> caller: i was calling because you think the truth was told. neither party -- neither people that had to give their testimony today had no reason to lie. so let's start with that. and they -- and the whole america and whoever else watching that they won't sta-- l stand to protect the country.

their job was to protect country first. they're not for no president democrat or republican. their job is to protect america first of all. first of all, let's lay that out. i don't see nothing wrong with this. we need to get down to the bottom of it. it seems democrats are getting down to it. like today, the president voice on the phone. we supposed to help other countries too. we can't do it by ourselves. once we turn our back on other countries, they will not help us in the end. >> okay. a republican in arizona. you're next. >> caller: yes. i'd like to state that i'm appalled by adam schiff and his behavior and his comments that he's even still leading this

committee. and i think we need to call him out more so than the president of the united states. so far after watching the hearing and listening to individuals who do not like what they've heard does not make it illegal or wrong. shame on them. the president's job is to protect america, protect the citizens of the united states, and that is what he's doing. he's slowly starting to drain the swamp. thank you. >> okay. janice in maine. >> caller: thank you. i'd like to speak to the last caller's comment. >> okay. >> caller: you know with there's a big difference between protecting our country and risking our national security. and that's exactly what the president did when he, you know,

turned -- you know, he conditioned the aid and a why is visit on, you know, the political -- on a political investigation. and he is the one who is risking the national security of this country. and it's very distressing to see how at odds they are over the truth, over facts. >> have you been watching last week and again today? >> caller: i've watched the entire -- and i think all of the witnesses that have been, you know, in front of the committee, i think they're all credible, they're all telling the truth, and they're being summaried. it's reprehensible.

>> which witness or which evidence in your opinion stands out to you the most so far? >> caller: well, i think it's a culmination. i think with taylor and kent and ya vovanovitch yovanovitch, they, you know, laid the foundation. and they showed, you know, there were machinations against, you know, that giuliani was creating all this. and now today we have the phone call and i can't wait to hear from fiona hill. i think, you know -- i mean -- i think they're all -- and it pains me to hear them characterize them as keep state. these are professional, experienced career officials. just like a doctor. just like a lawyer who has a career. and to call them deep state,

what do they want? to load the government with, you know, people who have no experience? where would we be then? >> what about gordon sondland who's going to testify tomorrow? >> caller: oh, i can't wait for that. i mean, i hope he tells the truth. i really do. he should. he should save himself. >> okay. >> caller: this event is not going to help him. >> all right. carol in missouri. democratic caller. >> caller: this is she. >> you are on the air. we're listening to you. >> caller: all right. i just want to say that colonel vindman and jennifer williams are both very credible witnesses. i watched last week, the same there. amazing, amazing people who will stand up for our country and tell the truth in a nonpartisan fashion. we should applaud all of these people who have come forward.

we should not denigrate them and try to mess with them. and the republicans are not even intelligent enough to come up with credible questions. it's attack. it's just shameful. and to speak plainly about president trump, his only defense is the one that he always yauzs. i don't know him or them. she's not my type. you know what i'm talking about. you watch the news. and the republicans have no legitimate talks point in trump's defense, so they deflect, lie, and denigrate others and the democrats. >> all right. carol's thoughts there in missouri. we'll go to ronald who's a republican in north carolina. ronald, help me with the name of your town.

>> caller: i just been watching this thing from the beginning. the question that remains in my mind is the whistle-blower. i've heard all of them speak about the whistle-blower and nobody seems to know who the whistle-blower is. therefor, how can they be a whistle-blower if nobody knows who it is? that kind of confuses me. as a minister, i look at this thing and i see a lot of bitterness that's being put forth. and to me i think it's damaging a lot of people in our country. the people in our country are starting to really go in a very negative way. i don't think god is really pleased with what's happening. you know, to me if they want to come to a rez laugs of what's going on, why don't they give

those american people the chance to vote just like we would vote for the president. that would be fair to me. >> you want to vote on impeachment? >> caller: give us a chance to have our voice in it. because that's the way it should be, to my opinion. >> okay. barbara, garland, texas. what do you think? >> caller: well, yes. i've been watching this for quite some time. and to speak briefly about what this previous gentleman just had to say about the whistle-blower, the whistle-blower is protected by law, his identity. that's for his safety and his protection for himself and his family. therefore he should not be outed. the whistle-blower in the nixon scandal was not outed until, i believe it was 2002 when he was like 95 yaers old. but that's not why i called. >> okay. >> caller: i called to say i've

been listening to this with an open mind. and the more i hear, the more i believe that donald trump has been nothingtried to enrich himself and his family. and he has used ukraine for his own political gains. this is against the constitution. he is guilty of extortion and bribery. and that alone should be enough. and the threats that he's made via twitter on all of the witnesses so far has really disgusted and embarrassed me as a whole. as a whole, the entire country should be embarrassed for donald trump. >> barbara, you said you started out listening to this with an open mind. did you vote for the president in 2016? >> caller: i voted in the election, but i did not vote for donald trump. >> okay. voted for hillary clinton?

>> caller: yes, ma'am. >> okay. and why do you say then that you -- or why was it important to you, i should ask, that you listen to this with an open mind? >> caller: any trial, inquiry should be entered into with an open mind. you should be willing to listen to both sides. a i've yet to hear any sides o on the republican side other than to besmirch the witnesses. even today with lieutenant colonel vindman was reprehensible. they have not put any evidence so far except to denigrate the witnesses. >> okay. and on your screen, i'll point out to our viewers tim morrison making his way into the building ragt next to where we are this

afternoon premaring fining -- pg for his testimony. earlier we saw the former special envoy to ukraine, ambassador kurt volker, make his way inside as well. so those two gentlemen getting ready to sit in the witness chair end zone the committee room which will get underway, we understand, around 3:15, 3:30 p.m. eastern time due to these house votes on the floor. in the meantime, we're getting reaction to what you heard this morning, what your thoughts are on this impeachment inquiry. just a note for you, you can continue to watch this afternoon into the late afternoon, possibly this evening part two of today's impeachment inquiry hearings here on c-span3, on our website c-span.org, or you can listen if you download the free c-span radio app. sherry in ohio. democratic caller. sherry, your thoughts? >> caller: hi. i've been watching the hearings

and what i wanted to comment on is the fact that we have a congress that won't meet on this important event. we have -- i'm from ohio, and the congressman from ohio on the republican side who have attacked the witnesses are an embarrassment for ohio. specifically jim jordan. and the witnesses are dedicated to our country. they have no interest -- and to denigrate them to attempt to intimidate them is beyond the pail.

i'm just embarrassed that we're doing this. and the republicans act as though they're in a trial. this is an inquiry. when it goes to the senate, it becomes a trial. do your due diligence and be a congressman for the state that elected you. and follow the constitution. but defend him with common sense and legal information, not den kbrating these individuals who come forward at the risk of being intimidated by the

president of the united states who doesn't care about anyone but himself. >> all right. sherry mentioning jim jordan, a lawmaker from ohio, republican. he was put on the intelligence committee -- in case some of our vauers don't know -- by the house republican leadership before these impeachment inquiry hearings began, the public ones. before they began last week. jacob in san antonio, texas. we're getting your thoughts on what you've heard so far today. what do you think? all right. let's move on to cindy in indiana. republican. >> caller: hi. first of all, i'm a republican, obviously, and i came into this with an open mind. i've watched all of the trial. and i first want to say that i really wanted to know what they could come up with for the

impeachment. i haven't seen or heard a single thing that would justify an impeachment. i think that schiff is very bias to -- as a democrat and country want to hear other truths. and i wouldn't have wanted to -- i wouldn't think that the president would want to release fun to a country until they get to know this new president and find out what he, you know, thinks about the, you know, what he's going to be like. because the former one was obviously not a very fogood president. so i would not want to release until he had a background. and he did, in fact, release it. so these are all hearsays to me. >> cindy, after the phone call, the memo of the july 25th phone call was released, president

trump was asked by reporters outside the white house before he left the grounds, what specifically he wanted when he asked the ukrainian president on that phone call about the investigations. and he said he wanted investigations into the former vice president and his son. are -- do you think that that tape of investigation would have politically hurt the former vice president in the 2020 election cycle? and if so, do you think it's appropriate for our president to ask a foreign ladier for that type of investigation? >> caller: well, first of all, biden's son was questioned quite some time ago about why he's with this company. and with no former experience. i would want to know if there is corruption going on there.

i don't think what the son does has to do with what biden's election would be. this is simply an investigation for corruption. what else did you ask, i'm sorry? >> that's okay. we'll leave it there. we're going to mike. we're going to get a couple more phone calls here. mike in hudson, new hampshire. mike, your thoughts. >> caller: hi. how's it going? i just want to say i didn't really care for hillary or trump, so i'm pretty unbiased here. but during the past three years, how can anyone take this seriously when for day one they're trying to impeach the president with nothing? and then they find this little thing and in my opinion, this is little. a quid pro quo by saying do me a favor. it's not that big of a deal to me, to be honest with me. whether it's legal or not, i don't know. how -- this is a sham. it really is a sham to me.

i'm not liking this schiff guy. he's very biased. he definitely doesn't let republicans talk as much on the last one. last weak. it's a sham. i don't know how people can't see it. i'm pretty fair. i like democrat policies. i like republican policies. i don't have an agenda here, but this is dumb. how do you -- from day one and then now we're supposed to take this seriously? if you have any reasoning at all, how do you not see this is just some democrat way of going, oh, we found a way to get rid of trump. let's use it. this is ridiculous. >> okay. mike in hudson, new hampshire. john in delaware. democratic caller. >> caller: yeah. see, here's the thing. for months, for years it females

li -- feels like, the media has been showing two sides of the story. from the democratic side, i can say that i feel as a democrat that i am given a majority of facts. and while i realize there is some sensationalism in the media, i feel that a lot of media including worldwide media corroborates the things that i learn. and then i listen to a lot of the republican points and i have a lot of trouble understanding where they get their information from, where they get their facts. and this seems to constantly bleed into everything else that republicans are saying including in this impeachment hearing. you hear republicans not only using the psasame rhetoric and language including the listeners on here, you also hear a lot of this misinformation or these alternative facts that simply don't make sense. since day one, i mean, even if

you know about trump before he became a president, you woul kn -- would know that this man is a con artist. this man has failed businesses. this man has failed his employees. he's a reason why atlantic city took such a huge hit. but even afterwards ladying all the way up to this, all these pieces fit like a puzzle. and maybe we'll have a single piece here, single piece there. but vemplgly this puzzle is going to be put together and all of america is going to see that this man was just plainly a con artist that became a president. >> well, john, the testimony continues this afternoon. with kurt volker and tim morrison. that expected to happen around 3:15, 3:30. when the house of representatives finishes with the final vote that's happening right now over on c-span 1. and that is final passage on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded until december 20th. we're going to keep taking your

calls. we'll get to more in a little bit. but first we want to go back to earlier today and show you in case you missed it, some of the questioning of the witnesses and we'll begin with the chair adam schiff. >> we'll now begin a period of five-minute questions from the members. i recognize myself for five minutes. want to ask you both about some of the questions you were asked by my colleagues in the minority. first if i could ask you ms. williams and colonel vindman. you were asked a series of questions at the outset. were you aware of the fact that and there was a recitation of information about burisma, the bidens. is it fair to say you have no firsthand knowledge of the matters asked in those questions? >> that's correct. >> that is correct. >> ms. williams, you were asked a series of questions about the vice president's schedule and whether he could have made the

inauguration or was the president traveling or the trip to canada. let's be clear about manager. you were instructed the president had told the vice president not to go before he even knew the date of the inauguration, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> so at the time he was told not to go, there was no calculation about where he might be or where the president might be because the date hadn't even been set yet, is that right if. >> that's right. the date had not been set, so we were weighing a number of different scenarios of when the inauguration might fall. >> now, i think you said that originally the president had told him to go. and then you received the instruction that the president no longer wanted him to go. were you aware in the interim between the president telling him to go or telling him not to go, that rudy giuliani had to abort a trip he was going to make to ukraine? >> i had seen that in the press,

yes. >> and had you seen in the press that rudy giuliani blamed people around zelensky for having to cancel the trip? >> for having to cancel his trip? >> yes. >> i read that in the press reporting, yes. >> did you read in the press reporting also that giuliani wanted to go to yukraine to as e put it not meddle in the election but meddle in investigations? >> i did read that, yes. >> and that occurred prior to the president canceling the vice president's trip to the inauguration? >> it did. i believe it was around may 10th or so. >> colonel vindman, you were asked by the minority counsel about the president's words in the july 25th call. and whether the president's words were ambiguous. was there any ambiguity about the president's use of the word biden? >> there was not.

>> it was clear that the president wanted zelensky to commit to investigating the bidens, was it not in. >> that is correct. >> that is one of the favors that you thought should be properly characterized as a demand? >> that is correct. >> and there's no ambiguity about that? >> in my mind, there was not. >> it's also true, is it not, that these two investigations that the president asked zelensky for into 2016 and into the bidens were precisely the two investigations that rudy giuliani was calling for publicly, were they not? >> that is correct. >> when people suggest maybe rudy giuliani was acting on his own and maybe he was a freelancer or whatever, the president referred to exactly the same two investigations rudy giuliani was out pushing on his behalf, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now, ms. williams, you were asked about the meeting the vice

president had with zelensky in september. in which the ukrainians brought up their concern about the hold on the security assistance. is that right? >> that's right. >> and you were asked about whether in that meeting between the president zelensky the bidens came up and you said they did not. >> that is correct, they did not. >> now, that meeting was a large meeting that involved two or three dozen people, wasn't it many. >> it was. >> so in the context of this meeting with two or three dozen people, the vice president didn't bring up those investigations, correct? >> no, he did not bring up those investigations. he's never brought up those investigations. >> were you aware that immediately and i mean immediately after that meeting broke up, ambassador sondland has said that he went over to mr. yermak, one of the top advisers to zelensky and told yermak that if they wanted the military aid, they were going to

have to do these investigations or words to that effect? >> i was not aware at the time of any meeting -- side meetings that ambassador sondland had following the vice president's meeting with president zelensky. i've only learned that through a.m. b ambassador sondland's testimony. >> you can't speak to the private meeting that was held therefore? >> correct. the vice president moved on with his schedule imly after his meeting with president zelensky. >> now, colonel vindman, i want to go back to that july 10th or meetings. the one with ambassador bolton and the one in the ward room that followed quickly on its heels. were you aware that ambassador bolton instructed your superior dr. hill to go talk to the lawyers after that meeting? >> i learned shortly after she was finished talking to ambassador bolton and after we

wrapped up with the room that she did have a meati ingmeeting. >> now, you thought you should talk to the lawyers on your own, correct? >> that is my recollection, yes. >> but bolton also thought that dr. hill should talk to the lawyers because of his concern over this drug deal that giuliani was cooking up, is that right? >> that is my understanding. >> and in fact, this drug deal as bolton called it involved this conditioning of the white house meeting on the investigations that sondland brought up, is that right? >> that is my understanding. >> and in fact, this same conditioning or this same issue of wanting these political investigations and tying it to the white house meeting, this came up in the july 25th call,

did it not, when the president asked for these investigations? >> that is correct. >> so the very same issue that bolton said to hill, go talk to the lawyers. the very same issue that prompted you to go talk to the lawyers ends up coming up in that call with the president. is that right? >> that is correct. >> and it was that conversation that once again led you back to the lawyer's office? >> that is correct. >> and i yield to the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, you took seven minutes so i assume you're going to give us equal time in. >> yes, mr. nunes. >> thank the gentleman. lieutenant colonel vindman, before i turn to mr. jordan, i asked miss williams about this, about if she had ever accessed without authorization fellow employees' computer system. she answered no to the question.

have you ever accessed anyone's computer system at the nsc without authorization? >> without their knowledge? no. >> knowledge or authorization? >> i'm sorry? >> knowledge or authorization. you never accessed someone's computer without their knowledge or authorization? >> correct. >> mr. jordan? >> i thank the ranking member. colonel, i want to thank you for your service and sacrifice to our great country. this afternoon your former boss mr. morrison is going to be sitting where you're sitting and he's going to testify. i want to give you a chance -- i think we're bringing you a copy. i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the things mr. morrison said in his deposition, page 82 of the transcript from mr. morrison. mr. morrison said this. i had concerns about lieutenant colonel vindman's judgment. among the discussions i had with dr. hill and the transition was our team, its strength, its weaknesses. and fiona and others had raised

concerns about alex's judgment. when mr. morrison was asked by mr. castor, did anyone bring concerns to you that they believe colonel vindman leaked something? mr. morrison replied yes. so your boss had concerns about your judgment. your former boss dr. hill had concerns about your judgment. your colleagues had concerns about your judgment and had concerned you leaked information. any reason they have that impression? >> yes. i guess i'll start by reading dr. hill's own words as she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of july right before she left. before she left. alex is a top military 1% officer and best military officer i worked with our 15 years of service. he is unflammable and exercises excellent judgment. exemplary during numerous

visits. i think you get the idea. mr. morrison -- yeah, the date of that was -- yeah, let's see, i'm sorry, july 13th. so mr. jordan, i would say that i can't say what mr. morrison -- why mr. morrison questioned my judgment. we had only recently started working together. he wasn't there very long and just trying to figure out our relationship. mib it was different cultures. >> colonel, you never leaked information. >> i never did, never would. nas -- nas prepost-rouse that i would do that. >> okay, colonel, it's interesting we depose a lot of people in the bunker basements of the capitol in the last self-weeks. all the depositions only three we deposed on the somewhat now famous july 25th phone line. you and the individual sitting

beside you miss williams and mr. morrison mo i just read from his deposition. when we asked miss williams who she spoke to after the call about the call she was willing to answer question and chairman shif loud her to answer our question. when we spoke to mr. morrison, he was willing to answer our question and mr. shif -- chairman schiff loud him to answer our questions. but asking you us first told us three individuals at nsc, your brother and two lawyers and then you said a group of other people you kmujted with with you only one individual in the group. secretary kent and the chairman only allowed to be given that name whoa you asked who else you communicated with. i want to know how many other people are in the group of people you communicated outside the individuals i just named. >> mr. jordan on call readout certainly after the first call there were half a dozen or more people i read out. those are people with the proper

clearance and the need to know. and in in case, because of the sensitivity of the call and mr. eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else i only read out outside of the nsc two individuals. >> two individuals. >> that's kent and one other person. >> you're not willing to tell us the other individual. >> mr. chairman, buoyant point of order. >> mr. chairman point of order. >> the gentleman mr. suspend council. >> mr. chairman i ask you to enforce the rult with regard to disclosure with regard to the intelligence officer. >> thank you, council. as i indicated before, this committee will not be used to out the whistle-blower. that same -- mr. chairman. >> you are recognized against mr. jordan. >> mr. chairman, i don't see how this is outing a whistle-blower. the witness has testified in his deposition he doesn't know the whistle-blower. you have saved even though know one believes you you have said you don't know the whistle-blower. sop how is this outing the

whistle-blower to find out who this individual is? >> mr. jordan, this is your time for questioning. you can use it any way you like but questions should be addressed to the witness and not addressed to trying to out the whistle-blower. >> koernld veined many another thing from the deposition. he said there was nothing illegal or improper on the call but he was concern about the call leaking, the contents of the call leaking. >> excuse knee. >> he said that, he was concerned how it would play out in washington's polarized environment, how the contents, would be used in washington's political process. >> excuse me. >> mr. morrison was right. >> excuse me, mr. jordan could i get a page? >> page 44. >> thank you mr. morrison was right. the call leaks. the whistle-blower goes to chairman schiff's staff then runs to the lawyer, the same lawyer who said in january of 2017, the coup has started against president trump.

unone thing the democrats didn't -- they didn't count on, one thing they didn't count on was the president releasing the call transcript and letting us all see what he said. they didn't count on that. the transcript shows no linkage. the two individuals on the call have both said no pressure, no pushing no linkage but the security assistance dlarps to an investigation. miss williams. after the call on the 25th, we know that colonel veinedman talked to several people. after the call on the 25th how many people did you talk to about the call. >> didn't speak to anybody about the call. >> didn't speak to anybody. >> i yield back. >> himes. >> i ask unanimous kernt consent to intern the lieutenant colonel's performance review into the record. >> may i inquire coloneled

veinman, if he would it not be in the record i leave it to you. >> with redactions it has p.i.i. that should be protected and maybe the only elements that are relevant are the narrative. >> chairman. >> did you read the relevant portions or. >> i mean, that was the short version. there were some other appraises in there. >> i'll withdraw my request. >> thank you. >> thank you both for your testimony. ms. williams you joined the force service in 2006 correct. >> correct. >> part to being becoming a non-partisan field official you worked for the bush cheney chain in 2004 and held a political appointment in the department of homeland security under secretary cherdoff is that correct. >> that's correct. >> now as a foreign service officer you served three presidents one republican two democrats in a variety of roles. >> that's correct. >> you advised presidents on forms forwards europe and russia is that correct. >> that's correct. >> ms. williams on president

personal targeted you in a twet after he targeted ambassador yovanovitch during her hearing testimony. i'd i'd like to read you the tweet reading tell jennifer williams whoever that is to read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released statement from ukraine and meet with the other never trumpers who i don't know and mostly never heard of and work out a better presidential attack. ms. yms are you engaged in a presidential attack. >> no, sir. >> are you a never trumper. >> i'm not sure i know of a an official definition of a never trumper. >> would you describe yourself that way. >> i would not, no. >> did that tweet make an impression on you when you read it? >> it certainly surprised me. i was not expecting to be called out by name. >> it surprised me too and looked a lot like witness tepp tampering and intimidation and in an effort to get to you shape

your testimony today. lieutenant colonel, you previously testified that you've dedicated for entire professional life to the united states of america. colonel, above your left breast you are wearing a device which is a springfield musket on a blue field what is that device. >> combaten fantryman badge. >> how do you get that badge. >> you have to be serving in a brigade and below a tactic the unit a front line unit in combat. >> under fire. >> correct. >> you're also wearing a purple heart. can you tell us in 20 or 30 seconds why you are wearing a purple heart. >> in 2014 in the ramp up to probably the largest urban operations -- urban operation in decades outside of falujia we

were conducting a reconnaissance patrol and my vehicle was struck by a ied. >> were you injured. >> i was. >> the day after you appeared for your deposition, the president called you a nefrp trumper. colonel vindman would you call yourself a never trumper. >> representative, i'd call myself never partisan. >> thank you. colonel vind many you served under four presidents, two democrats and two republicans have you ever waivered from the oath you took to support and defend the constitution. >> never do you have any political motivations for appearance here today. >> none. >> colonel, multiple right-wing conspiracy theorists including rudy giuliani have accused you of hashering loyalty towards ukraine. making the accusations based on the accurate if a that your family like many american families emigrated to the united states.

accused up of espionage and dual loyalties. we have seen that in this room this morning, the three minutes spent asking you about the offer made to make you the minister of defense, that may have come cloaked in a brooks brothers suit and in parliamentary language but that was designed exclusively to give the right-wing media an opening to question your loyalties. and i -- i want people to understand what that was all about. it's the kind of attack -- it's the thing you say when you defend the indefensible. it's what you say when it's not enough to attack the media, the way the ranking member gave over his opening statement orp attack the democrats but what you stoop to when the indefensibility of your requires that you attack a man wearing a springfield rifle on a field of blue above a purple heart. i, sir, thank you for your service. and yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conway. >> i have i yelled my five

minutes to mr. ratcliffe. >> speaker pelosi said that president trump committed the crime of bribery evidenced in the call with president zelensky. in concert with that multiple the democratic members of this committee gave tv appear radio interviews over the past week discussing how the president's conduct supported his impeachment for bribery all of which struck me as odd, because processor for the longest time this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistle-blower complaint. bup after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible we saw a shift from the democrats. they briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the july 25th call as extortion and now it shifted to bribery.

ms. williams to used the word unusual to describe the president's call last -- or on july 25th. lieutenant colonel vindman you used the word inappropriate and improper. i've word searched each of your transcripts. and the word bribry or bribe doesn't appear anywhere in that. ms. williams you've never used the word bribery or bribe to explain president trump's conduct, correct. >> no, sir. >> colonel, you haven't either? >> that is correct. >> the problem is in an impeachment inquiry that the speaker of the house says is all about bribery, where broibry is the impeachable offense, no witness has used the word bribery to describe president trump's conduct. none of them. these aren't all of the deposition transcripts.

these are just the ten that have been released. six weeks of witness interviews in in impeachment inquiry, hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of questions asked, thousands of answers given. the number of times that witnesses have been asked any questions about whether or not president trump's conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yovanovitch was asked by my colleague congressman stewart last thursday is zero. the number of times witnesses have used the word bribery or bribe to describe president trump's conduct in the last six weeks of the inquiry is zero. in fact, in these 3,500 pages of sworn deposition testimony in just the ten transcripts released thus far, the word bribery appears in these 3,500 pages exactly one time.

and ironically it appears not a description of president trump's alleged conduct. it appears in a description of vice president boyden's alleged conduct. this is important because as early as next week my democratic cleeks going to say we need to vote on the evidence of the impeach. inquiry and send a report to the judiciary. and because there are more democrats than republicans it's it's going to pass. and when that happens the american people need to scleer that what they zroib as broibry not a single witness is describing as bribry. we heard many times in the course of the proceeding that the facts of the president's are not in dispute. but the american people are asking if the facts are the same why do the crimes that the president is being acquiesced of keep thing go from quid pro quo to extortion now to bribery.

chairman nunes told you the answer. the answer is apology. "washington post" asked what would be the most damning. it came back as bribry. in case is all about bribery. it's bad enough the democrats haves foreboden white house lawyers from participating in the proceeding. it's hard enough to defend yourself without your lawyers present. but what's worse is trying to defend yourself against accusation that keeps changing in the middle of the proceeding. if democrats accused the president of high crime or impeachable offense he ought to know which it is. and when speaker says this is all about bribery, she has promised us evidence of bribery that would be compelling and overwhelming and instead it's invisible. i yield back. >> miss sewell. >> mr. chairman i'd like to join everyone in thanking both of our witnesses for your service.

lieutenant colonel vindman, as part of your policy portfolio in the white house you maintain a relationship with ukrainian officials, do you not. >> that is correct. >> you explained earlier in your testimony that your job within the white house was to coordinate united states and ukraine policy. is that right? >> it is to coordinate u.s. policy vis-a-vis ukraine, correct. >> you testified in the spring of in year that these officials, ukrainian officials began asking you, quote, advice on how to respond to mr. giuliani's advances, end quote. is that correct. >> that's correct. >> what do you think they meant by mr. giuliani's advances? >> i understood that to mean both public commentary -- publicly calling for investigations in 2016 burisma and hunter biden, as well as his

direct overtures to the government of ukraine, directly and through proxies. that's what i understood. >> and as understand it, under whose authority mr. julyny do you think was acting un. >> congresswoman, i don't know. >> did the ukrainian officials you spoke to understand that mr. giuliani was telling them to investigate vice president biden's son and debunk the 2016 conspiracy theories? >> i'm sorry, can you say that again, ma'am. >> do you think that the ukrainian officials you spoke to understood the underlining meaning of mr. giuliani's advances to be both investigating the bidens as well as debunking the 2016 conspiracy theories? >> yes, injury to be clear, i think you're referring to debunking that it was a refreshen interference. >> exactly. >> and somehow implicating that it was ukrainian interference. i'm not sure. >> exactly.

now was in official u.s. foreign policy to push for investigation into the bidens? >> it was not part of any process i participate in. >> ms. williams due agree that pressing the few investigations was inconsistent with official u.s.-ukraine policy? >> obviously anti-corruption reforms is a big part of our policy. >> i -- >> i understand -- i was not in a position to determine whether the particular investigations were appropriate. >> that's fair. colonel, is it true that president trump directed the ukrainian president on the call in july 25th to work with mr. giuliani on these investigations? >> that is correct. >> in fact, mr. giuliani has made no secret of the fact that he is acting on behalf of president trump, as mr. julyny told "the new york times" -- i'm putting this on the screen -- he told them, quote, my only client is the president of the united states. he is the one i have to obligation to report to, tell him -- and to tell him what

happens. he added the investigations would be, quote, very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government," end quote. colonel is it fair to say that ukrainian officials that you are on a daily basis -- you're in contact with given your portfolio were concerned about mr. julyny's advances? >> yes, they were. >> in kwlor assessment did they understand the political nature of the request being asked of them? >> i believe they did. >> did they understand that it was affecting u.s. domestic policy? >> i'm not sure what they frankly understood about u.s. -- i think they understood the implications, yes. >> you testified earlier that you warned the ukrainians not to get involved in u.s. domestic policy. that is right? >> i counselled them. >> counselled them. in fact, you testified that

they -- that you felt like it was important that you were espousing not just what you thought but what tradition and policy of the united states to say that. >> it's what i knew for a fact to be u.s. policy. >> why do you think it's important for foreign governments not to get involved in political affairs of a nation pliek the united states? >> congresswoman, the first thought that comes to mind is russian entertains -- interference in 2016. the impact it had on internal politics and the consequences for russia itself. >> exactly. >> this administration enforced sanctions -- heavy sanctions against russia for in re interference. that would not be in u.s. policy -- >> -- dsh colonel i'm running out of time. >> i'm sorry. >> is it normal for a private stan, a non-u.s. government official to get involved in

foreign policy, foreign affairs, like mr. giuliani. >> i don't know if i have the experience to say that. but it certainly wasn't helpful and didn't help advance u.s. national security interests. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> and we are back live for this everyone a's impeachment inquiry hearing. the room is filling up. reporters are poised and ready for the witnesses to enter the room. we'll take you there now. live coverage here on cspan3.