we will check in to see how heavy the wind may get. >> mike is watching the rails and roads ahead. "today in the bay" continues right now. good morning to you. thanks for starting your morning with us. i'm marcus washington. >> we are going to have impeachment coverage on nbcbayarea.com and you can follow us. a newscast will start right now. you can follow us with local news, worth, and traffic or online in our app. >> we will get to that. the important testimony starts this morning, we will switch over to that. we are going to continue our newscast this morning on nbcbayarea.com as well as on our nbc bay area app. right nou gw get a look -- not morning traffic but talk about the weather. get to the traffic in a moment.

>> colder today and you may want to wear your sweater all day long as we will have changes here. the wind is picking up. let's see how the morning shapes up in los gatos. in the 50s throughout the day and mostly sunny skies. red flag warning and high fire danger we will see for the bay area hills. this starts tomorrow morning and continues into thursday morning areas for the red shaded areas. i'll break it down coming up in a few minutes. mike, you continue to track that major crash in the north bay? >> right. highway 29. unincorporated napa county but a critical two lanes. one lane each direction, in fact, this area. a closure from an overnight crash and two ways to get there to silverado trail to avoid the crash activity. it's longer but it goes past the

rumbine winery there. west 37, upper east shore freeway and highway 4. disabled vehicle removed from 680 and same thing for the crash at telegraph but may be a fender bender approaching the bei bay bridge. i'm get an update coming up. a live look at capitol hill. right now, next wave of witnesses are starting their public impeachment testimony. >> nine witnesses testifying the next three days. today in the day craig boswell is live on capitol hill with a look at what to expect. >> reporter: good morning, everyone. an eventful day on capitol hill. lawmakers getting into place and waiting on the witnesses now to show up. democrats calling four witnesses today in what is expected to be a marathon day. week two of high stakes hearings under way.

nine witnesses scheduled to testify over the next three days. house democrats making their case of abuse of power by president trump when withholding military aid to ukraine in exchange for investigates of the president's political rival. >> we have to be laser focused what is the impeachable conduct. >> reporter: four officials scheduled to testified today and three listening in on the july 25th phone call between president trump and the ukrainian president. the call at the center of the impeachment inquiry. >> i think you're going to see continued attack on president and continued attack there was nothing that was wrong and nothing improper. >> reporter: lawmakers will hear from jennifer williams, top adviser to vice president mike pence. in released scripts calling it unusual and inappropriate and trump's request was a political agenda. president trump suggested monday he may consider testifying after the house speaker suggested it. >> i think two chances slim and none and slim just left the room.

>> reporter: in the afternoon volker and morrison answer questions today. morrison previously said he didn't think there was anything illegal about the call. this morning, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman described that call as troubling and reported that to the top lawyer at the nsc. back to you. >> craig, thank you. we want to make sure you understand what is happening in a moment. the impeachment hearings, once opening statements start, we will air them here on nbc bay area but we are not golden gate anywhere. head to our website or use our app to watch our local newscast. we will continue it. it will include live updates with weather and traffic. across the bay area people are bracing for another round of pg&e power shutoffs and it's supposed to kick in tomorrow morning and it looks like hundreds of thousands of people will, again, be thrust into the dark. today in the bay features us

live in mill valley and one area pretty family with no electricity, pete. how are they preparing there? >> nearly 225,000 people in marin county affected by the power shutouts. er in mill valley which is one of the city where the out muchage -- outages start tomorrow morning. more than 23,000 customers in marin county will be impacted and same number in contra costa county as well. all alameda and other counties will see power shutoffs kick in tomorrow and it's done by pg&e for the purpose of wildfire safety. with the forecast showing high winds and low humidity in these impacted areas. folks in mill valley are definitely getting ready for the

possibility of being without power for, once again, an undetermined amount of days. >> haven't heard much but we are not messing around and hook up the generators tonight and like the last time once the power goes off we switch it on and business like normal. >> double-check all of the batteries that i have that had expired in 2010! that's what i learned! >> i think it sucks. in one of the richest places in america and one of the richest countries in the world that we will lose electricity because a bunch of millionaires want to make more money. >> reporter: later this morning, the marin county board of supervisors are going to vote on an ordinance for a ten-year parcel tax to fund wildfire prevention in this area and the authority is what they want to call it. if passed today it's on the ballot in 2020.

today in the bay, terry -- pete suratos. >> because of a cold front sweeping through, we could seal the clouds.suratos. >> because of a cold front sweeping through, we could seal the cloud>> because of a cold f sweeping through, we could seal the clouds. we have critical fire conditions. look at the time line wednesday morning at 5:00 see the winds in the north bay starting to increase and may see some gusts in the higher elevations reaching 50 to 60 miles per hour' in the valley 30-mile-per-hour gusts. this will be a significant higher up and any flames could spread quickly so we have to be careful here. we are talking about cooler

drier area coming into the bay area. >> which is why pg&e wants to cut the power. we have made it easy to see if your home is in danger of losing power. we have made it easy for you to see if your home is in danger of losing power. zoom in on your neighborhood to see if it's in the shutout zone or maybe where you work. type in your exact address looking our look-up tool and check out the code at the left of the screen and point your camera to it and it will take you to this map. i'll try to put it out on social media for you as well. >> overnight two people dead after a head-on crash in napa valley and closed highway 29 in both directions. new video here from the scene and happened north of st. helena after 2:00 a.m. the vimctims were pronounced ded at the scene and no other injuries were reported. the road is supposed to open up

shortly. this station was not open before the end of the year for b.a.r.t. and if up live in south san jose you probably have been driving past that station near san francisco thirty-three mark -- flea market no years. kris, folks are frustrated by this. >> way back in construction started in 2012, the projected opening date for this station was 2016. we are now golden gate into three years of delays now. a refresher here. bta is building the b.a.r.t. extension station to san jose and they will only the system and that is the system in red on your screen. b.a.r.t. will operate it. b.a.r.t. and bta have been running tests separately but at the same time, it seems the work flow is not working very well. each agency has to complete its own testing and adjustments' golden gate forward will happen separately and that includes the train control system, also the rail intrusion system which

would prevent collisions by detecting other trains or work vehicles or other objects on the rails. only after that is done by bta can b.a.r.t. run 90 days of p prerevenue testing that is in operation except for passengers. that is the reason for the time line change. bta says passenger service now will not be possible under this new time line before the ends of the year. milpitas station sitting in limbo and supposed to start operations this year bta site says 2020. this is coming as a blow to folks who thought there was forward momentum. just in august, bta got fast track for federal funding and if you've driven by these stations here in the south bay you know that all kinds of transit oriented housing has gone up in the interim. those folks starting to move into those housing complexes because likely they wanted to be able to use mass transit and now

they are at a standstill. a lot of people waiting for the impeachment hearings and they are continuing right now. adam schiff is addressing the crowd' they are about ready to get under way. on television you can continue to watch the impeachment hearing but we will continue our newscast online at nbcbayarea.com or also our app. >> right now, we send you to that special report. sondland and rudy giuliani, was pushing a policy towards ukraine at odds with the national interest. this morning we hear from two of the national security professionals who became aware . lieutenant colonel alex vindman, whose family fled oppression in the soviet union when he was a toddler is a career army officer, an iraq war veteran who was awarded a purple heart and an expert in russia and ukraine

who has worked at the highest levels of the pentagon. in july 2018 he was detailed to the white house, in part, to coordinate policy on ukraine. jennifer williams is a career foreign service officer who is currently detailed to the office of the vice president and responsible for europe and eurasia issues. following his congratulatory call with volodymyr zelensky, president trump asked him to come to his upcoming inauguration. pence would be a coveted attendee, second in significance only to the president and would have sent an important signal of support to the new ukrainian president. in early may, however, rudy giuliani had been planning to go to ukraine to pursue the president's interests in having the bidens investigated, but had to call off the trip after it became public.

among others, giuliani blamed people around zelensky for having to cancel and claimed they were antagonistic to trump. instead a lower-level delegation was named, energy secretary rick perry, ambassador sondland and ambassador kurt volker, the three amigos. senator ron johnson and lieutenant colonel vindman would also attend. after returning from the inauguration, several members of the delegation briefed trump on their first encouraging interactions with zelensky. they urged trump to meet with the ukrainian president, but trump instead criticized ukraine and instructed them to work with judy -- work with rudy. a few weeks later on july 10th, ambassador sondland met at the white house with a group of u.s. and ukrainian officials, including colonel vindman and formed the group, according to

chief of staff mulvaney, the meeting with zelensky with president trump would take place if they did certain investigations. they ended the meeting and said he would not be part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this. i'm deterred, sondland brought the ukrainian delegation down to another part of the white house and was more explicit, according to witnesses. ukraine needed to investigate the bidens or burisma if they were to get a white house meeting with trump. after this discussion, which vindman withnessed, he went to the national security council's top lawyer to report the matter. he was told to return with any concerns. he would soon find the need to do so. a week later on july 18th a representative of the office of management and budget announced on a video conference call that mulvaney, at trump's direction, was freezing nearly $400 million in military assistance to ukraine, which was appropriated

by congress and enjoyed the support of the entire u.s. national security establishment. one week after that trump would have the now infamous july 25th phone call with zelensky. during that call, trump complained that the u.s. relationship with ukraine had not been reciprocal. later zelensky thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and says ukraine was ready to purchase more javelins, an anti-tank weapon, the most importance deterrence of further russian military action. trump's response, i would like you to do us a favor, though. trump then requested zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 conspiracy theory and even more ominously look into the bidens. neither was part of the official preparatory material for the call, but they were in donald trump's personal interest and in the interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. and ukrainian president knew about both in advance, because sondland and others have been

pressing ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, burisma and the bidens. both colonel vindman and miss williams were on the july 25th call. vindman testified due to the unequal bargaining position of the two leaders and ukraine's dependency on the u.s., the favor trump asked zelensky was really a demand. after the call, multiple individuals, including vindman, were concerned enough to report it to the national security council's top lawyer. it was the second time in two weeks that vindman raised concerns with nsc lawyers. for her part, williams also believed asking zelensky to undertake these political investigations was inappropriate. and that it might explain something else that she had become aware of, the otherwise inexplicable hold on u.s. military aid. vindman and miss williams took note of the word burisma by zelensky. a fact conspicuously left out of

the call now locked away on an ultrasecure server. colonel vindman believed zelensky must have been prepped for the call to make the connection between biden and burisma, a fact other witnesses have now confirmed. in the weeks that followed the july 25th call, colonel vindman continued to push for a release of the military aid to ukraine and struggled to learn why it was being withheld. more disturbing, word of the hold reached ukrainian officials prior to it becoming public. by mid-august the deputy ambassador asked vindman why the united states was withholding the aid. vindman didn't have an answer. they needed to publicly commit to these two investigations if they hoped to get the aid. miss williams, we all saw the president's tweet about you on sunday afternoon. and the insults he hurled at ambassador yovanovitch last friday. you are here today, and the

american people are grateful. colonel vindman, we have seen more attacks on your character and watched certain personalities on fox question your loyalty. i know you have shed blood for america and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude. i hope no one on this committee backs part of those attacks. today's witnesses, like those who testified last week, are here because they are subpoenaed to here, not because they are for or against impeachment. that question is for congress, not the fact witnesses. if the president abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts, a white house meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid, it will be up to us to decide whether those acts are

compatible with the office of the presidency. i now recognize ranking member nunes for any remarks he would like to make. >> thank you, gentlemen. i would like to address a few words to the american people watching at home. if you watched the impeachment hearings last week, you may have noticed a disconnect between what you actually saw and the mainstream media accounts describing it. when you saw three diplomats, who disliked president trump's ukraine policy, discussing secondhand and thirdhand conversations about their objections with the trump policy. meanwhile, they admitted they had not talked to the president about these matters. and they were unable to identify any crime or impeachable offense the president committed. but what you read in the press were accounts of shocking, damning and explosive testimony that fully supports the democrats' accusations. if these accounts have a

familiar ring it's because this is the same preposterous reporting the media offered for three years on the russian hoax. the top news outlets in america reported breathlessly on the newest bombshell revelations, showing president trump and everyone surrounding him were russian agents. it really wasn't long ago we were reading these headlines. from cnn, congress, investigating russian investment fund with ties to trump officials. this was false. "new york times," trump campaign aides repeated contacts with russian intelligence. also false. slate, was a trump server communicating with russia? this was false. 12k3w4r50ishgsdz "new york "magazine, this is false. "the guardian," they held secret

talks with an ecuadoran embassy. also false. buzzfeed, president trump directed his attorney to lie to congress about the moscow tower project. all of these were false. there was no objectivity or fairness in the media russia stories just as a fevered rush to tarnish a president who pretend the media is something difference than what they really are, puppets of the democratic party. with their bias misreporting on the russia hoax, the media lost confidence of millions of americans and because they refuse to acknowledge how badly they botched the story, they learned no lessons and simply expect americans will believe them as they try to stoke yet another partisan frenzy. in previous hearings i've outlined three questions the democrats and media don't want asked or answered. instead of shedding light on these crucial questions, the

media are trying to smother and dismiss them. those questions start with, what is the full extent of the democrats' prior coordination with the whistle-blower and who else did the whistle-blower coordinate this effort with? the media have fully accepted the democrats' stunning reversal on the need for the whistle-blower to testify to this committee. when the democrats were insisting on his testimony, the media wanted it, too. but things have changed since it became clear the whistle-blower would have to answer mrproblemac questions that include these -- what was the full extent of the whistle-blower's prior coordination with chairman schiff, his staff and any people he cooperated with while he prepared the complaint? what are the whistle-blower's political biases and connections to democratic politicians? how does the whistle-blower explain the inaccuracies in the complaint? what contact did the

whistle-blower have with the media, which appears to be ongoing? what are the sources of the whistle-blower's information? who else did he talk to? and was the whistle-blower prohibited by law from receiving or conveying any of that information? the media have joined the democrats in dismissing the importance of cross-examining this crucial witness now that the whistle-blower has successfully kickstarted impeachment, he has disappeared from the story, as if the democrats put the whistle-blower in their own witness protection program. my second question, what was the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign? in these depositions and hearings, republicans have cited numerous indications of ukraine meddling in the 2016 election to oppose the trump campaign. many of these instances were reported including the posting

of many primary source documents by veteran investigative journalist john solomon. since the democrats switched from russia to ukraine for their impeachment crusade, solomon's reporting on burisma, hunter biden and ukraine election meddling has become inconvenient so the media is furiously smearing and libeling solomon. the publication "the hill" said it would conduct a review of solomon's reporting. coincidentally the decision comes three days after a democrat on this committee told a "hill" writer she would stop speaking to "the hill" because it had run solomon's stories. and she urged the writer to relay her concerns to "hill's" management. now that solomon's reporting for the democrats is a problem for the democrats, it's a problem

for the media as well. i would like to enter solomon's story about ukraine's interference. i encourage viewers today to read this story and draw your own conclusions about the evidence solomon has gathered. ask unanimous consent we put this into the record, mr. chair. >> without objection. >> the concerted campaign by the media discredit and disown some of their own colleagues is shocking. and we see it again in the sudden denunciations of "new york times" reporter ken vogel as a conspiracy theorist after he covered similar issues, including a 2017 politico piece entitled "ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfire." my third question, why did burisma hire hunter biden? what did he do for them?

did his position affect any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? we have now heard testimony from the democrats' own witnesses that diplomats were concerned about a conflict of interest involving hunter biden. that's because he had secured a well-paid position despite having no qualifications on the board of a corrupt ukrainian company while his father was vice president charged with overseeing ukrainian issues. after trying out several different accusations against president trump, the democrats have recently settled on bribery. according to widespread reports, they replaced their quid pro quo allegation because it wasn't polling well. if the democrats and the media are so deeply concerned about bribery, you think they would take interest in burisma paying

hunter biden $83,000 a month. and think they would be interested in joe biden threatening to withhold u.s. loan guarantees unless the ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating burisma. that would be a textbook example of bribery. the media, of course, are free to act as democrat puppets and free to lurch from the russia hoax to the ukraine hoax. they cannot expect to reasonably do so without alienating half the country who voted for the president they're trying to expel. americans are learned to recognize fake news when this he see it. if mainstream press won't give it to them straight, they'll go elsewhere to find it, which is exactly what the american people are doing. with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. today we are joined by lieutenant colonel vindman and jennifer williams.

lieutenant colonel alexander vindman is an active duty military officer who joined the army after college and served multiple tours overseas. serving in south korea, germany and iraq. he was deployed to iraq at a time of heavy fighting was awarded a purple heart after being wounded by a roadside bomb. since 2008 colonel vindman has served as a foreign area officer specializing in eurasia, serving at home and embassies in ukraine and russia. he has served as a politico affairs officer for the chairman joint chief of staffs. he joined the trump administration in 2018 when he was asked to serve on the national security council. jennifer williams began her career in government service in 2005 after graduating college joining homeland security during the george w. bush

administration and working on the bush/cheney presidential campaign. prior to joining the office of the vice president, she served at the u.s. embassy in london as a public affairs officer. in april 2019 miss williams was detailed to the office of the vice president, mike pence, where she serves as a special adviser on his foreign policy team covering europe and russia issues. in that capacity she keeps the vice president aware of foreign policies in europe and russia and prepares him for foreign policy engagements and meetings with foreign leaders. two final points before our witnesses are sworn. first witness depositions as part of this inquiry were unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be held at the unclassified level. any information that may touch to classified information will be addressed separately. second, congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of

reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u.s. government official for testifying before congress, including you or any of your colleagues. if you would both please rise and raise your right hand, i'll begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. you may be seated. the microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. with that, miss williams, your recognized for your opening statement. when you're concluded, lieutenant colonel vindman, you're recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you ranking member schiff for the opportunity to

give this statement. i have had the privilege of working as a foreign service officer for nearly 14 years, working for three different presidential administrations. two republican and one democratic. i joined the state department in 2006 after serving in the department of homeland security under secretary michael cherdoff. i swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution administered by a personal hero of mine, former secretary of state condoleeza rice. as a career officer i'm committed to serving the american people and advancing american interests abroad in support of the president's foreign policy objectives. i've been inspired and 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 ki ki kingston, jamaica. and served as an adviser on middle east issues to the deputy secretary of state. 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 have been privileged to work with the dedicated and capable men and women of the office of the vice president. to advance the administration's agenda. i have also worked closely with talented and committed colleagues at the national security council, state department, department of defense and other agencies to advance and promote u.s. foreign policy objectives. in this capacity, i have advised and prepared the vice president for engagements related to ukraine. as you are aware on november 7th, i appeared before the committee for a closed-door deposition pursuit to the subpoena.

i would 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 vice president called to congratulate president-elect zelensky. during the call, which i participated in, the vice president accepted an invitation to attend president-elect zelensky's upcoming inauguration providing that the scheduling worked out. the vice president had only 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. 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 the

vice president would not attend the inauguration in ukraine. she did not provide any further explanation. i relaid that instruction to others involved in planning the potential trip. i also informed the nsc that the vice president would not be attending so it could identify a head of delegation to represent the united states at president zelensky's inauguration. on july 3rd i learned the office of management and budget had placed a hold on tranche of security assistance designated to ukraine. according to the information i received omb was reviewing whether the funding was aligned with the administration's priorities. i subsequently attended meetings of the policy coordination committee where the hold on ukrainian 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 content of which has since 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 vice 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 nsc. 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 1st 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 the activities relating to ukraine and my role in the events under investigation. i've dedicated my entire professional life to the united states of america. for more than two decades it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the united states army, 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 specializing in eurasia, and i served in embassies in kiev and moscow, russia. in washington, d.c., i was the political affairs officer for russia for the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff where i drafted the armed global campaign to counter russia and russia maligned influence.

in july 2018 i was asked to serve at the white house national security council. at the nsc, i'm the principal adviser to the national security adviser on ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. my role at the nsc is to develop, coordinate and implement plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic informational military and economic national security issues of 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 bulwork. it is important to know, promoting ukraine prosperity, a free and democratic ukraine against russian has been strategy across various administrations, both democratic and republican and president

zelensky's election in april 2019 created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our strategy -- a strategic objective. in the spring of 2019 i became aware of two disruptive actors, primarily ukraine's then prosecutor lutsenko and mayor rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, promoting false narratives that undermined the u.s./ukraine policy. the nsc and interagency departments, including the state department, grew increasingly concerned about such information was having on our country's ability to achieve the national security objectives. on april 21, 2019, volodymyr zelensky was elected president of ukraine in a landslide victory on unity reform and anti-corruption platform. president trump called president zelensky on april 21, 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 expressed his

desire to work with president zelensky and extended an invitation to visit the white house. in may i attended the inauguration of president zelensky as part of the presidential delegation led by secretary perry. following the visit, the members of the delegation provided president trump a debriefing offering a positive assessment of president zelensky and his team. after this debriefing, president trump signed a congratulatory letter to president zelensky and extended another invitation to visit the white house. on july 10, 2019, ukraine's national security adviser who visited washington, d.c., for a meeting with national security adviser bolton. ambassador volker and sondland -- ambassadors volker, sondland and secretary rick perry also attended the meeting i attended with dr. hale. we fully anticipated the ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the presidents. ambassador bolton cut the meeting short when ambassador

sondland started to speak about the requirement that ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with president trump. following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which ambassador sondland emphasized the importance of ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma. i stated to ambassador sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. dr. hill also asserted his comments when proper. afterwards, dr. hale and i agreed to report it to john eisenberg. on july 21, 2019, president zelensky won a parliamentary election in another landslide election. 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. eisenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. i was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation, it was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. this would undoubtedly result in uk losing bipartisan security and advancing russia's strategytic objectives in the region. i want to emphasize to the committee that when i reported my concerns on july 10th relating to ambassador sondland and then july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant 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 only thought was to act properly and to carry out my duty. following each of my reports to mr. eisenberg, i immediately returned to work to advance the president's and our country's foreign policy objectives. i focused on what i have done throughout my military career, promoting america's national security interests. i want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues who have appeared and are scheduled to appear before this committee. i want to say that the character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants and reprehensible. it is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, and 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 a united states army -- is that of the united states army. the members of our all-volunteer force are made up of a patch work of people from all

ethnicities, regions, socioeconomic backgrounds who come together under a common oath to protect and defends the constitution of the united states of america. we do not serve any political party. we serve the nation. i am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world. the army is the only profession i have ever known. as a young man i decided i wanted to spend my life serving this nation that gave my family refuge from authoritarian oppression. for the last 20 years it has been an honor to represent and protect this great country. next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the united states as refugees. 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 lives. his courageous decision inspired

a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself 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 sits behind me here today. our collective military service is a special part of our family's history, a story in america. i also recognize that 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 around the world. in russia, my act of expressing concern to the chain of command in an official and private channel, would have severe personal professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life. i'm grateful to my father -- for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an american sit sgrcitd public servant where i can live

free fear for my and my family's safety. dad, i'm sitting here today in the u.s. capitol talking to our elected professionals, 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. >> thank you, colonel. thank you, miss williams. colonel, your brother and family are more than welcome here. grateful to have them with us. we'll proceed with the first round of questions as detailed in the memo provided to committee members. 45 minutes of questions conducted by chairman or majority counsel, followed by 45 minutes for ranking member or minority counsel under house resolution 660. that time may not be delegated to other members. unless i express additional equal time for questioning, we'll proceed under the

five-minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. i now recognize myself or majority counsel for the first 45 minutes. before we get into the substance of your testimony, miss williams, i want to ask you about a phone call between vice president pence and president zelensky of ukraine on september 18th. were you on that call? >> i was. >> and did you take notes of the call? >> yes, sir. >> is there something about that call that you think may be relevant to our investigation? >> chairman, as we previously discussed with the committee, the office of the vice president has taken the position that september -- >> sir, could you move the microphone a little closer to you? >> as we previously discussed with both majority/minority staff of the committee, the office of the vice president has taken the position that the september 18th call is classified. as a result with respect to the call, i'd refer the committee to

the public record, which includes miss williams' november 7th testimony, which has been publicly released, as well as the public readout of that call, which has previously been issued by the white house. beyond that, given the position of the vice president's office on classification, i've advised miss williams not to answer further questions about that call in an unclassified setting. >> thanks, counsel. miss williams, i only ask you in this setting whether you think there's something relevant to our inquiry in that call and if so, if you'll be willing to make a classified submission to the committee? >> i would also refer to my testimony that i gave in the closed session and i'm very happy to appear for a classified setting discussion as well. >> it may not be necessary to appear if you'll be willing to submit the information in writing to the committee. >> i'd be happy to do so. >> thank you. colonel vindman, if i could turn

your attention to the april 21st call, the first call between president trump and president zelensky, did you prepare talking points for the president to use during that call? >> yes, i did. >> and did those talking points include rooting out corruption in ukraine? >> yes. >> that was something the president was supposed to raise in the conversation with president zelensky? >> those were the recommended talking points that were cleared through the nsc staff for the president, yes. >> did you listen in on that call? >> yes, i did. >> the white house has now released the record of that call. did president trump ever mention corruption in the april 21st call? >> to the best of my recollection, he did not. >> on the april 21st call, president trump told president zelensky that he would send a

high-level u.s. delegation to the inauguration. following that call, miss williams, was it your understanding that the president wanted the vice president to attend the inauguration in kiev? >> yes, that was my understanding. >> and did the president subsequently tell the vice president not to attend the inauguration? >> i was informed by our chief of staff's office, by the vice president's chief of staff office, that the president had told the vice president not to attend. i did not witness that conversation. >> and am i correct that you learned this on may 13th, is that right? >> that's correct. >> am i also correct that the inauguration date had not been set by may 13th? >> that's correct. >> do you know what accounted for the president's decision to instruct the vice president not to attend? >> i do not. >> colonel vindman, you were a member of the u.s. delegation to the inauguration on may 20th, is that correct? >> yes, chairman. >> and during that trip, did you

have an opportunity to offer any advice to president zelensky? >> yes, chairman. >> what was the advice you gave him? >> during a bilateral meeting in which the whole delegation was meeting with president zelensky and his team, i offered two pieces of advice. to be particularly cautious with regards to ukraine -- to be particularly cautious with regards to russia and its desire to provoke ukraine. and the second one was to stay out of u.s. domestic policy. >> do you mean politics? >> politics, yes. >> why did you feel it was necessary to advise president zelensky to stay away from u.s. domestic politics? >> chairman, in the march and april time frame, it became clear that there were -- there were actors in the u.s. -- public actor, nongovernmental

actors, that were promoting the idea of investigations, and 2016 ukrainian interference, and it was consistent with u.s. policy to advise any country, all the countries in my portfolio, any country in the world, to not participate in u.s. domestic politics. so, i was passing the same advice consistent with u.s. policy. >> mr. goldman will have more questions about that when i turn to him. let me turn, if i can, to the hold on security assistance, which i think you both testified you learned about in early july. neither of you were given a reason why the president put a hold on security assistance to ukraine? >> my understanding was that omb was reviewing the assistance to make sure it was in line with administration priorities, but it was not made more specific than that. >> colonel vindman?

>> that is consistent -- or the review was -- remained consistent with administration policies. >> colonel vindman, you attended a meeting in john bolton's office on july 10th where ambassador sondland interjected to respond to a question by senior ukrainian officials about a white house visit. what did he say at that time? >> to the best of my recollection, ambassador sondland said that in order to get a white house meeting, the ukrainians would have to provide a deliverable, which is investigations, specific investigations. >> and what was ambassador bolton's response or reaction to that comment? >> the -- we had not completed all of the agenda items and we still had time for the meeting, and ambassador bolton abruptly ended the meeting. >> did you report this incident to the national security council lawyers? >> yes, i did. >> based on ambassador

sondland's remark at the july 10th meeting, was it your clear understanding that the ukrainians understood they had to commit to investigations president trump wanted in order to get the white house meeting? >> it may not have been entirely clear at that moment. certainly ambassador sondland was calling for the meetings and he had -- he had stated that his -- he had this -- this was developed per conversation with the chief of staff, mr. mick mulvaney, but the connection to the president wasn't clear at that point. >> but the import of what ambassador sondland said during that meeting is that there was an agreement with mick mulvaney that zelensky would get the meeting if they would undertake these investigations? >> that is correct. >> about two weeks after that july 10th meeting, president trump and president zelensky had their second call, the now

infamous july 25th call. colonel zelensky, what was your real-time reaction to hearing that call? >> chairman, without hesitation, i knew that i had to report this to the white house counsel. i had concerns, and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper -- proper people in the chain of command. >> and what was your concern? >> well, chairman, as i said in my statement, it was inappropriate -- it was improper for the president to request -- to demand an investigation into a political opponent, especially a foreign power where there's at best dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial

investigation. and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge and it would be perceived as a partisan play. it would undermine our ukraine policy. and it would undermine our national security. >> colonel, you've described this as a demand, this favor that the president asked. what is it about the relationship between the president of the united states and the president of ukraine that leads you to conclude that when the president of the united states asks a favor like this, it's really a demand? >> chairman, the culture i come from, the military culture, when a senior asks you to do something, even if it's polite and pleasant, it's not -- it's not to be taken as a request. it's to be taken as an order. in this case, the power disparity between the two leaders, my impression is that in order to get the white house meeting, president zelensky would have to deliver these

investigations. >> miss williams, i think you described your reaction in your deposition as -- when you listened to the call as you found it unusual and inappropriate. but i was struck by something else you said in your deposition. you said it shed some light on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold. what did you mean by that? >> mr. chairman, i was asked during the closed-door testimony how i felt about the call. and in reflecting on what i was thinking in that moment, it was the first time i had heard internally the president reference particular investigations that previously i had only heard about through mr. giuliani's press interviews, in press reporting. so, in that moment it was not clear whether there was a direct connection or linkage between

the ongoing hold on security assistance and what the president may be asking president zelensky to undertake in regards to investigations. so, it was -- it was noteworthy in that regard. i did not have enough information to draw any firm conclusion. >> but it raised the question in your mind as to whether the two were related? >> it was the first i had heard of any requests of ukraine, which were that specific in nature, so it was noteworthy to me in that regard. >> both of you recall president zelensky in that conversation raising the issue or mentioning burisma, do you not? >> that's correct. >> correct. >> and yet the word burisma appears nowhere in the call record that's been released to the public, is that right? >> that's right. >> correct. >> do you know why that's the case, why that was left out? >> i do not. i was not involved in the

production of that transcript. >> i attribute that to the fact that this transcript that is being produced may not have caught the word, burisma. and it was in the -- in the transcript that was released, it was released, the company, which is accurate. it's not a significant omission. >> colonel, you pointed out the fact that word was used, did you not? >> correct. >> and yet it was not included in the record released to the public. >> that's right. i'd say it's informed speculation that the folks that produce these transcripts do the best they can, and they just didn't catch the word. that was my responsibility to -- to then make sure that the transcript was as accurate as possible. that's what i attempted to do by putting that word back in because that was in my notes. >> i think, colonel, you testified in your deposition

that you found it striking that zelensky would bring up burisma. that it indicated to you that he had been prepped for the call, to expect this issue to come up. what led you to that conclusion? >> it seemed unlikely that he would be familiar with a single company in the context of a call that had -- that was on the broader bilateral relationship and it seemed to me he was either tracking this issue because it was in the press or he was otherwise prepped. >> mr. gold man? >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to both of you. on july 25th at approximately 9:00 a.m. you both were sitting in the situation room, probably not too much further away than you are right now and you were preparing for a long awaited phone call between prest