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 president trump and

president zelensky. now, colonel vindmann advance of this phone call, did you prepare for the phone call as you did the april 21st call? >> yes, i did. >> what were the talking points based upon? >> they were -- this is not in the public record and i can't comment too deeply, but what is -- the areas that we've consistently talked about in public, it was cooperation on supporting reform agenda, anti-corruption efforts and helping president zelensky implement his plans to end russia's war against ukraine. >> in other words, they're based on official u.s. policy? >> correct. >> and is there a process to determine official u.s. policy? >> yes. that is my job is to coordinate u.s. policy. so throughout the preceding year

that i had been on staff, i had undertaken an effort to make sure we had a cohesive policy. >> as you listened to the call, did you observe whether president trump was following the talking points based on the official u.s. policy? >> counsel, the president could choose to use the talking points or not. he's the president. but they were not consistent with what i provided, yes. >>let take a look at a couple of excerpts from this call. right after president zelensky thanked president trump for the united states' support in the area of defense, president trump asked president zelensky for a favor and then raises this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. he says in the highlighted portion, i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot

and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowd strike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people. the server. they say ukraine has it. >> was this based on the official talking points that you had prepared? >> no. >> and was this statement related to the 2016 ukraine interference in the 2016 election part of the official u.s. policy? >> no, it was not. >> now, at the time of this july 25th call, colonel vindman, were you aware of a theory that ukraine intervened or interfeared in the 2016 u.s. election? >> i was. >> are you aware of any credible evidence to support this theory? >> i am not.

>> are you also aware that vladimir putin had promoted this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election? >> i'm well aware of that fact. >> and ultimately, which country did u.s. intelligence services determine to have interfered in the 2016 election? >> it is the consensus of the intelligence community that the russians interfered in the u.s. elections in 2016. >> let's go to another excerpt from this call where president trump asked president zelensky to investigate his political opponent, vice president joe biden. here president trump says the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. it sound horrible to me, he said. again, colonel vindman, was this

included in your talking points? >> it was not. >> such a request to investigate a political opponent consistent with official u.s. policy? >> it was not consistent with the policy as i understood it. >> now, are you aware of any credible allegations or evidence to support this notion that vice president biden did something wrong or against u.s. policy with regard to ukraine? >> i am not. >> ms. williams, are you familiar with any credible evidence to support this theory against vice president biden? >> no, i'm not. >> now, ms. williams, prior to the july 25th call, approximately how many calls between president of the united states and foreign leaders had you listened to? >> i would say roughly a dozen. >> had you ever heard a call like this? >> as i testified before, i believe what i found unusual or different about this call was

the president's reference to specific investigations and that struck me as different than other calls i had listened to. >> you testified that you thought it was political in nature. why did you think that? >> i thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former vice president biden and his son struck me as political in nature given that the former vice president is a political opponent of the president's. >> so you thought it could potentially be designed to assist president trump's re-election effort? >> i can't speak to what the president's motivation was in referencing it, but i just noted that the reference to biden sounded political to me. >> colonel vindman, you said in your deposition that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the political benefits of the president's demands. for those of us who are not rocket scientists, can you

explain what you meant by that? >> so my understanding is that it was the connection to investigate a political opponent was inappropriate and improper. i made that connection as soon as the president brought up the biden investigation. >> colonel vindman, you testified that the -- president trump's request for a favor from president zelensky would be considered as a demand to president zelensky. after this call, did you ever hear from any ukrainianukrainiar in the united states or ukraine, about any pressure that they felt to do these investigations that president trump demanded? >> not that i can recall. >> did you have any discussions with officials at the embassy here in washington, d.c.?

>> yes, i did. >> did you discuss the demand for investigations with them? >> i did not. >> did you discuss at all at any point their concerns about the hold on security assistance? >> to the best of my recollection, in the august time frame, the ukrainian embassy started to become aware of the hold on security assistance and they were asking if i had any comment on that or if i could substantiate that. >> and that was before it became public, is that right? >> yes. >> what did you respond? >> i believe i said that -- i don't recall, frankly. i don't recall what i said. but i believe it may have been something along the lines of i'm not aware of it.

>> you testified that one of your concerns about the request for investigations related to u.s. domestic politics was that ukraine may lose bipartisan support. why was that a concern of yours? >> ukraine is in a war with russia, and the security systems that we provide ukraine is significant. absent that security assistance and maybe even more importantly, the signal of support for ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, that would likely encourage russia to pursue potentially escalate, to pursue further aggression undermining, further undermining yu yan cran sovereignty, and u.s. security. >> so in other words, ukraine is heavily dependent on united states support, both diplomatically, financially and also militarily? >> correct.

>> colonel vindman, what languages do you speak. >> russian and ukrainian and a little bit of english. >> do you know what -- do you recall what language president zelensky spoke on this july 25th phone call? >> i know he made a valiant effort to speak english. he had been practicing up his english, but he also spoke ukrainian. >> i want to look at the third excerpt from the july 25th call. chairman schiff addressed this with you in his questioning. you see in the highlighted portion, it says specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. is that the portion of the call record that colonel vindman, you thought president zelensky actually said burisma? >> correct. >> you testified earlier that

his use of or his understanding that when president trump mentioned the bidens, that that referred to the company burisma sounded to you like he was prepped or prepared for this call, is that right? >> that is correct. >> i want to go to the next slide, if we could, which is actually a text message that neither of you is on. but this is from ambassador kurt volker to andre -- who is this person? >> he's a senior adviser within the presidential administration to ukrainian presidential administration. he's the senior adviser to president zelensky. >> this text message is less than a half hour before the call on july 25th. and since neither of you are on it, i'll read it. it says from ambassador volker, good lunch, thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate,

quote, get to the bottom of what happened, unquote, in 2016. we will nail down date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow. kurt. now is this the sort of thing that you're referring to when you say that it sounded like president zelensky was prepared for this call? >> this would be consistent, yes. >> now, turning to the fourth excerpt from the july 25th call where ukraine's president zelensky's links the white house meeting to the investigations that president trump requests, president zelensky says, i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washington, d.c. on the other hand, i also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. colonel vindman, when president zelensky says, on the other

hand, would you agree he's acknowledging a linkage between the white house visit he mentions in the first sentence and the investigations he mentions in the second sentence? >> it could be taken that way. i'm not sure if i -- it seems like a reasonable conclusion. >> if that is the case, that would be consistent with the text message that ambassador volker sent to andre yar mock before the call, is that right? >> seemingly so. >> you've testified in your deposition that the -- visiting -- an oval office visit is important to president zelensky. why is that? >> the show of support for president zelensky still a brand new president, frankly, a new politician on the ukrainian

political scene, looking to establish as a regional and maybe even a world leader, would want to have a meeting with the united states, the most powerful country in the world and ukraine's most significant benefactor in order to be able to implement his agenda. >> it would provide him with with additional legitimacy at home? >> yeah. >> just to summarize, in this july 25th call between the presidents of the united states and ukraine, president trump demanded a favor of president zelensky to conduct investigations that both of you acknowledge were for president trump's political interest, not the national interest, and in return for his promise of a much desired white house meeting for president zelensky, colonel vindman is that an accurate summary of the excerpts we just looked at? >> yes. >> ms. williams? >> yes.

>> colonel vindman, you immediately reported this call to the nsc lawyers. why did you do that? >> at this point, i had already been tracking this initially what i would describe as alternative narrative, false narrative and i was certainly aware of the fact that it was starting to reverberate, gain traction, the fact that the july 10th call ended up being pronounced by a public official, ambassador sondland had me alerted to this and i was subsequent to that report, i was invited to follow-up with any other concerns to mr. identify en berg. >> we're going to discuss that july 10th meeting in a moment. when you say alternative false narratives, are you referring to the two investigations that president trump referenced in the call?

>> yes. >> now at some point did you also discuss how the written summary of the call record should be handled with the nsc lawyers? >> there was -- following the report, there was a discussion in the legal shop on the best way to manage a transcript, yes. >> what did you understand they concluded? >> my understanding is that this was viewed as a sensitive transcript and to avoid leaks and, if i recall the term properly, something along the lines of preserve the integrity of the transcript, it should be segregated to a smaller group of folks. >> to preserve the integrity of the transcript, what did that mean? >> i'm not sure -- it seems like a legal term. i'm not an attorney. but it was -- i didn't take it as anything nefarious. i understood they wanted to keep it in a smaller group. >> if there was real interest in preserving the integrity of the

transcript, don't you think they would have accepted your correction that burisma should have been included? >> not necessarily. the way these edits occur, they go through like everything else, an approval process. i made my contribution. it was cleared by mr. morrison, then when i returned it, you know, sometimes that doesn't happen. there are administrative errors, i think in this case, i didn't see -- when i first saw the transcript without the two substantive items i attempted to include, i didn't see it as nefarious, i saw it as okay, no big deal. might be meaningful, but no big dpeel. >> you said two substantive issues. what was the other one? >> there was one in a section

of -- on page 4 the top paragraph, let me find the right spot. okay. yes. you can look into it. ellipse, there are videos as i recall or recordings. >> instead of an ellipse, it should have said to what you heard that there are recordings? >> correct. >> did you ultimately learn where the call record was put? >> i understood that it was being segregated into a separate system, separate secure system. >> why would it be put on the separate secure system? >> this is definitely not unprecedented. but at times if you want to limit access to a smaller group of folks, you put it on the secure system to ensure that a smaller group of people with access to the secure system had it. >> can't you also limit the number of people who can access

it on the regular system? >> you can do that. but to the best of my recollection, the decision was made frankly, on the fly after my -- after the fact -- after i conveyed my concerns to mr. eisenberg, mr. ellis came in, he hadn't heard the entire conversation. when it was mentioned that it was sensitive, it was on the fly decision to -- >> mr. eisenberg and mr. ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> it was your understanding it was not i mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers? or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended but, again, it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now, you testified at both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you

indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house readout from the april 21st call. and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> so in the end this readout was false, is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of a -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was consistent with u.s. policy and these items are used as messaging tools also. so a statement that goes out, in addition to cato -- reading out the message is a messaging platform to say what is

important -- >> it is a part of u.s. official policy that ukraine should root out corruption even if president trump did not mention it in that april 21st phone call, is that right? >> colon certainly. >> he did not mention it in the july 25th phone call, is that right? >> correct. >> so even though it was included in his talking points for the april 21st call and presumably, even though you can't talk about it for the july 21st call, it was not included in either, is that right? >> for the april 21st call -- >> did not mention it in either, rather? >> correct. >> so when the president says now that he held up security assistance because he was concerned about rooting out corruption in ukraine, that concern was not expressed in the two phone conversations that he had with president zelensky earlier this year, is that right? >> correct. >> now, ms. williams, you've

testified earlier that after this april 21st call, president trump asked vice president pence to attend president zelensky's inauguration, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and that on may 13th, you were informed by the chief of staff's office that vice president pence should not -- will not be going as per request of the president, is that right? >> that's what i was informed, yes. >> and you didn't know what had changed from april 21st to may 13th, is that right? >> no, not in terms of that decision. >> well, colonel vindman, since you in particular a little bit more perhaps than ms. williams who has a broad r portfolio focuses on ukraine, i want to ask you about between april 21st to may 13th. were you aware that ambassador

yovanovitch was abruptly recalled. >> yes. >> were you aware -- >> to correct it, she was recalled prior -- let's see. so the notification occurred towards the end of april and she was finally recalled in may time frame, i think may 20th if i recall correctly. >> she learned about it after april 21st, on the 24th, is that right? >> correct. >> and were you aware that president trump had a telephone call with president putin during this time period in early may? >> i was. >> and were you aware that rudy giuliani had planned a trip to go to ukraine to pressure the ukrainians to initiate the two investigations that president trump mentioned on the july 25th call in this time period? >> i was aware that he was traveling there and that he had been promoting the idea of these investigations. >> i want to move now to that july 10th meeting that you reference, colonel vindman.

what exactly did ambassador sondland say when the ukrainian officials raised the idea of a white house meeting? >> as i recall, he referred to specific investigations that ukrainians would have to deliver in order to get these meetings. >> and what happened to -- >> white house meetings. >> what happened to the broader meeting after he made that reference? >> ambassador bolton abruptly ended the meeting. >> how -- did you have any conversations with ambassador bolton about this meeting? >> no, i did not. >> did you follow ambassador sondland and the others to the ward room for a meeting follow-up? >> it was a photo opportunity that we leveraged in order to demonstrate u.s. support. so the white house visit

demonstrating use for support for ukraine and technocrat and after that, we went down to a short post meeting debrief. >> were the investigations, the specific investigation that is ambassador sondland referenced in the larger meeting also discussed in the ward room meeting? >> they were. >> what did ambassador sondland say? >> he referred to investigations into the bidens, burisma 2016. >> how did you respond, if at all? >> i said that the requests to conduct these meetings was inappropriate. these investigations was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security policy. >> was ambassador volker in this meeting as well? >> i don't recall specifically. i believe he was there for at least a portion of the time. i don't recall if he was there for that -- the whole meeting. >> was -- was this statement

made in front of the ukrainian officials? >> i believe there was some discussion prior to the -- to the ukrainians leaving when it was apparent there was discord between the senior folks, ambassador sondland and other white house staff, myself, they were asked to step out. so i don't recall if they were there for the entire discussion. >> the senior white house staff you're referring to, did that include fiona hill, your immediate vosupervisor at the time? >> correct. >> you said you reported this incident to the nsc lawyers, is that right? >> correct. >> what was their response? >> john eisenberg said that he to took notes and would look into it. >> why did you report this meeting and this to the nsc lawyers? >> because it was inappropriate

and following the meeting i had a short conversation on the post meeting meeting in the ward room, had a short conversation with ambassador -- correction -- dr. hill and we discussed the idea of needing to report this. >> so am i correct colonel vindman that at least no later than that july 10th meeting, the ukrainians had understood or at least heard that the oval office meeting that they so desperately wanted was conditioned on the specific investigations into burisma and the 2016 election? >> that was the first time i was aware of the ukrainians being approached directly by a government official. >> and directly linking the white house meeting to the investigations? >> correct. >> ms. williams, you testified that in your opening statement

that you attended the september 1st meeting between vice president pence and president zelensky in warsaw, is that right? >> that's correct. >> what was the first thing that president zelensky asked vice president pence about at that meeting? >> president zelensky asked the vice president about the status of security assistance for ukraine because he had seen the politico article and other news reporting that the security assistance was being held. >> and you testified in your deposition that in that conversation president zelensky emphasized that the military assistance, the security assistance was not just important to assist ukraine in fighting a war against russia, but that it was also symbolic in nature. what did you understand him to mean by that? >> president zelensky explained that more than -- equally with the financial and physical value of the assistance that it was

the symbolic nature of that assistance that really was the show of u.s. support for ukraine and for ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. he was stressing that to the vice president to really underscore the need for the security assistance to be released. >> and that if the united states was holding the security assistance, is it also true then that russia could see that as a sign of weakening u.s. support for ukraine and take advantage of that? >> i believe that's what the president zelensky was indicating, that any signal or sign that u.s. support was wavering would be construed by russia as potentially an opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in ukraine. >> did vice president pence provide a reason for the hold on security assistance to the ukrainian president in that meeting? >> vice president did not specifically discuss the reason

behind the hold but he did reassure president zelensky of the strongest u.s. unwavering support for ukraine and they talked about the need for european countries to step up and provide more assistance to ukraine as well. >> did vice president pence report back to president trump on that meeting to your knowledge? >> vice president conveyed to president zelensky that he would follow-up with president trump that evening and convey to president trump what he had heard from president zelensky with regard to his efforts to implement reforms in ukraine. i am aware that the vice president spoke to president trump that evening, but i was not privy to the conversation. >> are you also aware, however, that the security assistance hold was not lifted for another ten days after this meeting? >> that's correct. >> and am i correct that you didn't learn the reason why the hold was lifted?

>> that's correct. >> colonel vindman, you didn't learn a reason why the hold was lifted, is that right? >> correct. >> colonel vindman, are you aware that the committees launched an investigation into the ukraine matters september 9th, two days before the hold was lifted? >> i am aware and i was aware. >> on september 10th, the intelligence committee requested the whistle-blower complaint from the department of national intelligence. are you aware of that? >> i don't believe i was aware of that. >> were you aware that the white house was aware of this whistle-blower complaint prior to that date? >> the first i heard of the whistle-blower complaint is i believe when the news broke. i was only aware of the committees investigating the hold on security assistance. >> so is it accurate to say, colonel vindman that whatever reason that was provided for the hold, including the

administrative policies, which would -- well, which would support the hold, would support the security assistance, is that right, to your understanding? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand. >> i was asking that the administrative policies of president trump supported the security assistance, is that your understanding? >> so the interagency policy was to support assistance for ukraine. >> thank you. i yield back. >> now, recognize ranking member nun nunes. >> ms. williams, welcome. i want to establish a few basic facts about your knowledge. ukraine, burisma and the role of the bidens. you spend a extraordinary amount of your time on ukraine, correct? >> ukraine is one of the countries in my portfolio. i would not say an extraordinary amount of time.

but the vice president has engaged on this in my eight months. >> it's in your portfolio? >> that's correct. >> first off, were you aware in september of 2015 then u.s. ambassador to ukraine, publicly called for an investigation into the president of burisma, were you aware of the public statements? >> no, not at the time. >> you are today, though? >> i have since heard them, yes. >> did you know of anti-trump efforts by various ukrainian officials as well as alexander chalupa, dnc consultant? >> no i was not aware. >> did you know about secretary of state kent's concerns about potential conflict of interest into hunter biden sitting on the board of burisma? >> i did not work on ukraine policy during that time frame. i've become aware of it through -- >> in the last year or so?

>> i've become aware of it through mr. kent's testimony, through the process. >> did you know that financial records show a ukrainian natural gas company routed $3 million through american accounts tied to hunter biden? >> i was not aware. >> until -- >> until -- >> you prepared for this hearing? >> until others have been testifying in more detail on the issues. >> you've been following it more closely? >> correct. >> did you know that burisma's american legal representatives met with ukrainian officials after vice president biden forced the firing of the chief prosecutor? >> again, sir, i was not working on that policy during that time. >> these are not trick questions. i'm. >> i understand. >> they pressured the state department in february 2016 after the raid and month before the firing of show can and that they invoeblgd hunter biden's

name as a reason to intervene? >> i was not aware. >> did you know that joe biden called yu yan cran president three times in february 2016 after the president's home was raided by the state prosecutor's office there? >> i've become aware of that through this proceeding. >> thank you. ms. williams. lieutenant colonel vindman, i'll ask you the same questions to establish basic facts about your knowledge about ukraine, burisma and the role of the bidens. in september 2015, u.s. ambassador to ukraine, jeffrey pyatt called for an investigation into the president of burisma. were you aware of the public statements? >> i wasn't aware of them at the time. >> when did you become aware of them? >> during the course of the testimony and the depositions after this impeachment inquiry began. >> did you know of anti-trump

efforts by various ukrainian government officials as well as alexander chalupa, a d and c consultant. >> i'm not aware of any of these interference efforts. >> did you know about deputy assistant secretary of state kent's concerns about potential conflict of interest with hunter biden sitting on the board of burisma? >> only thing i'm aware of is pertains to his deposition. >> did you know that financial records show a ukrainian natural goes company routed more than $3 million to the american accounts tied to hunter biden? >> i'm not aware of this fact. >> until recently? >> i guess i didn't independently look into it. i'm just not aware of what kind of payments mr. biden may have -- this is not something i'm aware of. >> did you know that burisma's legal representatives met with ukrainian officials days after vice president biden forced the

firing of the country's chief prosecutor? >> i'm not aware of these meetings. >> did you know that burisma lawyers pressured the state department in february 2016 after the raid and a month before the firing of shoek an that they invoked hunter biden's name as a reason to intervene? >> i am not aware of any of these facts. >> did you know that joe biden called yu yan cran president pour cheng owe three teams in february of 2016 afterburisma's home was raided by the state prosecutor's office? >> i'm aware of the fact that president -- vice president biden was very engaged on ukraine and had numerous engagements. that's what i'm aware of. >> ms. williams and lieutenant colonel vindman, as you may or may not know, this committee spent nearly three years conducting various investigations starting with the russia collusion hoax, abuse,

democratic hysteria over the lack of collusion in the mueller report and now this impeachment charade. one of the most concerning things regarding all of these investigations is the amount of classified or otherwise sensitive information i read in the press that derive either from this committee or sources in the administration. to be clear, i'm not accusing either one of you of leaking information. however, given that you are the first witnesses who actually have firsthand knowledge of the president's call by listening in on july 25th, it's imperative to the american public's understanding of the events that we get a quick matters out of the way first. ms. williams, let me go to you first. for the purposes of the following questions, i'm only asking about the time period between july 25th to september 25th. >> okay.

>> did you discuss the july 25th phone call between president trump and president zelensky or any matters associated with the phone call with any members of the press? >> no. >> to be clear, you never discussed these matters with "the new york times," the "washington post," politico, cnn or any other media outlet? >> no, i did not. >> did you ask or encourage any individual to share the substance of the july 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> i did not. >> do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the july 25th phone call or matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> no, i do not. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, same questions for you. did you discuss the july 25th phone call between president trump and president zelensky or any matter associated with the phone call with any member of the press? >> i did not.

>> just to be clear, you did not discuss this with "the new york times," the "washington post," politico, cnn or any other media outlet? >> i did not. >> did you ask or encourage any individual sto share the substance of the july 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> i did not. >> do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the july 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> we have an nic press shop and they field any of these types of questions. i do not engage with the press at all. >> let me ask the question again. do you know of any individual who discussed the substance of the july 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> we have an ncs press shop whose job is to engage on any of these types of questions. i am not aware of but it is possible and likely that the press shop would have had --

would field these types of questions. >> the question -- >> the question is do you know any individual, do you personally know any individual who discussed the substance of the july 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with any member of the press? >> thank you, ranking member for clarifying. i do not. >> ms. williams, did you discuss july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or july 26th and if so with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> ms. mill yams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. i'm in the office of the vice president. not on the nsc. >> right. but representing -- >> no, i have not. >> thank you for that clarification. lieutenant colonel vindman, did

you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so, with whom? >> yes. i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, interagency policy. i spoke to two individuals with regards to proceviding some sor of readout. >> to individual that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house, cleared u.s. government officials with appropriate need to know. >> what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state deputy sis stant secretary george kent who is responsible for the portfolio eastern europe, including ukraine and an individual from the office of individual intelligence community. >> as you know, the intelligence community has 17 different

agencies. what agency was this individual from? >> if i could interject here. we don't want to use the proceedings -- >> it's our time. >> but we need to protect the whistle-blower. >> please stop -- >> i want to make sure that there's no effort to out the whistle-blower through these proceedings. if the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we're here for and i want to advise the witness accordingly. >> mr. vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistle-blower. >> ranking member, lieutenant colonel vindman, please. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistle-blower was. >> i do not know who the whistle-blower is. >> how is it possible for you to

name these people and then out the whistle-blower? >> per the advice of my counsel, i've been advised not to answer a specific questions about members of the intelligence community. >> this is -- are you aware that this is the intelligence committee that's conducting the impeachment hearing? >> of course i am. >> wouldn't the appropriate place for you to come to, to testify would be the intelligence committee about someone within the intelligence community? >> ranking member, per the advice of my counsel and the instructions from the chairman, i've been advised not to provide any specifics on who i have spoken to with inside the intelligence community. what i can offer, these were properly cleared individuals or was a properly cleared individual with a need to know. >> well, this is -- you can really plead the fifth.

but you're here to answer questions and you're here under subpoena. so you can either answer the question or plead the fifth. >> excuse me. on behalf of my client, we're following the rule of the committee. the rule of the chair with regard to this issue and this is not call for an answer invoking the fifth or any theoretical issue like that. we're following the ruling of the chair. >> counselor, what ruling is that? >> if i could interject, counsel is correct. whistle-blower has the statutory right to anonymity. these proceedings will not be used to out the whistle-blower. >> i've advised my client accordingly. he's going to follow the ruling of the chair. if there's an alternative or you want to work something out with the chair, that's up to you. >> we've attempted to subpoena the whistle-blower to sit for a deposition.

the chair has tabled that motion. and has been unwilling to recognize those motions over the last few days of this impeachment inquisition process. i'll go to mr. caster. >> thank you, ranking member nunes. >> the transcript as published on september 25th is complete and accurate, will you both attest to that, ms. williams? >> i didn't take a word for word accounting when i first saw the publicly released version, it looked substantively correct to me. >> colonel vindman. >> i would describe it as substantively correct. >> i think in your testimony, you said very accurate. >> correct. >> you flagged a couple edits, colonel vindman. i think you had burisma on page 4. >> yes. >> where president zelensky was talking about the company mentioned in the issue? >> i'm sorry.

could you say that question again? >> you offered an edit that on page 4 of the transcript that was ultimately published, you thought president zelensky mentioned the word burisma. >> i had it in my notes. i know that's what he said, yeah. >> ms. williams -- that was on page 4? >> correct. >> ms. williams, after your deposition, you checked your notes and you had president zelensky using the term burisma as well, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> but that came up on a different part of the transcript than what colonel vindman was relating to, correct? >> yes, i believe so. >> yours came up on page 5 and it was in substitution for the word case? >> that's right. that's where i have it in my notes. >> colonel vindman, we've had some discussion earlier today and also your depp stigs about whether the president had a demand for president zelensky. you know, i suggested to you in the deposition that the

president's words are, in fact, ambiguous and he uses some phrases that certainly could be characterized as hedging on page 3 in the first paragraph, he talks about whatever you can do, he talks about if that's possible, on page 4, he mentions if you could speak to him, he talks about the attorney general or rudy giuliani. and then at the end of the first paragraph on page 4, he says whatever you can do. the president also says you know, if you can look into it and i asked you during your deposition whether you saw or acknowled acknowledge the fact that certain people could read that to be ambiguous. >> i said correct. >> people want to hear what they have already preconceived, is that what you testified? >> actually, if i could ask for a page cite. >> 256. >> 256. and a line?

just a minute. >> we got the page. >> okay. then you went on to say, yeah. you agreed with me. said i guess you could interpret it different ways. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. turning attention to the preparation of the transcript, that followed the ordinary process, correct? >> so i think it followed the appropriate process in terms of making sure that eventually it came around for clearances for accuracy, but it was in a different system. so -- >> i'll get to that in a second. that relates to the storage of it. you had concerns, mr. morrison articulated his concerns about if the transcript was leaked out and i think both you and mr. morrison agreed it needed to be protected?

>> in the interest of correction, i don't think it was mr. morrison. it was mr. eisenberg, right? >> mr. morrison testified at his deposition -- >> okay. we don't have that in front of us. if you can give us that, we'll take a look. >> i can say for myself, there were -- the concerns about leaks seemed valid and i wasn't particularly critical. i thought this was sensitive and i was not going to question the attorney's judgment on that. >> even the code word server, you had access to it? >> yes. >> so at no point in time during the course of your official duties were you denied access to this information? >> correct. >> is that correct? ms. williams, i want to turn to you for a moment. you testified that you believe the transcript is complete and accurate other than the one issue you mentioned?

>> substantively accurate, yes. >> now, did you express any concerns to anyone in your office about what you heard on the call? >> my supervisor was listening in on the call as well. because he had heard the same information, i did not feel a need to have a further conversation with him about it. >> and you never had concerns with anyone else in the vice president's office. >> i did not discuss the call any further with anyone in the vice president's office. >> you didn't flag it for the chief of staff or the vice president's counsel or anyone of that sort? >> again, my immediate supervisor, lieutenant general kell logg was in the room with . >> did you and general kellogg ever discuss the call? >> we did not. >> the vice president of warsaw was meeting with president zelensky in warsaw. you were involved with the preparation of the vice president's briefing material? >> i was. >> did you flag for the vice president this parts of the call that had concerned you? >> no. we did not include the call transcript in the trip briefing

book. we don't normally include previous calls in trip briefing books. >> if the concerns were so significant, how come nobody on the vice president's staff at least alerted him to the issue that president zelensky might be on edge about something that had been mentioned on the 7/25 call? >> again, my supervisor had been in the call with me and i ensured that the vice president had access to the transcript in the moment on that day. as we were preparing for the september meeting with president zelensky, the more immediate issue at hand was two days prior the news had broken about the hold on the security assistance. so we were much more focused on discussion that was likely to occur about the hold on security assistance for that meeting. >> to your recollection -- you were in the meeting with vice president pence and zelensky and burisma didn't come up.

>> no, it did not. >> colonel vindman, you testified that the president has long-standing concerns about corruption in ukraine, correct? >> i don't recall. but there are concerns. there are broad concerns about corruption, yes. >> you would agree if the u.s. is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a foreign nation that has a corruption probable plem, that's certainly the u.s. government officials and the president would want to be concerned about? >> yes. >> if a foreign country has a problem with oligarchs taking money, taxpayer dollars, the president ought to be concerned about in advance of dispensing the aid? >> yes. >> i believe you did testify that corruption is endemic in ukraine? >> correct. >> are you also aware of the

president's septembkepticism of foreign aid generally. >> >>. >> he wants to make sure it's spent wisely. >> that is correct. >> you're aware of the president has concerns about burden sharing among our allies? >> yes. >> and with repekt to ukraine, he was interested and engage to see if there was a possibility for the european allies to contribute more? >> yes, that would be in the context of military assistance. in terms of burden sharing, the european union provides over $15 billion. >> okay. since 2014. >> you are aware of the president's concern of burden sharing, right? >> i am. >> turning our attention to the company of burisma, the co-founder of burisma, one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> it's been subject to numerous

investigations over the years. >> i'm not aware -- i guess i couldn't point to specific investigations but there is a what i would call a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as the minister of ecology during president yanukovych's tenure? >> i came to know that. >> george kent testified about this last week. under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged ukraine to investigate whether he used his government position to grant himself or burisma exploration licenses. are you aware of that? >> i would defer to george kent. he's a fountain of knowledge, deeper knowledge than i have. if he -- if he attested to that, i would take his word for it. >> he testified that the u.s. along with the united kingdom

was en caged in trying to row coupe $23 million from them? >> i understand he testified to that, yes. >> mr. kent also testified that the investigation was moving along and then all of a sudden there was a -- and the investigation went away. did you hear him mention that? >> i heard him mention that. these are events that occurred before my time. beyond what he said, i don't know much more. >> fair enough. right around the time the bribe was paid, the company sought to bolster their board. are you aware that they tapped luminaries for their corporate board? >> certainly, i learned that at some point, yes. >> including the president of poland, i believe? >> yes. >> and hunter biden? >> i came to learn that as well. >> are you aware of any specific experience hunter biden has in the ukrainian corporate

governance world? >> i don't know much about mr. hunter biden. >> we talked a little bit about -- at your deposition about whether mr. biden was qualified to serve on this board and i believe you acknowledged that apparently he was not, in fact, qualified? >> as far as i can tell, he didn't seem to be. but like i said, i don't know his qualifications. >> okay. ms. williams, i want to turn our attention to the inaugural trip. >> okay. >> at one point the vice president and the vice president's office was focusing on attending that, correct? >> that's right. >> and somewhat complicated because the white house doesn't want the president and the vice president out of the country at the same time? >> yes, that's correct. >> during that time, the president was in japan, i believe he was in japan may 24th to the 28th. and then he returned to europe

for the d-day ceremonies. june 2nd to 7th. i think you told us there was a window, you provided of four days at the end of may that if the vice president was going to attend the inauguration, it had to be 29th, 30th, 31st or 1st? >> our embassy had been in discussions with the ukrainians, with president zelensky's team and as we learned, obviously the ukrainian parliament was not going to come back into session until mid-may. we wouldn't know formally what the date would be. but we understood that the initial thinking was that the -- they were looking at dates at the end of may. honing in on that time frame, we were aware of president trump's plan to travel on either end. that's why we advised the ukrainians if vice president pence were to able to participate, the only available days were may 30th, 31st or june 1st. >> before the vice president travels to a foreign nation, you

have to send the secret service, do advance work, book hotels. it's a relatively involved preparation experience, right? >> that's correct. >> and do you know if the secret service ever deployed, booked hotels or anything of that sort? >> my understanding is that our advance team was looking into those preparations, including hotel availability. we were trying to determine when it would be appropriate to send out secret service and other advance personnel in order to lay groundwork for a trip. but because we weren't sure yet when the date would be, we hesitated to send those officials out. >> ultimately, the secret service, as i understand it, did not deploy? >> i don't believe they did, no. >> okay. the president zelensky's inauguration was may 20th, if i'm not mistaken? >> that's correct. >> you had about four days' notice. >> in the end the ukrainian parliament decided may 16th to set the date for may 20th. >> you acknowledge that made it difficult for the vice president and the whole operation to

mobilize and get over to ukraine, correct? >> it would have been, but we had stopped the trip planning by that point. >> and when did that happen? >> stopping the trip planning? >> yeah. >> may 13th. >> >> ho you did you hear about that. >> i was told by a colleague and vice president's chief of staff's office to stop the trip planning. >> chief of staff? >> that's correct. >> and so you didn't hear about it from general kellogg or the chief of staff? >> that's correct. >> you heard about it from mr. schwartz assistant? >> that's right. >> and did you have any knowledge of the reasoning for stopping the trip? >> i asked my colleague why we should stop trip planning. why the vice president would not be attending. and i was informed that the president had decided the vice president would not attend the inauguration. >> but do you know contract president decided? >> no, she did not have that information. >> okay. and ultimately the vice

president went to canada for a usmca event? >> that's right. >> during this window of time, correct? >> correct. >> so entirely conceivable that the president decided vice president wanted to go to canada instead of doing anything else, correct? >> i'm really not in a position to speculate hyped the president's decision. >> you know the vice president does a lot of these events, right? >> yes, sir. >> and are you aware of whether anyone at the state department inquired with your office about the vice president's a availability for the trip to canada? >> at what point? >> early may. maybe may 8th. >> i was not involved in the trip planning for canada. one of my colleagues who covers western hemisphere was in charge of that. so i'm not aware of specific requests about the vice president's availability. i was aware from my colleague who was planning that trip that we had competing trips potentially for the same window.

but i was told that the ukraine trip would take priority. >> but utltimately you don't know? >> about the canada trip? >> you don't know the reason why the vice president was sent to canada instead of going to the ukraine? >> i would say i don't know the reason behind why the president directed the vice president not to go to ooh ukrainukraine. i can't speak about the canada trip motivations. >> colonel vindman, i'd like to turn a little bit to the july 10th meeting in ambassador bolton office. and the subsequent post meeting in the war room. who all was in the meeting to the best of your recollection? >> are we talking about the ward rope or the meeting with ambassador bolton? >> we'll start with the first meeting in ambassador office. >> so from u.s. side we had

ambassador bolton, dr. hill, i believe there was another special assistant to the president, wells griffith was in there, and myself from the ukraine. >> for the ukrainians sorry. >> for the ukrainian side, we had alexander dulayc, and yermak and the adviser alexis. >> okay. and you testified you couldn't recall exactly why ambassador bolton stopped the meeting short. and you only learned it subsequently talking to dr. fiona hill? >> i didn't, frankly, exactly know why. >> and in the bolton meeting, you don't remember ambassador sondland using the word biden? >> he did not, to the best of my recollection i don't think he did.

>> and the group decamed to take a photo, correct? correct. >> okay. so the general feeling of the group was a positive one at that time even though it may have ended abruptly? >> i think ambassador bolton was exceptionally qualified. he understood the stra teeitegi opportunity f having a photo and we prompted him before we completely adjourned to see if he was willing to do a photo, and he did. >> so you went out to wessex tive or wherever in the white house and i think you said you took it. >> i certainly took a couple of them, yes. >> and in the photo is secretary perry, and ambassador volker. >> that's right, yes. >> mr. luke and mr. yermak. >> and i apologize when i was running through the u.s. side, of course boz bolton, sondland and secretary perry was there. >> okay. now, you testified that before

the july 10th meeting you had developed concerns about the narrative involving rudy giuliani. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and had you heard firsthand account from anyone on the inside? or had you just been following news accounts? >> so i certainly was following news accounts. and that's from the ukrainian side, ukrainian press and u.s. press. >> okay. and then -- >> and my colleagues in the interagency also were concerned about this as this had started in the maritime frame kind of emanating from the john sol man story all the way through. so there had been ongoing conversations so several different source, counsel. >> okay. and so when ambassador sondland mentioned the investigations, you sort of had a little bit of a clue what the issue was? >> oh, definitely. >> okay. then you took the photo, very nice photo, then you went to the ward room? >> correct. >> and do you remember, i think

you can conceded to us you had a hard time remembering exactly what was said in the ward room. again, it's four months ago. it's hard to be precise whether sondland, what specific words he used, whether he used burisma 2016 investigations. >> yeah. so i believe it's in the deposition, the three elements, burisma, bidens and the 2016 elections were all mentioned. >> in the ward room? >> correct. >> and i think, you know, i think we can maybe go back to this, but i think on page 64 of your testimony, you told us that you don't remember them using 2016 in the ward room? >> i believe that i actually followed up and, because this question was asked multiple times, i said all three elements were in there. >> okay. >> so when we asked the question it sort of refreshed your recollection?

>> yes, i guess that's the term now. >> there was some discussion of whether when mr. morris son took over the portfolio for dr. hill, whether you were sidelines at all. did you feel like you were? >> so i certainly was excluded or didn't participate in the trip to ukraine, belarus at the end of august. and i wasn't initially, before it changed from a pot us trip to vice president trip to warsaw, i wasn't participating in that one. so i didn't miss that, no. >> did you express any concerns to mr. morris son about why you weren't included on those trips? >> i was supposed to be on leave from the 3 of august until about the 16th of august.

and he called me and asked me to return. there was, obviously, high priority travel to the region, he needed my assistance to help plan for it. and in asking me to return early from leave, which i had taken frequently, i assumed that i'd be going on the trip. so when i was, after returning from leave early, when i was told i wasn't going, i inquired about it, correct. >> okay. and what feedback did he give you? >> he initially told me that the aircraft that was acquired, the mill air, was too small, and there wasn't enough room. >> okay. had you ever had any discussions with mr. morrison about concerns that he or dr. hill had with your judgment? >> did i ever have any conversations with mr. moorriso about it? >> yes. >> no. >> did mr. morrison express concerns to you that he thought you weren't following the chain of command? >> he did not.

>> and did dr. hill or mr. morrison ever ask you questions about whether you were trying to access information outside of your lane? >> they did not. >> and another aspect of the ukraine portfolio that you were not a part of were some of the communications mr. morrison was having with ambassador taylor? >> correct. >> and did you ever express concern that he was leaving you off those calls? >> well, certainly it was concerning he had just come on board. he didn't have the -- he wasn't steeped in all the items that we were working on, including the policy that we developed over the preceding months. and i thought i could contribute to that, to the performance of his duties. >> okay. when you were -- you went to ukraine for the inauguration? >> correct.

>> may 20th t at a. at any point during that trip did he offer you? >> he did. >> and how many times did he do that? >> i believe it was three times. >> and do you have any reason why he asked you to do that? >> i don't know. but every single time i dismissed it. upon returning, i notified my chain of command and the appropriate counter intelligence folks about this, the offer. >> ukraine is it a country that's experienced a war with russia, certainly their minister of defense is a pretty key position for the ukrainians, president zelensky, to best so that honor on you. >> i'm certainly aware of that honor. and i've known left service to nurture the democracies in that part of the world, especially baltics.

tws an air force officer that became minister of defense, if i recall correctly. but i'm an american. i came here when i was a toddler and immediately dismissed these offers. did not entertain them. >> when he made this offer to you initially, did you leave the door open? was there a reason that he had to come back and ask a second and third time? or was he just trying to convince you? >> counsel, you know what, the whole notion is rather comical that i was being asked to consider whether i would want to be the minister of defense. i did not leave the door open at all. >> okay. >> but it is pretty funny for lute colon lieutenant colonel in the united states army to be offered that position. >> when he made this offer to you was he speaking in english or ukrainian. he is absolutely flaw less speaker speaking in english. and just to be clear, there were two other staff officers,

embassy kiev staff officers sitting next to me when this offer was made. >> and who were they? >> so one of them you may have met s it was mr. david holmes. and the other one was, i guess, it's another foreign service officer, keith bean. >> okay. we met mr. holmes last friday evening? >> i understand. delightful fellow. >> and you said when you returned to the united states, you had given with clearance, whenever a foreign gocht makes an overture like that you paper it up and tell your chain of command? >> i did, but i also don't know if i fully entertained it as a legitimate offer. i was just making sure i did the right thing in terms of reporting this. >> okay. and did any of your supervisors,

dr. hill at the time, or dr. kupperman or bolton follow up with that? it's rather significant they offer you a defense of minister job. did you tell anyone in command about it? >> i believe i told the senior deputy. once i mentioned it to one of them i don't believe there was ever a follow up discussion. >> so it never came up with dr. kupperman or hill. >> following that i don't remember having a conversation about it. >> did you brief director morse son when he came on board? >> no, i completely forgot about it. >> okay. and subsequent that, did luke ever ask you to reconsider? were there any other offers? >> no. >> when you visited for the july 10th meeting with ambassador bolton, did it come up again?

>> it never came up again. >> okay. and did you ever think possibly if this information got out, this it might create at least the perception of a conflict that the ukrainians thought so highly of you to offer you the defense ministry post? one hand. but on the other hand you are responsible for ukrainian policy at the national security counsel? >> frankly, it's more important about what my american leadership, american chain of command thinks than any of the -- and this is -- these are honorable people. i'm not sure if he meant this as a joke or not. but it's much more important what my civilian thinks more so than anyone else. frankly if they were concerned about me being able to continue my duties. >> of course. >> they would have brought that to my attention. dr. hill stayed on for several more months.

and we continued to work to advance u.s. policy. >> okay. and during the times relevant of the committee's investigation, did you have any communications with mr. yermak or luke outside of the july 10th meeting? >> i recall a courtesy note from mr. yermak within days of his return to july in which he wanted to preserve an open channel communication. and i said, you know, please feel free to contact me with any concerns. >> and were you following this, you no he, sort of two tracks, ambassador taylor walked us through it during his testimony last wednesday. he called it a regular channel then he called it irregular but not outlandish channel with ambassador bolton and vul kerr. were you tracking the sondland and volker during this channel?

>> certainly i was aware of the fact they were working together, sondland, ambassador sondland and ambassador volker and secretary perry were working together to advance u.s. policy interests that were in support of what had been agreed to. but i didn't really learn, like i said, until the july 10th, actually there may have been a slitly earlier point. i recall a meeting in which ambassador bolton facilitated a meeting between ambassador volker and bolton in the june time frame. and there may have been some discussion about this external channel. >> okay. >> but i frankly didn't become aware of these particular u.s. government officials being involved in this alternate track until july soth. >> july 10th. >> and i think we had discussion about giuliani was negative. and certainly with zelensky it

was a new day and ukraine is going to be different. is that your understanding? >> that is correct. that is exactly what was being reported by the intelligence community, by the policy channels within the nsc, and the voices of the various people that have actually met with him, including foreign officials. >> and to the extent that you are aware of what ambassador sondland's goals were here and ambassador volker's goals were here, you think they were trying to administer to the best of the united states? >> that is it what i believe. >> and to the extent rudy giuliani may have had different views, they were helping him understand it was time to change those views? >> i think they were trying to bring him into the tent and have him kind of support the direction that we had settled on. >> and you never conferred with mr. giuliani? >> no. >> you never had any meetings,

phone calls, any of this sort? >> i did not. i only know him as new york's finest mayor. >> and did you have any communications during this relevant time period with the president? >> i've never had any contact with the president of the united states. >> my time is expired, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank the gentlemen. we are now going to move to the five minute member rounds. are you good to go forward or do you need a break? >> do you want to take a break? >> sure. >> i think we'll elect to take a short break. >> okay. let's try to take a five or ten minute break and resume with the five minute rounds. if i could ask the audience and members to please allow the witnesses to leave the room first. >> and we'll take that as our cue to analyze what we've wa watched over the last couple of hours.

two folks on that call who have familiar what was left out of alexander, lieutenant colonel vindman and along with ms. williams both testifying. and i think what we saw, savannah, with colonel vindman was an attempt to use him as a conduit to get to the whistleblower. >> yeah, there was an extra ordinary moment where he was asked if he had leaked any of this information. his readout of the call to any member of the press. he said he had not. then he was asked did you tell anyone else within the administration. he started to say yes. and i'm sorry to say one of those persons was in the intelligence part of the government. and it was at that point that adam schiff, the chairman reached out to say, wow, wow, wow, we might be getting into the whistleblower. so i think the presumption as we bring our analysts into this, that he could have potentially said i told this person and that person may well be the whistleblower. they same time it's a little confusing because he was asked

do you know the identity of the whistleblower. and vindman says i don't know. but it may be a little technical, andrew, he may not know for certain who the whistleblower is. he knows who he told about these matters. and that person may well be the whistleblower. >> exactly. so in other words he could give the name of who he told, and he made it very clear by the way that the person he told had every right to be told and was within the proper chain and classification. and he just doesn't know whether that person in turn was the whistleblower. but that in effect would out the whistleblower. >> if there were any doubt, it was assuaged when chairman schiff intervened saying we are getting into the territory br we may reveal the whistleblower. so it seems clear that as far as the chairman is concerned, vindman told a person who turns out to be the whistleblower. >> i have to say though they spent an awful long amount of time on trying to prove

something that is basically sort of not really -- >> you mean the whistleblower thing? >> not just the whistleblower but trying to discredit vindman because, well, his information might be tabt r tainted because he may have personal views that are ifrn did. felt like they spent an awful lot of time. they didn't go anywhere. all they ended up was spending an hour re-affirming his credentials. >> questions whether he used right channels? >> right. you were offered withis job wit the ukraine cran government. the efforts they made to discredit him only reinforced his credibility perhaps. because they didn't get any where with it. even when they almost had an a-ha moment, oh, you were offered a job, and then the more that they got him to explain it, the more it was obvious the whole reason they knew about this is because he reported it through the proper channels and did everything he was supposed to do. so to me they only reinforced

his credibility as honest grew. >> so here's the problem, they could attack the credibility, let's say they successfully attacked the two witnesses privy to the call. they still have a transcript of the call with all of the relevant facts admitted to and acknowledged by the white house. so these witnesses only get the democrats and republicans so far. there there is a transcript, near verbatim of this call, and these two witnesses are saying yes that's basically how it happened though they remember they actually used the word burisma. >> right. and if you are trying to distract, let's look at who potentially is the whistleblower, who cares. in other words who cares whether vindman told this information to someone who is the whistleblower you have the transcript and vindman. doesn't matter what he told the whistleblower. >> this is reminder of the two alternative realities that the country has. if you spend a lot of time on the president's channel you

follow that question really closely. this is the center of the argument is about the deep state about the whistleblower about these things. if you don't follow that, you are probably really confused about the line of questioning. because it is just bizarre at some point some of the places that they went with it. so it is a reminder, some of this questioning that you are hearing, if you don't spend a lot of time on the president's favor, you almost have no idea of this narrative that they are trying to weave which makes it -- and there were times that the witnesses were even confused. >> let me bring in someone with experience on the call from london. juan, what stood out to you what we heard this morning? >> well, lester, what i vee are two national security professionals, one on the vice president staff, one on the national security staff, that are trying to walk a fine line by simply presenting their facts and their point of view. but it's clear that the value of

these witnesses, at least to some of the members, is in trying to determine what's outside of the norms. what felt different to these staffers both in the context of the call and in the context of this parallel process and channel that had been established and that rudy giuliani was leading. and you see two staffers that are trying to explain what is u.s. policy toward ukraine. what are the things that they were doing and that their chains of command, whether it's through the national security counscil and the vice president and his team, what were they trying to do to execute that strategy. aen what were the tensions and challenges, and frankly the bizarre nature of the parallel processes and what is it really a high personalized diplomacy led by the president. what i'm keen on policy faced with very unusual parallel process and even parallel

intentions perhaps from the president. and you can see that tension in how they are answering the questions. you can see how careful they are trying to be in being precise. but at the end of the day, they were staffers trying to execute what they thought was the best, in the best interests of the u.s. government and what our policy was and they are faced with these real challenges of a parallel process. >> can i just jump in though, juan, because people watching have heard some of the questioning coming from the republican side who say, and vindman agree with this, there is a long standing corruption problem in ukraine. and that these investigations fit within that rubric. so can you explain why this is extraordinary why this is remarkable and not just the 'your suit of anti-corruption efforts in ukraine which would be within the purview of u.s. foreign policy objectives? >> yeah, what makes this difficult to understand, especially in terms of some of

the questions being posed, is that you have two core elements of our ukraine policy that are at play. both in the call as well as in the president's parallel process. and so, yes, the question of security assistance to the ukraine and how we help the ukrainian government with its legitimacy and confront russian aggression is it a central part of our policy. and yes of course has to be part of what the president focuses on, what the foreign policy community focuses on. and, yes, the anti-corruption concerns are fundamental in the context of the ukraine. there is no question about that. but what you have here is, in the context of this parallel process, a bit of a use of those very important policy issues as part of the parallel diplomacy and process. and what gets confusing for viewers is the fact that you have two very important issues. the security assistance, conveyance of nearly $400 million in aid.

the sending of javelin anti-defense missile systems to the ukrainians. along with a concern around corruption. all of which are legitimate. but in the context of a request for an investigation that appears to be personal and political and driven by the president's personal motives as opposed to foreign policy motives. and i think that's really the trouble here in understanding this. these are you will a the issues that matter in the context of ukraine but distorted through the lens of this personal request that the president was make zblg juan, will et me turn to nbc analyst former ambassador to russia. michael, as you watch this, it seems it will rise and fall whether the american public believes there was a real national security risk, not just miss deeds but national security risk. did anything we heard this morning establish that in bite size pieces? >> i think what you heard today

is that the president of the united states used his public office for private gain. and whether that rises to the national security interest and impeachable offense, that's for the u.s. congress to decide. but nothing in the general narrative we've known now for a long, long time was question at all. in fact, what ways struck by was the rabbit holes they were going down. first, the idea that lieutenant colonel vindman, by the way someone i served in moscow, somehow did something wrong by briefing the interagency. that was one line of attack. then second they were questioning his loyalty to the united states of america because he happened to be born in the soviet union. but neither of those were substantive attacks on the general story. the republicans didn't do anything to damage that general story which we know well now. >> ambassador, i thought there was an interesting moment where colonel vindman who testified he's the one who actually prepared the talking points, the notes that you give to the

leader that you are staffing to say these are the things that we want you to talk about. they can use them or not use them. but he prepared the talking points. he was asked by the democratic council whether or not this idea of the ukraine interfering in the election. he said was that in the talking points? he said no it is not. and i thought this was interesting, he was asked, are you aware that putin promotes that theory, that it was ukraine, not russia that interfered in 2016? and vindman said i'm well aware of that fact. a couple of times over these few days of public testimony, you've seen the democrats trying to prove what house speaker nancy pelosi likes to say, that all roads lead to putin when it comes to president trump. >> yeah, i also thought that was a very effective line of questioning. i also worked at the national security council and wrote talking points for president obama. by the way president obama always used every talking point that i wrote.

he didn't diverge here. and what you saw in that line of questioning was the trump administration policy towards ukraine represented in the talking points that lieutenant colonel vindman presented on the one hand, and the private interests of president trump. and i really want to underscore this fact. vindman is not making up u.s. policy towards ukraine. it is the entire administration that has one policy and it was the president pursuing this alternate set of presidents to president zelensky for his re-election efforts. >> just got a shot of colonel vindman in the hallway as they prepare to go back in the hearing room after a short break. but let me go to peter alexander at the white house. peter, have we heard from the president? >> reporter: we haven't but we likely will now gathered in preparation to head into the cabinet room today at 11:30 a.m.

person time effectively right now he's supposed to be beginning another cabinet meeting. that's when the president is briefed by other members of his administration. but also an opportunity for the president just to speak his mind on whatever topic may be there at the moment. certainly this is one topic the president has been heavily focused on. you were speaking with our experts and teammates that are around the table right now about this issue of the whistleblower earlier. it's really been the president who has been amplified it more than anybody. just 24 hours ago the president tweeting, where is the fake whistleblower? he has been the one really pushing this line that all of this should be undermined because of the person who came forward with this complaint in the very beginning. but as evidenced by jennifer williams testimony and the testimony of alexander vindman as well, they were primary sources. they were firsthand witnesses to that call. and what was striking in the way that vindman described that call, the president and the

president's allies have said even ukraine's president said there was no pressure. that they never felt any pressure at any point. of course, the democrats would say what else would you expect him to say? vindman said that the way he viewed that, when he said i'd like you to do us a favor though, was not as a request, not an ask, but that he viewed it as an order. lester. >> all right. peter, thank you. >> let's go go to jeff on capitol hill. there was an interesting moment when jennifer williams who was a state employee to work for the vice president talked about a phone call with vice president pence and president zelensky on september 18th. she was asked about it. and then on the advice of counsel said she couldn't discuss the contents of that call because it was classified. and the whousz wite house was asserting it was classified and not permitted to talk about it. and what more do we know about that call, it was seven days

after that aid was finally released? >> the reason why the call matters, is house democrats make the point that this call, the july 25th call between presidents trump and zelensky did not happen in isolation. that the call was part of a broad coordinated months long scheme. and so one of the reasons why they are focused on this september 18th meeting between vice president mike pence and zelensky is to get a sense of the follow up that happened by the administration after that call in question. now, what's interesting about this, is that as you correctly pointed out, the lawyer in realtime said that he had learned from the vice president's office that the contents of that call is now classified. but up until today, you had the vice president, a couple of weeks ago in fact, saying that he intended to make that call public. he said that he was working in coordination with the white house to release the contents of what was said. now, that it came up in a hearing, we are told that it's classified. but i'll tell you what, as we expect this hearing to come back into session any minute now, a big question heading into this

was how would the republicans handle this testimony from these firsthand fact witnesses. and now we know. i think they have settled on what is really a three-prong strategy best telegraphed by devin nunes and steve the republican council. what we saw devin nunes try to do is take the ukraine question down unrelated and some case rabbit holes. he also tried to invoke the name of the bidens and burisma as many times as he could, in part, to raise doubts and to raise sort of damaging information in the public sphere that president trump himself said he wanted ukrainian officials to do. that goes to the heart of the impeachment inquiry. so we see ms. williams and lieutenant colonel vindman taking their seats. >> as we wait for that. andrew, very quickly on this issue of the whistleblower, that not equivalent to the person who calls 911, is someone in criminal matter you would need to hear?

>> less than a 911 call. because 911 call it may have firsthand information. here we know that the person who is calling in who is the whistleblower has no firsthand information. so even less relevant than a 911 call. >> we will return back to the hearing now. >> first, if i could ask ms. williams and colonel vindman, you were asked a series of questions by the ranking member 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 any of the matters that were asked in those questions? >> that's correct. >> that is correct. >> ms. williams, you were also asked a series of questions about vice president's skied actual and whether he could have made the flaugs inauguration ore president traveling or the interest ip to canada. let's be clear about something. the president you were instructed that the president had told the vice president not

to go before you 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? >> that's correct. the date had not been set. so we were weighing different scenarios 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 the president not to go, that rudy giuliani had to abort a trip that 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 had read that in the press

reporting, yes. >> and did you read in the press reporting also that giuliani wanted to go to the ukraine as he put it not meddle in an election, bull investigations? >> i had read that. >> and that occurred prior to the president cancel something the vice president's trip to the inauguration. >> it did. i believe it was around july 10th. >> colonel vindman, you were asked by the minority council about the president's words on 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 pretty clear that the president wanted zelensky to commit to investigating the bidens, was it not? >> that is correct. >> that is one of the favors that you thought should be

properly characterized as a demand? >> that is correct. >> and there is 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. >> so when people suggest, well, maybe rudy giuliani was acting on his own and maybe he was a freelan freelancer or whatever, the president referred to the same two investigations rudy giuliani was 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 and bidens or burisma came up. stharks? >> that's correct they did flot come up. >> that bilateral meeting was a large meeting that involved two or three dozen people, wasn't? >> 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 the 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 meetings, vied meetings that ambassador sondland had following the vep's meeting with

president zelensky. i've only learned that through ambassador sondland's testimony. >> so at the big public meeting it didn't come up, and you can't talk to the private meeting that was held immediately thereafter? >> correct. the vice president moved on with his schedule immediately after his meeting with the president zelensky. >> now, colonel vindman, i want to go back to that july 10th meeting or meetings, the one with ambassador bolton, then 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 ward room that she did have a meeting with him tan that was expressed. >> now you thought you should talk to the lawyers on your own?

>> that is my recollection, yesle. >> but bolton also thought that dr. hill should go talk to the lawyers because of his concern over this drug deal that sondland and mulvaney were talking about? >> that is my understanding. >> and in fact this drug deal as bolton called it involved this conditioning of the white house meeting on these 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 whrks t, when the pr 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 talk to the

lawyers, ends upcoming 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. >> i yield to the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, you took seven minutes so i assume you'll give us equal time. >> yes, mr. nunes. >> thank you. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, before i turn to mr. jordan, i asked ms. 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 stiting where you are sitting. and i want to give you a chance to respond 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 lute colonel vindman's judgment among the discussions i had with dr. hill and the transition with our team, it's strength, its weaknesses and fiona and others had raised concerns about alex judgment. when mr. morrison was asked by mr. kaster, did anyone bring concerns to you that colonel vindman may have 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 your colleagues felt there were times when you leaked information. any idea why they have those impressions, colonel vindman? >> yes, representative jordan, i guess i'll start by reading dr. hill's own words as tested to in my last evaluation dated mid-july before he left. alex is top 1% best army officer i've worked with in 15 years of government service. he's brill antibiotic. and exercises excelle-- he's br. and exercises excellent judgment. i think you get the idea. >> the date of that was?

>> yeah, let's see, i'm sorry, july 13th. >> so mr. jordan, i would say 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 we were just trying to figure out our relationship. maybe it was a different culture. military culture versus. >> and colonel, you never leaked information? >> i never did. i never would. that i would never do. >> the people we deposed were now on the somewhat famous july 25th phone call. there was you, the individual sitting beside you ms. williams and your boss mr. morrison that i read from his deposition. when we asked ms. williams who she spoke to about the call she was willing to ask our questions

and chairman schiff allowed her. when we spoke mr. morrison who he spoke to about the call. he was willing to answer our question and chairman schiff allowed him to answer the question. when we first asked you you first told us three individuals, your brother and two lawyers. then you said there was a group of other people you communicated with but would only give us one gentlemen secretary kent. and only allow to give us the name. when we asked you who else you would not tell us. so i want to ask first how many other people were in that group outside of the four individuals i just named? >> mr. jordan, on call read out certainly of a the first call, there were probably half a dozen people or more that i read out. those are people with the proper clearance and the need to know. in this case, because of the sensitivity of the call, and mr. eisenberg told knee not to speak to anybody else, i only read out

to side of the nsc two individuals. >> two individuals. >> kent and one other individual. >> and you are not willing to tell us who that person have? >> point of order. >> suspend. council. >> mr. chairman, i would ask you to enforce the rule with regard to disclosure with regard to the intelligence officer. >> thank you, counsel. as i indicated before, this committee will not be used to out the whistleblower. that samenessty. >> mr. chairman, can you note the time. >> you are reconstruction niced mr. jordan. >> mr. chairman, i don't see how this is outing the whistleblower. the witness has testified he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. you have said, even though no one believes you, you have said you don't know hot whistleblower is. so how is this outing the whistleblower to find out who this individual is? >> mr. jordan, this is it your time for questioning. you can use it anyway you like. but your question should be addressed to the witness.

and your question should not be addressed trag to out the whistleblower. >> colonel vindman, there is another thing that he said in his deposition. he said he was not concerned about the call itself, he said there was nothing illegal or improper on the call, but he was concerned about the call leaking, the contents of the call leaking. he said this, he was concerned how it would play out in washington's polarized environment, how the contents would be used in washington's political process. mr. morrison was right. >> excuse me, mr. jordan, could i get a page? >> page 44. >> thank you. >> mr. morrison was right, the call leaks, whistleblower goes to chairman schiff staff, then runs off to the lawyer, same lawyer who said in january 17, the cow has started against president trump. one thing the democrats 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. transcript shows no linkage. the two individuals on the call have both said no pressure, no pushing, no lineage, for security assistance dollars, to an investigation. ms. williams, after the call on the 25th, you know that colonel vindman talked to several people. after the call on the 25th, how many people did you talk to about the call? >> i did flot speak to anybody about the call. >> you didn't speak to anybody? >> no. >> i yield back. >> mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to enter colonel vindman performance review in the record. >> can i inquire colonel vindman if he would like us to do that. if you would, or if you prefer not to be part of the record, i'll leave it to you. >> i guess were redactions it has pii in it that should be protected. and maybe the only el m ents that are relevant are the

national narrative. >> chairman. >> did you read the relevant portions? >> i mean, that was the short version. there were some other paragraphs in there. >> i'll withdraw my request. >> thank you. >> thank you both for your testimony. ms. williams you joined the foreign service in 2006, correct? >> correct. >> prior to becoming a flon partisan career official you worked as afield representative for the bush cheney and department of security under secretary che secretary. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now as a foreign service officer served two presidents in a variety of rolls? >> correct. >> you are to advise the vice president on details of russia. >> that's correct. >> on sunday the president personally targeted you in a tweet. this is after he targeted ambassador yovanovitch during her hearing testimony. i'd like to show and read you the tweet. it reads, tell jennifer williams, whoever that is, to

read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released statement from ukraine. then she should meet with the other never trumpers who i don't know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better presidential attack. miss williams, are you engaged in a presidential attack? >> no, sir. >> ms. williams, are you a never trumper? >> i'm not sure i know an official definition of a never trumper. >> would you describe your self that way? >> i would not, no. >> did that make -- 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 awful look like witness intimidation and tampering and in effort to perhaps shape your testimony today. lieutenant colonel h you previously testified that you've dedicated your entire professional life to the united

states of america. colonel, above your left breast you are wearing a device which is springfield musket on a bluefield. what is that device? >> it's combat badge. >> how do you get that badge? >> you have to be serving in a brigade or below tactical unit, that means fighting unit, in combat. >> under fire? >> correct. >> you are 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 probably the largest operations in decades, out we were conducting a patrol in conjunction with the marines and my vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device that penetrat penetrated armor. >> were you injured? >> i was.

>> the day after you appeared for your deposition, lieutenant colonel, president trump called you a never trumper. colonel vindman, would you call yourself a never trumper is this. >> i would call myself never partisan. >> thank you. mr. your military career you served under two presidents. have you ever waive erred from the oath y waivered from the oath you took? >> in every. >> do you have any political motivations for your appearance here today? >> none. >> colonel vindman, multiple right wing conspiracy theories kl including rudy giuliani. we have seen that in this room this morning, the three minutes that were spent asking you about the offer made to make you the minister of defense, that may have come cloaked in brooks

brother suit, but that was designed exclusively to give the right wing media an opening to question your loyalties. and i want people to understand what that was all about. it's the kind of attack, kind of thing you say when you are defending the indefensible. it's the kind of thing when you say it's not enough to attack the media, or to attack the democrats, but it's what you stoop to when the indefense ability of your case requires that you attack a man who is wearing a springfield rifle on afield of blue above a purple heart. i, sir, thank you for your service and yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conway. >> yield to radcliff. >> thank you the gentleman for yielding. in a press conference last yeerd speaker of the house nancy pelosi said prumtd did the impeachable offense of bribery

evidenced in his july 25th call transcript with president zelensky. in concert with that, multiple democratic members of this committee gave tv and radio interviews over the past week discussing how the president's conduct supported his impeachment for committing bribery. all of which struck me as very odd because for the longest time this was all about quid pro quo according to the whistleblower complaint. but 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. briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the july 25th call as extortion. and now it's shifted again, last week, to bribery. ms. williams, you used the word unusual to describe the president's call on july 25th. lieutenant colonel vindman you

used the word inappropriate and proper. i've word searched each of your transcripts. and the word bribery 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 vindman, 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 bribery 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 this 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 question about whether or not president trump's conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yovanovitch was asked by my college congressman stewart last thursday is zero. the number of times witnesses have used the word bribery or bribe to describe president trump's conducted in the last sis weeks six weeks is zero. in fact in these pages of sworn testimony, and just these ten transcripts released thus far, the word bribery appears in these 3500 pages exactly one time. and ironically, it appears not in a description of president trump's alleged conduct. it appears in the description of vice president's biden alleged conduct. this is important.

because as early as next week, my democrat i go colleagues are going to say we need to vote on this evidence from the impeachment inquiry of the impeachment of the president for bribery. and they'll send a report to the committee and because more democrats than republicans it's likely going to pass. and the american people need to be clear when the democrats, what they are describing as bribery, not a single witness is describing as bribery. we have heard many times in the course of this proceeding that the facts of the president 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 accused of keep changing. why do we go from quid pro quo to extortion now to bribery. chairman nunes told you the answer. the answer is polling. washington times asked americans, what would be the most damming accusation? didn't come back quid pro quo or come back extortion.

it came back bribery. so this case is all about bribery. look, it's bad enough that the democrats have forbidden white house lawyers from participating in this proceeding. it's hard enough to defend yourself without your lawyers present. le but what's even worse is trying to defend yourself against an accusation that keeps changing in the middle of the proceeding. if democrats accuse the president of high crime or impeachable offense, he ought to know what it is. and when speaker nancy pelosi says it's all about bribery, she's promised evidence of bribery that would be compelling and overwhelming and instead it's invisible. i yield back. >> 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 united states you testified in the spr of this year that these officials, these ukrainian officials began asking you, quote, advice on how to respond to mr. giuliani's advances, end quote. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> what do you understand they meant by mr. giuliani's advances? >> i understood that to mean both his public commentary, so publicly calling for investigations into 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 you understand it, under whose authority do you