mr. eisenberg told me to take my concerns to him. i asked you, did mr. eisenberg tell you not to report, go around mr. morrison? actually he did say that i should not talk to any other people. right? lt. col. vindman: yes, but there is a time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. it wasn't that long of a time but it was enough time for me -- ne >> and f time to go talk to someone who told -- who you will tilt not tell us who it is? you interpret it as not talking to your boss but you talked with your mother and the lawyers and you talk to the one guy that adam schiff on that let you tell us who he is. is that right? lt. col. vindman: representative, i did my job. >> i'm not saying you didn't. your instructions from the lawyer was you should not talk to anybody, and you turbid that is don't talk to my boss, but i'm going to talk to someone that we cannot even ask you who that is. lt. col. vindman: that is incorrect. >> i just read what you said. >> the gentleman has expired. lt. col. vindman: that is not the way it played ou

mr. eisenberg told me not the speak to anyone. >> and this is on page 102, because mr. eisenberg told me to take my concerns to him. and i said, did mr. eisenberg tell you not to report, and go rnd and actually, he did, he said not the talk to any other people. is that right? >> yes, but there is a period of time in there when i spoke to him, and he circled back around. it is not that long of a period of time, but it is enough time for me to -- >> enough time for you the go to talk to someone who you won't tell us who it is, right? >> i have been instructed not to, representative jordan. >> this is what i am getting. the lawyer told you not to speak to any other people, and you interpreted that to talk to your boss, but you talked to your brother, and the lawyers and the secretary kent and the one guy that chairman schiff won't tell us who it is. >> representative jordan, i did my job. >> i am not saying that you didn't. but i am saying that the instructions from lawyer is that you should not talk to anybody, and you interpreted that as to don't talk to my boss, but i am

coordination i spoke to the appropriate people within the inner agency and then circling back around mr eisenberg came back to me and told me not to talk to him i'm going to read from the transcript here why don't you go to your direct report mr morris and your response was this page one of 2 because mr eisenberg told me to take my concerns to him. and i ask you did miss did mr eisenberg tell you not to report to go around mr morsi and you said actually he did say that i shouldn't talk to any other people there right yes but there's a hold there's a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around it wasn't that long a period time but it was enough time for me to enough time to go to talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is right i've i've been instructed not to represent of jordan what here's what i'm getting the lawyer told you don't talk to any other people and you interpret that as not talking to your boss but you talk to your brother you talk to the lawyers you talk to secretary can you talk to the one guy adam schiff won't tell you what let us won'

mr. eisenberg. there is some reporting out today in the associated press, and "politico," that just increasingly puts these circles of these pressures around mr. eisenberg. what's your understanding about who the white house is setting up to take the blame for some of the actions that look from the outside like a coverup? >> it's a great question. in fact, i think other than john bolton, and maybe mick mulvaney, the one person i think you want to hear the most from is john eisenberg. not only as you just put it was he contacted by at least two we know so far white house officials with concerns about what was going on, the propriety of what was going on but he was also the one who approved putting it in the super lass fied server, super classified server, the rough transcript to begin with and what was his thinking when he did that, his rationale and what was his reaction when colonel vindman and fee on owe that hill came t him. who did he talk about it? and so many questions need to be asked. he is

mr. eisenberg and others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to cooperate allegations against the president. that is the reason we want to bring him in and we want -- are concerned that he is a top lawyer in the administration, would engage in the laws act to refuse to abide by process. >> [indiscernible] easier foraking it you to watch c-span's coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administration's response. coverage,s any live go to our impeachment page on our website for video on demand. we have added a tally from the associated press showing where each candidate stands on the impeachment inquiry. follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage at c-span.org/impeachment. it is your easy way to watch unfiltered coverage at any time. coming up this afternoon, a discussion about impeachment, for an interference, and how best to safeguard the 2020 elections, live from the brookings institution at 3:30. democratic chair, donna braz

mr. eisenberg, correct? >> that occurred in the afternoon, and i'm sure it was a been within a couple hours i talk to mr. eisenberg. >> how did he react? >> he was cool, calm, and collected. he said he would look into it and you took notes. >> did he tell you you would be free to come back if you have additional concerns? >> he did, mr. congressman. >> ambassador sondland said his request to the ukrainians had been coordinated with the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney. did you report that to mr. eisenberg? >> i did. >> what was his reaction? >> he took notes and he said he would follow up or look into it. i don't recall exactly what he said. >> colonel, you also testified that on the july 25th call between the two presidents "there was no doubt" president trump asked for investigations into the 2016 election, and vice president biden's son, in return for a white house meeting. within an hour of that call, you reported that mr. eisenberg, did you not? >> i did. >> went back to them to see if it was approp

mr. eisenberg and others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to cooperate allegations against the president. that is the reason we want to bring him in. and of course, we are concerned that he as a top lawyer administration would engage in the lawless act of refusing to abide by lawful process. >> you don't expect any of the [indiscernible] announcer: house oversight jim jordan also spoke to reporters on capitol hill about the impeachment inquiry. he maintains president trump has done nothing wrong and that the transcript of the closed-door depositions will confirm this. here are his remarks. rep. jordan: we wish the first transcript had been released would have been ambassador voelker. he was the first individual to testify. we have been calling for that for several weeks. the individuals whose transcript were released today frankly have not much to do with the underlying issue. ambassador mitch mckinley had nothing to do with the s

mr. eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. and then i asked you, did mr. eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around mr. morrison? and you said, actually, he did say that, i shouldn't talk to any other people. is that right? >> yes, but there's a whole -- there's a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. it wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to -- >> enough time for you to go to talk to someone who you won't tell us who it is, right? >> i've been instructed not to, representative jordan. >> here's what i'm getting. the lawyer told you not talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to scare keec kent and talk to the one guy schiff won't let us tell you who it is. >> representative jordan, i did my job. >> i'm not saying you didn't. all i'm saying is the instructions from the lawyer was, you shouldn't talk to anybody, and you interpret that as don't talk to my boss, but i'm going to go

mr. eisenberg. ou said, i wasn't making a legal judgment, all i was doing was sharing my concerns with my chain of command. yet we've established that your direct report is to mr. morrison. let's establish your role and your title. in your deposition, lieutenant colonel vindman, page 200, 201, in a colloquy with mr. stewart, you said, i would say first of all i'm the director for ukraine. i'm responsible for ukraine. i'm the most knowledgeable. and i'm therefore the national security council and the white house. are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on ukraine? couldn't someone like ms. williams also advise on ukraine? it's in her portfolio. >> that's not typically what would happen. frankly it would be ambassador bolton -- >> other people can advise on ukraine besides you. going on in your testimony, you said, i understand all the nuances, the context and so forth surrounding these issues. i on my judgment went, expressed concerns wi

mr. eisenberg told me not to talk to anybody there. >> mr. eisenberg, he told me to take my concerns to him. >> and, there's a period of time in it wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to -- >> enough time to talk to someone who you want i will assume it is, right? >> i've been instructed not to, representative jordan. >> he's what i'm getting. he told you not to talk to any of the people and you interpret that as not talking to your boss. but you talked to your brother, you talked to the lawyers, you talked to secretary kent, and the one guy adam schiff will let you tell us who he is. is that right? >> representative jordan, i did my job. >> i'm not saying you didn't. all i'm saying is the instructions from the lawyer where that you shouldn't

mr. eisenberg, you said, i was not making a legal judgment. all i was doing was sharing my concerns with my chain of command. yet we've established that your direct report is to mr. morrison. so, let's establish your role and your title. in your deposition, lute ebt colonel vindman, page 200 and 2001, you would say, first of all, i'm the director for ukraine. i'm responsible for ukraine. i'm the most knowledgeable. and i'm -- for the national security council and the white house. are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that could advice the president on ukraine? couldn't someone like miss williams also advise on ukraine? it's in her portfolio. >> that's not typically what would happen. it would be -- frankly, it would be ambassador bolton that -- >> so, other people can advise on ukraine besides you. going on in your testimony, you said, i understand all the nuances to the content and so forth surrounding these issues. i on my judgment went, i expressed concerns within the chain of command which i think to me

you're not a lawyer and a page 153 of your testimony deposition and reference that meeting with mr eisenberg you said i was not making a legal judgment all i was doing is steering my concerns with my chain of command yet we've established that your direct report is to mr morrison so let's establish your role in your title in your deposition lieutenant colonel than men page 20201 and a colloquy with mr stewart you said i would say 1st of all i'm the director for ukraine i'm responsible for ukraine i'm the most knowledgeable and therefore than the national security council and the white house are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on ukraine couldn't someone like miss williams also advise on ukraine it's in her pro folio. not typically would happen it would be for a prickly would be ambassador bolton so do other options no other people can advise on ukraine besides you. going on in your testimony said i understand all the nuances the context and so forth surrounding these issues i and my judgment went i expressed concerns within

mr eisenberg after that once i made that expressed my concerns it was an extremely busy week we had aa p.c. just finish we had the call and then we had a deputies being which consumed all my time i was working extremely long days i attempted to try to communicate i managed to speak to 2 folks in the inner agency i attempted to try to talk to mr morse and that didn't happen before and receive instructions from john eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further. so the lawyer you know he didn't go to your boss you said you tried beating go to your boss you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss no he didn't tell me until. what ended up unfolding is i had the conversation with the attorney i did my coordination my core function which is coordination i spoke to the appropriate people within the inner agency and then circling back around mr eisenberg came back to me and told me not to talk to him i'm going to read from the transcript here why don't you go to your direct report mr morris and your response was this page one of 2 because mr eisenberg to

mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to cooperate allegations against the president but that is the reasonwe want to bring him in and of course we are concerned that he is a top lawyer in the administration would engage in the lawless act of appeasing to abide by lawful process. thank you. [inaudible question] >> @c-span .org we are making it easier to watch c-span coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administration's response. if you miss any of our live coverage go to our impeachment inquiry page at c-span .org -- impeachment for video on demand. we've added a tally from the associated press showing where each house democrat stands on the impeachment inquiry against president trump. follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage at c-span .org -- impeachment. it is your fast and easy way to watch c-span's unfiltered coverage anytime. >> brookings institution is hosting a discussion on impeachment, foreign interference and how best to say guard the 2020 election. c-span will have live coverage today starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern. this afternoon here on c-span2 former democratic nati

mr. eisenberg and mr. ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the high lie classified systly >> i don't understand. >> was it intended to be on the highly classified system by the lawyers or a mistake it was put there? >> i think it was intended, again, intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now you testified that 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 read out from the april 21st call and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see the highlighted portion. root out corruption. >> yes. >> so in the end this read out was false? is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was squiconsistent with u.s. policy. so a statement that goes out,

mr. eisenberg?>> we can go on. >> you are not an officer or lawyer and on page 153 of your testimonyr, deposition in reference to the meeting with mr. eisenberg, not making a legal judgment i was sharing my concerns with my chain of command. yet we've established your direct report is to mr. morrison so let's establish your role and her title in your deposition page 200 -- 201, you said i would say first of all i'm the director for ukraine, i'm responsible for ukraine, the most knowledgeable. and i'm here for the national security council in the white house. are you the only one of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on ukraine? >> couldn't ms. williams also eradvise on ukraine is in her portfolio. >> that's not typically what would happen, and beat ambassador bolton. >> so other people can advise on ukraine beside you. >> going on in your testimony is doesn't understand the nuance, context surrounding these issues, i on my judgment went and expressed con

mr. eisenberg, right? >> mr. morrison testified at his deposition. >> 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. >> and even on 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, is that correct? >> correct. >> ms. williams i want to turn you for a moment, and 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 in listening on the call as well, so because he had heard the same information, i did not feel the need to have a further conversation with him about i

that it was sensitive it was kind of on the fly decision to just segregate in this other system mr eisenberg and mr ellis so the n.s.c. lawyers correct but it was your understanding that it was not a mistake to put it on the highly classified system is that right i'm not sure i understand was it 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 to but again it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access now you testified to both of you about the 1st call a little earlier and colonel binman 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 able to any 1st call and at the i'm not going to read the whole thing but you see the 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. it's not entirely accurate but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false it was

and my only thought was to act properly and to carry out my duty following each of my reports to mr eisenberg i immediately returned to work to advance the president's and our country's foreign policy objectives i focused on what i've done throughout my military career promoting america's national security interests i want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues were appeared on our schedule to appear before this committee i want to say that the character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible it is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate this is been the custom of our country since the time of our founding fathers but we are better than personal attacks. the uniform i wear today is that of a united states army is that of the united states army the members of our all volunteer force are made up of a patchwork of people from all of the necessities regions socio economic backgrounds backgrounds who come together under a common oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america we do not serve any politi

political and he was going to mr eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation if he did not any point on the edits say that there should be a demand and you know. he didn't do that but he did say that he didn't come to you with his concerns chris you weren't available that same day he came to you with with edits. that was that correct i believe that's generally correct yes or ok well he said you weren't available and you didn't hear the president make a demand did you know sir so some time between the call and today lieutenant colonel dimon must have been here and some voices in he heard demand at the time but he didn't hear it that day and he didn't make it an issue that day but today he does i think that's pretty bizarre. when lieutenant colonel then went to legal mr eisenberg you know if he was advised not to speak to you i don't have any firsthand knowledge of that no sir you know if he was advised to contact the i.g. i see. grosser i have no firsthand knowledge about so you don't know what he was advised when he went to legal there so i do not thank you i appreciate that. m

mr. eisenberg's definition of mistake is. fred, there are a series of very deliberate steps that are necessary to move a transcript like this from an unclassified environment to a classified environment where special access programs exist. it's highly unlikely that the person who took those steps made a mistake that amounts to essentially a mmisfiling a repo. that is an unlikely scenario. >> it's not plausible to you that it was a mistake in hindsight, or that someone thinks it was a mistake in hindsight. they knew what they were doing. >> absolutely. you would have to know what you're doing. not only are there a number of steps to take, but also you have to have particularly special access to do this, and there is a record of who does this and when they do it. so that part of it could not have been a mistake. now, fred, it is plausible that mr. eisenberg may have said to someone that these transcripts need to be restricted and he was not clear in his communication. but if he was clear or not, we now know where this particula

mr. eisenberg told me not to report it to anyone. >> this is page 102. because mr. eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. i asked you, did mr. eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around mr. morrison? you said, actually i did say that i shouldn't talk to any other people. is that right? >> yes, but there is a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. it wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to -- >> enough time to go talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is, right? >> i've been instructed not to, representative jordan. >> the lawyer tells you not to talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talked to your brother, you talked to your lawyers, you talked to adam schiff. you talked to the one guy who won't tell you what it is. >> mr. jordan, i did my job. >> but you were instructed not to talk to anybody, and you interpreted that to mean not to talk to your boss, but you went to others who we can't identify who they are. >> i'm sorry, c

mr. eisenberg. >> mr. morrison testified that in his deposition. >> we don't have that in front of us. >> i can say for myself, the concerns about leaks seemed valid, and it wasn't particularly critical. i thought this was sensitive, and it was not going to question the attorney's judgment on that. >> even on the codeword server, you had access to it? >> yes. time duringpoint in your official duties were you denied access to this information? >> correct. >> miss williams, i want to turn to you for a moment. you testified that he believed the transcript is completely inaccurate -- complete and accurate, other than the one issued you mentioned? >> substantively accurate, correct. >> did you express any concerns to anyone in your office about what you heard on the phone call. >> my supervisor was listening on the call as well. because he had heard the same feelmation, i did not the need to have further conversation with him on it. >> and you never had conversations with anyone else in the vice president's off

and precisely what ambassador bolton and asked me to in the course of those 2 meetings what was mr eisenberg response as isenberg took it all very seriously he said for example that colonel vinh men should feel free he said this to me in future to go and bring any comes to him about. these these meetings simply myself and any others if there was any subsequent. follow up in terms of these issues being raised again with any of the parties in the future he didn't say anything in response of about how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or if he did he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place no he did not he listened very carefully to all of the information that we impart is now back to that july 10th meeting the 2nd meeting it's in the wardroom correct that's correct now who's in that meeting besides yourself the 2 ukrainians. mr mysie aramark mr. vulcan bus just some blend and then a couple of people i think of from the state department i wondered for a while if one of secretary perry's group had been there too but i honestly cannot remember but ambassador bob

mr. eisenberg. he seems to be the fulcrum of this still unfolding scandal. >> well, this is so important because if this was so -- if this was only about corruption and general corruption in the ukraine, a arguably obviously sound policy position, no, no, they're good, you can send the aid, that if it was all that, why when it comes to eisenberg does it get deep sixed? we have to ask that question because investigators always look for is does it look like people are are just saying oh, yeah, but we didn't do anything wrong or does it look like they're hiding? that's what's so striking here and that's also to your point, what's striking about bolton. >> well can i get legal for a second? >> get legal then we'll bring garrett in. >> this is where knowledge overlaps with intent. >> they say ignorance is no excuse, no defense in the law. but ignorance -- >> taking it a long way. >> but it can help you if you can reasonably state, particularly in the government context, i was somewhere in the chain of co

mr. eisenberg, do you know if he was advised not to speak to you? >> i don't have any first-hand knowledge of that, no, sir. >> do you know if he was involved to contact the ig ic? >> no, i have no first-hand knowledge of that. >> so you don't know what he was advised when he went to legal? >> i do not. >> thank you, i appreciate that. mr. volker, i've got to tell you i really enjoy your opening testimony. i know that it was long but it was extremely well done. i appreciate it. you talk about letters signed, sharing concerns about leadership in your assigned country. about agreeing with and sometimes disagreeing with the leadership of your own country when you felt it was appropriate. you were the boots on the ground for the administration. let's face it, you're part of that team that is there to serve the country in that way. that all, to me, sounded like the works of a very good diplomat and i want to thank you for that. >> thank you, sir. >> it is truly appreciated. and corruption was a concern, legitimately, in ukraine and in many ways. mr. jord

mr. eisenberg or others made that decision.nk we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. but that's the very reason we want to bring him in, and, of course, we are concerned that he, as a top lawyer in the administration, would engage in the lawless act of refusing to abide by a lawful process. >> oyou've been listening to th chairman of the intelligence committee, adam schiff, on capitol hill. he was criticizing four officials who are refusing to show up today, to give depositions to the impeachment inquiry. adam schiff says the four of them will be in defiance of subpoenas. he views it as obstructing congress. he said they were all, quote, firsthand witnesses to the serious misconduct. he also said the decision to release two transcripts, marie yavonovitch and mckinley, saying that they were the first of the two committee transcripts that would be released, two more coming tomorrow. importantly, the president's spec

mr. eisenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and political opponent. he was going to mr. eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation, yet he did not at any point on the edits say that there should be a demand and you know, he didn't do that, but he did say that he didn't come to you with his concerns because you weren't available, but that same day he came to you with edits. was that correct? >> i believe that's generally correct. yes, sir. >> he said you weren't available and you didn't hear the president make a demand, did you? >> no, sir. >> so some time between the call and today lieutenant colonel vindman must have been hearing some voices and he heard "demand" at the time, but he didn't hear it that day, and he didn't make it an issue that day, but today he does. i think that's pretty bizarre. when lieutenant colonel vindman went to legal, mr. eisenberg, do you know if he was advised not to speak to you? >

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 stat

mr. eisenberg, mr. ellis came in. he hadn't heard the entire conversation and when it was mentioned that it was sensitive, it was kind of an on the fly decision to segregate it in this separate system. >> mr. eisenberg and mr. ellis are nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to put it 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, both of you, about the april 21 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 21 call. i'm not going to read the whole thingut highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> i

mr. eisenberg with his concerns about the conversation. yet he did not at any point on the edits say that there should be a demand. and, you know, he didn't do that, but he did say that he didn't come to you with his concerns because you weren't available, but that same day he came to you with edits. is that correct? >> i believe that's generally correct, yes, sir. >> he said you weren't available and you didn't hear the president make a demand, did you? >> no, sir. >> so some time between the call and today lieutenant colonel vindman must have been hearing some voices, and he heard demand at the time. but he didn't hear it that day, and he didn't make it an issue that day, but today he does. i think that's pretty bizarre. when lieutenant colonel vindman went to legal mr. eisenberg do you know if he was advised not to speak to you? >> i don't have any first-hand knowledge of that, no, sir. >> do you know if he was advised to contact the igic. >> no, sir, i have no first-hand knowledge of that. >> so you don't know what he was advised when

mr. eisenberg, right? >> mr. morrison testified at his deposition. >> we don't have that in front of us. if you can give us that. >> 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 attorneys judgment on that. >> on 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 and you testified that you believed 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 on the call as well so 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 any concern

not it's not what is not what we recommend to the president discuss now in a 2nd meeting with mr eisenbergwhat did you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking i recommended we restrict access to the package had you ever asked the n.s.c. legal advisor to restrict access before now did you speak to your supervisor dr cover men before you went to speak to john eisenberg no. did you subsequently learned that the call record had been put in a highly classified system i did and what reason did mr eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system it was a mistake he said it was just a mistake it was administrative error now isn't it also true though that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted so i do i believe i could have instructed the appropriate steps to do so yes so why did you go to the n.s.c. legal advisor to recommend that well i was also concerned. that based on the participants in the listening room that day i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the in a sequel visors office

mr. eisenberg's response? >> mr. eisenberg took it all very seriously.e said, for example, that colonel vindman should feel free -- he said this to me free to go and bring any concerns to him about these meetings. similarly myself and any others if there was any subsequent follow-up in terms of these issues being raised again with any of the parties in the future. >> he didn't say anything in response about how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or if he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place? >> no, he did not. he listened very carefully to all of the information that we imparted. >> now, back to that july 10th meeting, the second meeting that's in the ward room, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> who is in that meeting besides yourself, the two ukrainians? >> mr. did you know lueck, mr. yermak, mr. yermak's aide, ambassador volker and ambassador sondland and a couple of people were from the state department. i wondered for a while if one of secretary's perry's group had been there, too. i honestly cannot remember.

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? >> well i was also concerned that based on the participants in the listening room that day, i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the nsc legal advisers office as they were often on head of state calls but not always and i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg as the legal adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> and you wanted them to review it because he were concerned about the potential political consequences not because anything is wrong. >> and political consequences is an umbrella term to describe a series of effects i feared about what would happen if and when the content of

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 consisten

mr. eisenberg. did you know he was advised not to speak to you? >> i don't have any firsthand knowledge on that. >> you don't know he was advised to contact itchy and see? >> i have no firsthand knowledge of that. >> you don't know that he was advised? >> i do not. >> i appreciate that. mister volker, i want to tell you that i enjoyed your testimony today i know it's long but i thought it was extremely well done and i appreciate it. you talk about sharing concerns about leadership and your country and about agreeing with sometimes agreeing with the leadership of your own country when you felt was appropriate. you're the boots on the ground for the administration and you're part of that team and it's there to preserve the country in that way. that all to me sounded like works of a very good diplomat i want to thank you for that. it's truly appreciated. corruption was a concern legitimately in the ukraine and in many ways mr. jordan pointed out some of the things that were done by ukrainians in plain sight if you want to use that term by having a be

mr. eisenberg. >> mr. morrison testified at the deposition -- >> we don't have that in front of us if you could give us that we can take a look. >> i can say d for myself there were concerns about, the leaks. they seemed valid and i wasn't particularly critical. i thought this was sensitive and wasn't going to question the attorney's judgment on that. >> even on the codeword server, you have access to it. >> yes. >> at no point in time in the course of your official duties were you denied access to the information. >> correct. ms. williams, i want to turn to you for a moment. you testified that you believe the transcript is complete and accurate than the one issue that you mentioned? >> substantively accurate, yes. >> now, did you express any concerns, anyone in your office about what you heard on theiv call? >> my supervisor was listening in on the cause while because he had served -- heard the same information i didn't have the need to have a conversation with him. >> and you never did with anyone else i

mr. eisenberg and mr. ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the high lie classified systly >> i don't understand. >> was it intended to be on the highly classified system by the lawyers or a mistake it was put there? >> i think it was intended, again, intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now you testified that 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 read out from the april 21st call and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see the highlighted portion. root out corruption. >> yes. >> so in the end this read out was false? is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was squiconsistent with u.s. policy. so a statement that goes out,

mr. eisenberg give you for why the records were put in the classified system? was a mistake. >> it was a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> jimmy: we accidentally hid that one away. someone drop ped in a box, put t in the attic, the ladder's broken. can't get it. jennifer williams, an aide to vice president pence and the ukraine man on the national security council, lieutenant colonel vindman. >> ms. williams, you heard the call with your own ears, right? >> yes, sir. >> not second hand, not hearsay. you heard the president speak. you heard his voice on the call. >> correct. >> and your conclusion about what he said was in your words unusual and inappropriate, i believe. >> that was my testimony. >> and later, you, too were on the call. >> correct. >> not second hand, not hearsay, right? >> kprekcorrect. >> you heard the president's voice on the call. >> i did. >> and you heard him raise that subject again that sondland had about investigating the bidens. >> i did. >> jimmy: they both heard the president ask for the investigation. the case, but ther

mr. eisenberg, right? >> mr.-- >> okay, we don't have that in front och uf us. if you can give us that, we'll take a look. >> but can i say for myself, there were -- the concerns about leaks seemed valid and wasn't particularly critical. i thought, this was sensitive and i was not going to question the attorney's judgment on that. >> and even on 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? >> correct. >> miss williams, i want to turn to you for a moment. and you testified that you believe that 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 on the call as well, so because he had heard the same information, i did not feel need to have further conversation with him about him. >>

mr. eisenberg or others made that decision. we can infer that the reason is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. that's the very reason we want to bring him in. and of course we are concerned that he as a top lawyer in the administration would engage in the lawless act of refusing to abide by legal process. >> impeachment inquiry chair, intelligence chair adam schiff outlining that they are going to proceed, that they are releasing these transcripts today pushing back against some of the president's criticisms and talking about the context and the timetable with election day just a year away. they have to worry about going into 2020 precisely with these hearings. tomorrow is a year from election day 2020. three new polls show that four democrats are at the top of the primary field, joe biden, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders and pete buttigieg, solidifying their positions. but where do they stand against president trump? joining me now is steve kornacki at the big board and here in washington jon

mr. eisenberg? >> the first thing i related was what ambassador bolton asked me to. >> in the course of those two meetings, what was mr. eisenberg's response. >> he took it very serious. he said colonel vindman, he said this to me, bring any concerns to him about these meetings. similarly, myself and others if there is any follow up to these issues being raised with any of the parties in the future. >> he didn't say anything in response to how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or did he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place? >> no, he did not. he listened very carefully to all the information that we imparted. >> now, back to that july 10th meeting, the back to the july 1 second meeting in the war room. is that correct? >> correct. >> who is there besides yourself, two ukranians? >> mr. yermak, mr. yermak's aid, ambassador volker and ambassador sundays. i wonder if someone from secretary perry's group had been there too but i honestly can't remember. >> ambassador

mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. but that's the very reason we want to bring him in and of course we are concerned that he has a top lawyer in the administration would engage in a lawless act of refusing to abide by a lawful process. thank you. >> harris: okay, all right, as we come out of the house intelligence chairman, that's a live look on capitol hill you've been watching. bret baier, chief political anchor and executive editor of "special report," air 6:00 p.m. eastern, he's going to join us. are you with us? as we watch that, any surprises any any sort of context that you weren't expecting to get? >> not released surprises, harris. for these officials not showing up today, you heard adam schiff say that builds in their obstruction case. democrats likely will put together what they believe is obstruction by the white house as one of the articles of impeachment they move forward to eventually. i think the transcripts are interesting, i have the excerpts of the transcripts here, they obviously put out the things

mr. eisenberg. for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a political opponent and private citizen. was also clear that if ukraine proceeded investigation into the elections, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. this would undoubtedly result in ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining u.s. national security and -- russia's strategic objectives in the region. when i reported my concerns relating to ambassador sondland and the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security applications for our country. i never thought that i would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american public about my actions . my only thought was to act -- and to carry out my duty. following each of my reports i immediately returned to work to advance the presidents and our count

mr. eisenberg, what'd you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking? >> i recommended that we restrict access to the package. >> have you ever done before? >> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you learn that the call record had been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> what reason did he 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. >> isn't it also true that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to? >> i believe i could have extracted the appropriate staff to do so, yes. >> why did you go to the legal advisor to recommend that? >> i was also concerned based on the participants and the listening room that day -- i did not then -- and i do not now recall any representatives from the legal advisor's office as they were often on head of state calls but not always. i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg, his legal advisor, and hi

mr. eisenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. i was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation, it was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. this would undoubtedly result in uk losing bipartisan security and advancing russia's strategytic objectives in the region. i want to emphasize to the committee that when i reported my concerns on july 10th relating to ambassador sondland and then july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. i never thought that i'd be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american public about my ac

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 think i can say for myself, there were 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 judgement on that. >> even on the codeword server, you had access to it. >> yes. >> so no point in time during the course of why you are official duties were you denied access to the information? >> >> correct. miss williams, you testified b 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 on the call as well so because he had heard the same information, i did not feel the need to have a further c conversation with him. >> and you did not have a conversation with anyone else. >> i did not. >> so you didn't flag it for chi

mr. eisenberg's response. >> mr. eisenberg took it all very seriously. he said, for example, that colonel vindman should feel free, he said this to this to mn future to go and bring any concerns to him about these- these meetings. slrly, myself and any others if there was any subsequent follow-up in terms of these issues being raised again with any of the parties in the future. >> he didn't say anything in response about how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or if he had any -- did he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place? >> no, he did not. he listened very carefully to all the information we imparted. >> now back to that july 0th meeting, the second meeting in the ward room, correct. >> that's correct. >> who is in that meeting besides yourself, the two ukrainians? >> mr. donalup mr. yermak. mr. yerm's aide. ambassador volker and ambassador sondland. and a couple of people from the state department. i wonder if one of secretary perry's group had been there too. i can't remember. >> but ambassador volker was there dur

mr. eisenberg. of the united states to prevent -- to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and political opponent. aleem: these hearings are about the accusation d trump tied military aid to ukraine to the country opening investigations into the activities of hunter biden, son of joe biden. pres. trump: i jt got to watch , and the republicans are absolutely killing it. they are doing so well, because it is a scam, a big scam. they are doing something the founders never thought possible and the founders didn't want, and they are this wnpeachment hoax for their political gain. aleem: but in today's hearings heard from one of the key figures who steered donald trump's ukraine policy. mr. volker: at no ti was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate former vice president biden. in hindsight i realize it is equivalent investigating vice president biden. in retrospect i should have seen that connection differently, and had i done so, i would've rai my own objections. aleem: we are now into the second week of the public hearings with mu