to investigate what happened in the past and apply its own laws. no one in the new team had anything to do with anything that may have happened in 2016. they were making television shows at the time. iral i also said it is credible to me that he would have been influenced by financial or personal motives in carrying out duties as vice president. a different issue is whether some individual ukrainians may have attempted to influence the 2016 election or thought they could buy influence. that is at least plausible given ukraine's reputation for corruption. the accusation that he acted independently did not seem credible to me. i connected mayor giuliani and the aide by text lantand later t i phone.

they met in person on august 2, 2019. in conversations with me following that meeting which i did not attend, mr. giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past and mr. yermoc stressed, he said it is their position to conduct investigations as part of this process anyway. mr. giuliani said he believed ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with mr. yermoc, i said i didn't think this would abe problem since that is the government's position anyway. i followed up and he said they would be prepared to make a statement. there was no mention of vice president biden. rather, in referencing burisma in the 2016 election

interference, it is clear he was only talking about whether any ukrainians acted inappropriately. at this time, i was focused on our goal of getting president ze zelenskyy and president trump to each other. i was seeking to solve the problem i saw when we met with president trump in the oval office on may 23rd. as a professional diplomat, i was comfortable exploring whether there was a statement ukraine could make about its own intentions to investigate possible corruption that would be helpful in convince plg giuliani could con take to mr. trump a positive assessment of the new leadership in ukraine. on august 16th, he shared a draft with me which i thought looked perfectly reasonable. it did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. ambassador sondland and i had a conversation with mr. giuliani who said in his view in order to

be convincing that this government represented real change in ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. again, there was no mention of vice president biden in these conversations. ambassador sondland and i discussed the points and i ended the statement drafted by mr. yermoc to include the points to see how it looked. i then discussed it further with mr. yermoc. he said for a number of reasons including the fact that he was still officially the prosecutor general, that they did not want to mention burisma and 2016 and the idea of putting out a statement were shefld. these are the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17 to 18. my last contact with mr. giuliani according to my records is on august 13th until he tried to reach me on september 20th after the impeachment inquiry was launched. at this time that, is to say in

the middle of august, i thought the idea of issuing the statement was scrapped. in september, i was surprised to learn that there had been further discussions with ukrainians about president zelenskyy possibly making a statement in ain't swn intervie media similar to what we discussed in august. since these events and since i gave my testimony on october 3rd, a great deal of additional information and perspective has come to light. i learned in things that i did not know at the time of the events in question. fir first, at the time i was connectsing mr. giuliani and yermac and the statement, i didn't know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and ukraine pursuing investigations. no one had ever said that to me. i never conveyed such a linkage to the ukrainians. i opposed the hold on security assistance and i thought with he could turn it around before the

ukrainians ever knew or became alarmed about it. i did not know the reason for the hold. i viewed it as a u.s. policy problem we needed to fix internally. i believe the ukrainians became aware of the hold on august 29 nl and not before. that date is the first time any of them asked me about the hold by forwarding an article that had been pupublished in "politi" when i spoke to the hold, instead of telling them they need to do something to get the hold released, i told them the opposite. they should not be alarmed. it was an internal u.s. problem and we were working to get it fixed. i did not know others were conveying a difference message to them around the same time. sikd second, i didn't know about the strong concerns express bid john bolton to members of the staff regarding the discussion of investigations. i participated in the july 10th

meeting between national security adviser bolton and then ukrainian chairman of the national security council. as i remember, the meeting was essential i had over when ambassador sondland made a comment about investigations. i think we all thought it was inappropriate. the meeting concluded. later on in the war room, i may have been engaged in side conversation or had already left the complex because i did not recall further discussion regarding investigations of burisma. third, i did not understand that others believed that any investigation of ukrainian company burisma which had a history of accusations of corruption was tan amount to investigating vice president biden. as long been u.s. policy under multiple administrations to urge ukraine to investigate and fight internal corruption. i was quite comfortable with ukraine making its own statement about its own policy of investigating and fighting

corruption at home. at the one in person meeting i had with mayor giuliani on july 19th, mayor giuliani raised and i rejected the theory that vice president buys woen have influenced as duties as vice president by money paid to his season son. i have known mr. biden for 24 years. he is an honorable man and i hold him in the highest regard. at no time was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate vice president biden and from the extensive documentation i provided vice president biden was not a topic of discussion. i was not on the july 25th phone call between president trump and president zelenskyy and i was not made aware of any reference to vice president biden or his son by president trump until the transcript of that call was released on september 25th, 2019. throughout this time i flrd was an important distinction between burism and biden. i urged the ukrainians to maintain a zundistinction. i didn't know that they raised

vice president biden with the ukrainians or inflated ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former vice president. in retrospect for ukrainians it would have clearly been confusing. in hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving ukrainian company as equivalent to investigating biden. i saw them as very different. the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. in retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so i would have raise mid own objections. fourth, much has been made of the term three amigos in reference to secretary of perry, ambassador sondland and myself. i never used that term and frankly krinth when i hear it. the three amigos will always refer to senator mccain and lieberman and graham in their effort to support the surge in iraq. i was never aware of any designation by president trump or anyone else putting

ambassador sonld land or the three of us as a group in charge ukraine poll sichlt i understood it each of us in our own respective official capacities continued to work together after our attendance of president zelenskyy's inauguration to push for greater u.s. support for ukraine. leading the diplomacy around ukraine negotiations and long been my official responsibility but i welcome the added support and influence of a cabinet member and our eu ambassador. fifth, i was not aware that he spoke with president trump on july 26th and taylor and i were visiting the conflict zone. i believe policies are critical importance and i'll be pleased to answer your question. >> thank you for your opening statement. >> i'll provide the committee

members the questions conducted by the chairman followed by 4r5 minut 45 minutes of questions. i specify equal time and will proceed infer the five-minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. i recognize myself or council f counsel for the first round of questions. ambassador volker, i was going to yield. there are a couple points you made in your opening statement that i want to ask about first. first you said that now former attorney general was not credible. he is the author of a number of allegations against ambassador yovanovitch, a number of allegations that were shared with a number of allegation that's have been repeatedly brought up by my republican colleagues. why is it that you found mr.

lutsenko not credible and told mr. giuliani so? >> thank you, mr. chairman, the allegations themselves including those against ambassador yovanovitch did not appear to me to be credible at all. i know her to be an incredibly competent professional. someone i worked with for many, many years t the suggestions that she was acting in some inappropriate manner were not credible to me. i have known vice president biden for a long time. those accusations were not credible. and then separate from that, i also was aware of the political situation in ukraine. we had a situation where the president appeared to not be in a favorable position going into the elections where it was increasingly apparent then candidate zelenskyy was going to win. as is often the case in ukraine, a change in power would mean change in prosecutoral pow irz

and there rests in the past at prosecuting the previous government. i think mr. lutsenko and i said this to mayor giuliani was interested in preserving his own position. he wanted to avoid being fired by a new government in order to possible prosecution of himself and possibly also this is something in a so by making allegations like this, and making sure that they are reaching u.s. media. i think mr. that he is trying to make himself appear to be an important and influential player. n. the united states. >> ambassador, let me ask you about the allegations against joe biden. that has been a continuing refrain from my colleagues as well. why was it you found the allegations against joe biden related to his son or burisma not to be believed?

>> simply because i've known vice president, former vice president biden for a long time. i know how he respects his duties of higher office and it's just not credible to me that a vice president of the united states is going to do anything and act as he sees best for the national interest. >> finally, ambassador, before i turn it over, i was struck by something you said on page eight of your statement which treats in hindsight i realize others saw investigating the ukrainian company burisma as equivalent to vice president biden. i saw it being inappropriate, the lat irbeing unacceptable. in retrospect, you said i should have seen that connection differently and i h. i done so, i would have raised my own objections. what is it now, ambassador, in retrospect that you recognize that you didn't at this time

that lead you to conclude that you would or should have raised the objections? >> others did not see the same things as i saw it. as i said, there is a history of corruption in ukraine. there's a history with the company of burisma. it's been investigated. that is well known. there is a separate allegation about the vice president acting inappropriatebly. his son was a borard member of this company. but those things i saw completely distinct. what i was doing is trying to thread a need tole to see thing thez can do as part of ukraine's own policy of fighting corruption that help clarify for our president that they are committed to that very effort. there's a way to thread that

needle. i thought it was an effort to solve a problem. as it turns out, most people didn't consider this distinction. for them, it was synonymous. >> one of those people that saw it synonymous turns out to be the president of the united states. i take it you didn't know until the call record was released that the president and that call doesn't raise burisma, he asked for an investigation of the bidens. is that right? >> that is correct. >> i take it since you say that you acknowledge that asking for an investigation of the bidens would have been unacceptable and objectionable, that had the president asked you to get ukraine to investigate the bidens you would have told them so. >> yes. i would have objected to that, yes, sir. >> mr. goldman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just one follow up on that, ambassador volker. when you say thread the needle, you mean that you understood the relationship between vice president biden's son and

burisma but you were trying to separate the two of them in your mind? is that right? >> i believe that they were separate. that -- and this references the conversation i had with mr. giuliani as well. where i think the allegations against vice president biden are self serving and not credible. separate question is whether it is appropriate for ukraine to investigate possible corruption of ukrainian that's may have tried to corrupt things or buy influence. to me thashgs ve, they're very things. the former is unacceptable. >> understood. you understood the relationship between hunter biden and burisma? >> i knew he was a board member of the company, yes. that's why it was so posh to maintain the distinction. >> let's focus on the july 25th call for a moment. and mr. morrison, july 25th was day number what for you as the senior director overseeing

ukraine? >> i officially took over on the 15th, approximately 10 days. >> you testified in your position you received an e-mail on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sondland shortly before the call. is that right? >> yes. >> and i believe in that e-mail ambassador sondland told you that he had briefed president trump about the advance of the call? is that right? >> yes. >> and you also testified that ambassador sondland told you on another occasion that he could call the president whenever he wanted. is that right? >> yes. >> and on july 25th, did you, in fact, make an effort to confirm whether or not the phone call between ambassador sondland and president trump actually occurred? >> i did. >> and did it happen?

>> yes. >> on other occasions when he said he spoke with president trump, did you on some other occasions, did you also seek confirmation of that fact? >> on some, yes. >> and on those occasions when you did seek to confirm that they had spoken, what did you find? >> they had. >> i want to pull up a text message on the morning of july 25th. between -- well, it's -- should be another one. yeah, sorry. ambassador sondland with you, a ambassador volker. and at 7:54, he says call a. sap. and then at 9:35shgs ambassador volker, you respond. is the screen working in front of you or just to the side? >> yeah. if can you read what you said at 9:35. >> yes. so i said gordon, i got your

message. he will see you tomorrow. think everything is in it place. >> and who is yermak? >> that is the senior adviser to president zelenskyy of ukraine. >> now what was the message that you had received? >> that president zelenskyy should be clear, convincing, foshlg right with president trump about his commitment to fighting corruption and investigating what happened in the past, get to the bottom of things, whatever there is and if he does that, president trump was prepared to be reassured. that he would say yes, come on, let's get this date for this visit scheduled. >> did you understand from that message that ambassador sondland had spoken to president trump? >> it wasn't sure whether he had or not. he, as mr. morrison just said,

said does he speak with president trump. i knew that he had conversations in general. i didn't know specifically about one. leading up to this. there was another text message from you that same morning at 8:36 in the morning to andre yermak. >> i think because of the time difference this is actually in the afternoon in ukraine. >> in ukraine. so this is east coast time. that's right. this slightly less than a half hour before the call between president trump and president zelenskyy? >> right. >> can you just read what you wrote there? >> just after the lunch i had with andre, good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. we'll nail down date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. >> and does this accurately relay the message you received from ambassador sondland? >> yes. >> now mr. morrison, did the national security council also prepare talking points for

president trump for this call? >> and per usual custom, are these talking points based on the official united states policy objectives? >> we operate under national security presidential memorandum four. it's available on the internet. that lays out how the president wants to be provided options for his decision. >> and there is an extensionive process to finalize any policy, is that right? >> sometimes. >> mr. morrison, you listened to this call on the 257b8, is that right? >> i did. >> where did you listen from? >> the white house situation

room. >> in your deposition, you testified that call was not what you were hoping to hear. what did you fwhin? >> i was hoping for a more full throated statement of support from the president concerning president zelenskyy's reform agenda given where we were at the time with respect to the overwhelming mandate president zelenskyy servant of the party people had received in the election. >> and that election, the ukrainian parliament that, election occurred four days earlier? >> that's right. >> and president zelenskyy's party fwhon a land side, is that right? >> they received more than a majority in their own right. >> at least in ukraine there was tremendous support for zelenskyy's anti-corruption agenda, is that right? >> at the time. and within the interagency, within the national security agencies here in the united states, was there broad support for president zelenskyy?

he at least put his money where his mouth was for the three months he was in office, is that right. >> approximately three months, yeah. >> i want to show a couple of excerpts from this call record to each of you. the first is president trump responding to a comment by president zelenskyy related to defense support from the united states and the purchase of javelins. and president trump then says, i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowd strike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it. and if we can go to the next excerpt, where president trump says, the other thing, there is 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. were these things included in the president's talking points? >> they were not. >> were they consistent with what you understood at that time to be official u.s. policy? >> i was not aware of any -- of much of this at the time. >> nkt fashgs subsequent to this call, did you nothing to implement the investigations that president trump implement the request for the investigations that president trump asked for, is that right? >> i did not understand any instruction to do so. and you were not aware of anyone else within your -- you

coordinate the interagency process, you were not aware of anyone else doing that either, is that right? >> correct. >> now, you testified in your deposition that hearing this call confirmed what you call the parallel process that your president sesor fiona hill warned you about. what did you mean by that? >> during the period in which dr. hill and i were conducting handoff meetings so that i could be up to speed on the various things that were occurring in the portfolio at the time, she mentioned the traditional 4 process and the parallel process. and in the context of discussing the parallel process, she mentioned issues like burisma which were note worthy to me at the time because i had never heard of them before. and upon hearing them in the call, it wound up confirming, okay, there is something here.

>> who she call in the process? >> sondland and mr. giuliani. >> what did do you if anything to determine what that was? >> after that particular handoff meeting, i proceeded to look it up on the internet. i googled it. >> did you find that it had some association with hunter bide snen. >> yes. >> did you dmot listen to this call but you testified you were surprised and troubled when you read the call record after it was released on september 25th. you also said that after reading the call record, it was clear to you that the biden-burisma and 2016 election investigation that's president trump discussed on the call were designed to serve the president's political interests not the national

interests. what did you mean when you said that? >> i don't recall that language from my testimony. is that my october 3rd testimony? >> yes, it was. >> well, what i do mean by that and i would like to phrase my own words now is i don't think that raising 2016 elections or vice president biden or these things i consider to be conspiracy theory that's have been circulated by the ukrainians, particularly the former prosecutor general are -- they're not things that we should be pursuing as part of our national security strategy with ukraine. we should be supporting ukraine's democracy, reforms, own fight against corruption, struggle against russia, its defense capabilities. these are the heart of what we should be doing. i don't think pursuing these things serves a national

interest. >> mr. morrison, shortly after you heard the july 25th call, you testified that you alerted the nsc legal adviser john eisenberg right away. >> correct. >> you indicated in your opening statement, at least from your deposition, that you went to mr. eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout if the call record became public and not because you thought it was illegal. is that right? >> correct. >> but you would agree, right, that asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival is inappropriate, would you not? >> it's not what we recommend the president discuss. >> in a second meeting with mr. eisenberg, what did you recommend to prevent the call frord leaking? >> i recommend we restrict

access tots package. >> did you ever ask the legal adviser to restrict access before? >> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor dr. cupperman before you went to speak to john eisen sfwherg. >> no. >> did you subsequently learn that the call record had been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> and what reason did mr. eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system? >> it was a mistake. >> he said it was just a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> now isn't it also true though that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to? >> i believe i could have instructed the appropriate staff to do so, yes. >> so why did you go to the nsc legal adviser to recommend that? >> i was also concerned that based on the participants in the listening room that day i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the nsc legal advisors office as they

were often on head of state calls but not always. i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg is the legal adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> you wanted them to review it because of the potential political consequences, not because anything was wrong? >> correct. political consequences was an umbrella term i used in my statement to describe a series of events. i feared about what would happen if and when the content of the transcript or the content of the mem-com leaked. >> just so i understand this correctly pt you heard the call. you recognized that president trump was not discussing the talking points that the nsc prepared and instead was talking about the investigation that's fee owna hill warned you about and then you reported it immediately to the nsc legal adviser.

is that the correct chain of events here? >> that's correct. >> now ambassador volker, in the july 25th call, president zelenskyy volunteers to president trump that rudy giuliani had already spoken with one of his associates and that president zelenskyy hopes giuliani will come to ukraine. he proceeds to mention him on three separate occasions during this call. you testified about a may 23rd meeting in the oval office where the president spoke quite negatively about ukraine and how it would try to take him down. and that he also repeated some of the allegations that mr. giuliani was making. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. >> and those allegations were in the media, were they not? >> yes. and during that meeting, president trump told you and ambassador sondland and secretary perry to talk to giuliani. isn't that correct?

>> he -- i didn't take it as an instruction. i want to be clear about that. he said that's not what i hear. he said nasdaq n that's not what i hear. i understood him in that context saying that's where he hears it from. i didn't take it as an instruction. >> so when you said talk to rudy, you didn't take it for him to mean for you to talk to rudy? >> i didn't take it that way. i took it as that just part of the dialogue. that i hear other things. i hear them from rudy giuliani and other people. that's not what's going on. he is surrounded by terrible people. talk to rudy. you know, it just seemed like part of the dialect. >> after that meeting did you talk to rudy? >> not immediately, no. this was may 23rd and we proceed

to get the effort. and we ramp up the support for the ukrainian president and the ukrainian government. i did, however, july 2nd as i was becoming concerned we were not succeeded that problem and that problem being this negative feed of information from mr. giuliani. >> and ultimately, think as you testified in your opening sfame statement, you introduced him to mr. giuliani and they eventually met. is that right? >> that's correct. >> now during this whole time in july and after the call into early august when they met, ukraine still wanted that oval office meeting for president zelenskyy, correct? >> that is correct. >> and you also wanted that for president zelenskyy. >> that's correct. >> why was that oval office meeting so important to president zelenskyy? >> i think he felt that he was not well understood by president trump. he is a charismatic leader who

ran a remarkable campaign in ukraine against the legacy of corruption and political malaise that had been in there yet a massive showing in the presidential elections, 73% support. he believed he was leading a movement of major change in ukraine and president trump was -- did not see that or didn't appreciate that. but if he had a chance to sit down and speak with president trump face-to-face, he believed that he could be very convincing about that and i agreed with him. >> that certainly was your assessment, right? >> it was my assessment. i believe it was also president what zelenskyy believed. >> you understood from your experience in ukraine that there would be a significant boost in legitimacy at home for president zelenskyy if there were photos of him in the oval office, et cetera, right? >> that's correct. >> now you knew, you testified in your opening statement that mr. giuliani and mr. yermok, zelenskyy's aide met on august 2nd, where did they meet?

>> they met in madrid. >> and did you learn that mr. giuliani requested anything of the ukrainians at that meeting? >> only when i spoke with mr. giuliani afterward he said that he thought ukraine should issue a statement and then i spoke with the aide after that and he said, yes. and we're prepared to make a statement. and that then kicked off the series of discussions that i said in my testimony. >> we'll get into that in a second. mr. giuliani does not explain to you what needed to be included in that statement and in that call you had? >> he said something more general as i recall. i recall him saying fight corruption. their commitment to being different. mr. yarmoc told me when i spoke with him, that the statement would include specific mention of burisma and 2016. >> right. let's go through some of the text messages so we know exactly who said what. first. let's start on august 9. this is a text exchange between

you and ambassador sondland. where ambassador sondland writes at the top, morrison ready to get dates as soon as he confirms. what did you respond? >> i said excellent. how did you sway him with a small afterwards? >> ambassador sondland responded not sure i did. i think potus really wants the deliverable. what did you say to that? >> but how does he know that? >> and ambassador sondland said, yep, clearly lots of convos going on. mr. morrison, you're referenced in this text message. you had discussed confirming a date for a white house visit for president zelenskyy with ambassador sondland around this time? >> i likely would have. >> and did you have any discussions with him about a statement that ukraine was -- that they were trying to get ukraine to make? >> i did not. >> were you aware that -- do you

yourself know what ambassador sondland meant by the deliverable? >> i did not at the time. i think i have an understanding now. >> and what is your understanding now? >> there seems to have been discussions about a statement, various drafts of which have been discussed in various proceedings. >> but this to your knowledge was part of that parallel process you were talking about? >> yes. >> if we can now go to the next exhibit which is another text exchange just a few minutes later between ambassador so sondland and you mr. volker. to avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask andre for a draft statement embargoed so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover. even though z, zelenskyy, does a live presser that can still summarize in a brief statement. thoughts? and how did you respond?

>> agree. >> and this relevanrelates to t that mr. giuliani wanted? >> it relates to the statement that he and the aide discussed. now to the next day on august 10th, there is another text exchange between you and mr. yearmak who is the same aide that mr. yew lanny met in madrid. the and if you could read what you wrote at the top at 5:02:00 p.m. >> i wrote, i agree with your approach. let's iron out statement and use that to get date and then president zelenskyy can go forward with it. >> and he responds, once we have a date, we will call for a press briefing. announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of u.s.-ukraine relationship including among other things burisma and election medidling and investigations. and what did you respond? >> sounds great. >> now the date that he is

referring to that, is the date for the white house visit? >> that's correct. >> now two days later on august 12th, you receive another text message from the aide which reads, special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the united states, especially with the alleged involvement of some ukrainian politicians. i wanted to declare this is unacceptable and we want to conduct a transparent investigation of all available facts and episodes which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future. now ambassador volker, this was a draft, was it not, of the statement that you and mr. giuliani and the aide and ambassador sondland were discussing? >> this is the first draft of that mr. him after the conversations that we had. >> and does it not mention burisma or the 2016 election

interference. >> it does not. >> you testified that you and ambassador sondland and mayor giuliani had a conversation about this draft after you received it, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and mr. giuliani said that if the statement did not include burisma in 2016 he leshgs it would not have any correct. is that right? >> that's correct. >> now this was the same rudy giuliani that president trump was discussing in that may 23rd meeting and asked you to -- you and the others to talk, to correct? >> that is the same mr. giuliani. >> and even at that point on may 23rd, you were aware of the investigations he was publicly promoting, correct? >> i knew that he had adopted or was interested in all of those conspiracy theories that had come from him. >> back in may you knew that? >> back in may. >> now he was insisting on a public commitment from president

zelenskyy to do the investigations, correct? >> well, now what do we mean by these investigations? >> burisma and the 2016 election. >> yes. >> and at the time that you were engaged in coordinating for the statement, did you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a public statement from president zelenskyy to carry out the investigation that's president was seeking? >> i didn't find it that unusual. i think when you're dealing with the situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about president zelenskyy being committed to real kri changing ukraine after his entirely negative view of the country, that he would want to hear something more perfect president zelenskyy to be convinced that okay, i'll give this guy a chance. >> and he perhaps also wanted a public statement because it would lock president zelenskyy in to do the investigations that he thought might benefit him? >> well, again it, when we say

these investigations, what i understood us to be talking about was ukraine and corruption. >> well, we're talking about is burisma and the 2016 election. we can agree on that. when we talk about these investigations, isn't it clear that a public statement would be important to mr. giuliani because it was politically useful to the president? >> the way i saw it is that it would be helpful. >> right. >> it would be a way of being convincing to player giuliani and also to the president that this team and ukraine is serious about fighting corruption reform that they are different and if that would be helpful in getting a more positive attitude and the white house meetings scheduled, then that would be useful. >> and that would be helpful to get that white house meeting. >> correct. >> in fact, it was a necessary condition as you understood at that point. >> i wouldn't have called it a necessary condition. and, in fact, when it became clear later that we were not able to agree on an agreement that the ukrainians were

comfortable with, i agreed with ukraine to drop it. it's not worth it. >> i understand that. but is it your testimony that based on the text that you wrote linking the investigations and the 2016 election on july 25th to the white house meeting, you're saying that by this point in august with this back and forth that you were unaware that this public statement was a condition for the white house meeting? >> i wouldn't have called it a condition. it's a nuance, i guess. but i viewed it as very helpful if we could get this done it would help improve the perception that president trump and others had and then we would qu get the date for a meeting. if we didn't have a statement, i wasn't giving up and thinking that then we'll never get a meeting. >> let's go to the next day. there is another text exchange. and at the top, could you just read the first? >> yes. it says hi, andre, good talking. following his text with insert at the end for the two key items we'll work on official request.

>> and then you see the highlighted portion of the next text. the other is identical to your previous one and then it just adds including these involving burisma and the 2016 i elections. is that sflicorrect? >> he said that is necessary for that date of birth credibl to be credible. >> the ukrainians did not issue the statement. >> no. >> and president zelenskyy did not get the oval office meeting either, did he? >> not yet. >> now, i want to move forward to september. and early september. when the security assistance begins to more overtly be used as lefrnl to pressure the ukrainians to conduct the investigation that's president trump wanted. mr. morrison, you accompanied vice president pence to warsaw when he met with president zelenskyy, is that right? >> i was in warsaw when the vice

president was designated as the president's representative. i was accompanying ambassador bolton. >> understood. the you were at the meeting with the vice president and president zelenskyy, correct? >> i was. >> and in that meeting, were the ukrainians concerned about the hold on security clearance -- military assistance, rather? >> yes. yes. . >> what did they say? >> it was the first issue that president zelenskyy raised with vice president pence. they were very interested. they talked about it and the importance to ukraine. its importance to the relationship. >> and what was vice president pence's response? >> the vice president represented that it was a pry order for him and we were working to address and he

characterized president trump's state of corruption in ukraine. and the president's prioritization of getting the europeans to contribute more to security sector assistance. zwr was he commenting on general concerns of the hold? >> i didn't mention a hold. he mentioned we were reviewing the assistance and that's the way i heard it and characterize it. and those are the points he raised to help him understand where we were in our process. that is the coordinator of the interagency process. you were not aware of the review of the security clearance money,

were you? we were running a process to provide the information that i had been directed to generate for the president's consideration as to the state of interagency sport for continuing ukraine security sector assistance. >> and the entire interagency supported the continuation of the security assistance, isn't right? >> that is correct. >> now after the larger meeting with vice president pence and president zelenskyy, you testified at your deposition that you saw ambassador sondland immediately go over and pull andrea side and have a conversation, is that right? >> i mean it was president zelenskyy left the room. vice president pence left the room and then in an anti-room, ambassador sondland and andre had this discussion. yes. >> and what did ambassador sondland say to tell you that he told mr. yearmak sfwh.

>> that ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. >> and you testified that you were not comfortable with what ambassador sondland had told you. why not? >> well, i was concerned about what i saw as essentially an additional hurdle to accomplishing what i had been directed to help accomplish which was giving the president the information he needed to determine that this the security sector assistance could go forward. >> so now there is a whole other wrinkle to it. >> there was the appearance of one base od on what ambassador sondland represented. >> you told bhim this as sfwhl. >> i promptly reached out to taylor to schedule a secure phone call. >> and in your deposition, you testified that his testimony other than one small distinction between president zelenskyy and the prosecutor general was accurate as to what you told him.

is that correct? >> about that conversation, yes. >> and generally speaking you confirmed everything that ambassador taylor told you except for that one thing and a small other minute steeral matter relating to the location of a meeting. >> correct. >> did you tell ambassador bolton about this conversation as well? >> i reached out to him as well and requested i had availability for a secure phone call. >> and what was the response when you explained to him what ambassador sondland had said? >> tell the lawyers. >> did you go tell the lawyers? >> when i returned to the states, yes. >> and did he explain to you why he wanted you to the tell the lawyers? >> he did not. >> a few days later on september 7th, you spoke again to ambassador sondland who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with president trump. isn't that right? >> that sounds correct, yes. >> what did ambassador sondland tell that you president trump said to him?

>> if i recall this conversation correctly, he this is where ambassador sondland related there was no quid pro quo but president zelenskyy had to make the statement and he had a it want to do it. >> and by that point did you understand that the statement related to the biden and 2016 investigations? >> i think i did, yes. >> and that was essentially a condition for this security assistance to be released? >> i understood that's what ambassador sondland believed. >> after speaking with president trump? >> that's what he represented. >> now you testified that hearing this information gave you a sinking feeling. why was that? >> well, i believe if we're on september 7, the end of of the fiscal year is september 30th. these are one-year dollars. the dod and the department of state funds. so we only had so much time. and in fact because congress imposed a 15-day notification requirement on the state department funds, september 7th,

september 30th, that really means september 15th in order to secure a decision from the president to allow the funds to go forward. >> did you tell ambassador bolton about this conversation as well? >> i did. i did, yes. >> and what did he say to you? >> he said to tell the lawyers. >> why did he say to tell the lawyers? >> he did not explain his direction. >> but he doesn't tell you to go tell the lawyers because you're running up on the eight-day deadline there, right? >> again, i don't know why he directed that, but it seems reasonable and is consistent with what i was going to do anyway. >> and you weren't going to tell them because of that concern, right? you were concerned about what you were hearing ambassador sondland relay to you, correct? >> correct. >> so just so we're clear, you reported two concerning conversations that you had with ambassador sondland to the lawyers in early september in which you understood from him that the president was withholding security assistance as additional leverage to get ukraine to publicly announce the specific political

investigations that president trump had discussed on the july 25th call. is that accurate? >> i was concerned about what ambassador sondland was saying were requirements, yes. right. >> and you understood, though, that the investigations that ambassador sondland was referring to were the two that president trump referenced on the july 25th call, correct? >> by this point, yes. >> during this time period did you have any conversations with ambassador volker about any of this? >> i believe we had one conversation. >> and what do you recall about that conversation? u u >> umm, i believe on or about september 6th ambassador volker was in town to provide an update on some of his activities. and he provided that update. and then we had a one-on-one conversation about this track, this separate process. >> and what do you recall saying to him about the separate process? >> i think i was interested in understanding his understanding

of events. >> did you explain to him what your understanding of events was? >> i think i was primarily on receive mode. >> and ambassador volker, do you recall this conversation? >> thank you. i do remember a conversation with tim. i'm not sure about the timing. i left around that time to go on a trip. and so it may have been a little bit earlier. i'm not sure about the timing. but and i do remember the discussion being is, tim asking me, what is my impression of the role that ambassador sondland plays. and my response to that was, well, i find it helpful that he has political contacts in the white house. i don't have those contacts. i'm working the national security, the diplomatic front, but offthe politic ti don't hav contacts. so if he was able to use those toward the goal we were all

working toward, that would be helpful. >> the september 8th text exchange between you and ambassador sondland and ambassador taylor, at the top ambassador sondland says, guys, multiple convos with zs, potus. let's talk. then approximately one hour later, ambassador taylor says, the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it and i quit. and then at the bottom, about five hours later, how do you respond? >> i say, i'm not in the loop, talk monday. >> so you were not in the loop in terms of all of these conversations that ambassador taylor, mr. morrison, ambassador sondland, were having? >> yes, that's correct. >> and now ultimately, the hold was lifted on september 11th, is that right, ambassador volker? >> that's my understanding. >> mr. morrison, were you aware

that prior to september 11th, at the white house, there was a whistle-blower complaint circulating around the white house? >> i don't believe so, no. >> but you are aware of a request to preserve records, were you not? >> we received a number of those requests. i have a general recollection of one as related to ukraine. >> and one final question, when was the hold lifted? >> as i understand it, the president gave that direction the evening of september 11th. >> which is two days after congress announced an investigation, were you aware that? >> i believe i was familiar with the letter from the three committee chairmen. >> i yield. >> that concludes the majority 45 minutes. before i turn to the minority, are you both and your counsel okay or do you need a break? okay. ranking member nunes, you're recognized for 45 minutes. >> well, ambassador, mr. morrison, i have some bad news for you. tv ratings are way down.

way down. don't hold it personally, i don't think it's you guys. whatever drug deal the democrats are cooking up, you're on the dais, the american people aren't buying it. i know you both answered this in your opening statements. but i just want to bring a little more clarity to it. uh, mr. morrison, i'll start with you. did anyone any ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the white house? >> no, sir. >> and you were the top person for ukraine in the white house, correct? at the nsc level. >> i would argue ambassador bolton would be. >> reporting to ambassador bolton. >> i was the senior official, yes, sir. >> ambassador volker, you have a storied career, we're very thankful for your service. you were the special envoy to ukraine. >> that is correct. >> did anyone at the white house ever ask you to bribe or extort

anything out of anyone at any time? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i want to thank you both for being here and i'll yield to mr. castor. >> thank you, mr. nunes. thank you both for being here today and also for participating in the lengthy depositions. ambassador volker, you were the first one on october 3rd. mr. morrison, you were with us on halloween. so thank you for your participation. mr. morrison, i also want to thank you, you're a long time hill staffer. i certainly have an appreciation for that. nearly 20 years. so thank you. and ambassador volker, a pennsylvania resident. >> absolutely. >> an incredible part of the country. >> very proud of it. >> i'm from nearby. i just want to walk through some of your positions. you are a senate-confirmed ambassador to nato for a stint? >> that is correct. >> then you were at the state department. your portfolio expand much of what i believe george kent has currently? >> i was the principal deputy

assistant secretary. so working for the assistant secretary, i had all of europe and asia and particular responsibility for nato, western europe, and european union. >> and then you were involved with the national security council. you were the director for nato and western europe? >> that is correct. >> and then you were the senior director for european union and usual asian affairs? as i was acting for several months, substantiatiix months o. >> much like mr. morrison had. and we'll note that all the witnesses that we have interacted with have just heaped praise on you, ambassador yovanovitch said you were a brilliant diplomat. so that's very high praise. and for over two years you served as the special representative for ukraine negotiations. >> that cais correct. >> and you served for free? >> that is correct. >> you served on a voluntary basis. >> i did. >> you put a lot of time and

effort into that job, didn't you? >> yes, i did. >> the taxpayers certainly got their money's worth, didn't they? >> not for me to say. >> and you believe america's policy towards ukraine has been strengthened during your tenure as the special representative? >> absolutely. when i look back at the record i think we did an awful lot to support ukraine. >> is it fair to say that is in part due to president trump? >> president trump approved each of the decisions made along the way, providing lethal defensive equipment and the statement on crimea being the two most important ones. >> for many years there had been an initiative in the agency to advocate for lethal defensive weaponry for ukraine; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and it wasn't until president trump and his administration came in that that went through? >> that is correct. >> the delegation to president zelensky's inauguration in may,

i believe you testified it was one of the largest delegations? >> i believe it was. i can't be 100% sure. i believe it was the largest national delegation. >> okay. and included in the delegation was secretary perry? >> secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself, senator ron johnson was there and also the charge d'affaires at the u.s. embassy at the time, joe pennington. >> we talked a little bit this morning, but president zelensky's inauguration came together rather quickly? >> it did. i believe we had about three days' notice in which to put the delegation together. >> there's been some discussion whether the vice president was going to be able to lead that effort and as it turned out he was not able to lead it. do you have any information as to why the vice president was unable to join? >> i don't. >> and mr. morrison, do you have any information as to why the