c-span.org or listen on the go with the three c-span radio app. >> elizabeth warren speaks with voters at a town hall held in a middle school in new hampshire. watch live saturday at the 8:45 on c-span. online at c-span.org or listen live on the free radio app. on tuesday the house intelligence committee held its fourth open hearing of the inquiry against president trump. lawmakers heard testimony from or more u.s. special envoy to ukraine kurt volker and former security council director timothy morrison. >> i will begin by swearing u.n.. you in.ing

[oath administered] please be seated. are sensitive. please speak directly in them. your written statements will also be made a part of the record. them. thereafter, ambassador volker, recognized for your opening statement. >> chairman schiff, ranking member nunes, members of the committee, i appear before you today under subpoena. senior director of european affairs at the white house and national security council as related to ukraine and u.s. security sector assistance too that country. i'll provide you the most complete and accurate information i can consistent with my obligations to protect classified and privileged information. whether the conduct that is the subject of this inquiry merits

impeachment is a question for the u.s. house of representatives. i appear here today only to provide factual information based upon my knowledge and recollection of events. i will not waste time restating the details of my opening statement from my deposition on october 31st, 2019, which has recently been made public. however, i will highlight the following key points. first, as i previously stated, i do not know who the whistle-blower is, nor do i intend to speculate as to who the individual may be. second, i have great respect for my former colleagues from the nsc and the rest of the interagency. i am not here today to question their character or integrity. my recollections and judgments are my own. some of my colleagues' recollections of conversations and interactions may differ from mine, but i do not view those differences as the result of an untoward purpose. third, i continue to believe ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between

the west and vladimir putin's russia. russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one. the united states aids ukraine and her people so they can fight russia over there, we don't have to fight russia here. support for ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since russia's military invasion in 2014. it must continue to be. as i stated during my deposition, i feared at the time of the call on july 25th how its disclosure would play in washington's political climate. my fears have been realized. i understand the gravity of these proceedings, but i beg you not to lose sight of the military conflict under way in eastern ukraine today. the ongoing illegal occupation of crimea and the importance of reform of ukraine's politics and economy. every day that the focus of discussion involving ukraine is centered on these proceedings instead of those matters is a day when we are not focused on the interest of ukraine, the united states, and western-style liberalism share. finally, i concluded my act of

service at the national security council the day after i last appeared before you. i left the nsc completely of my own volition. i felt no pressure to resign nor have i feared any retaliation for my testimony. i made this career choice some time before i decided to testify on october 31st. i'm prepared to answer your questions to the best of my ability and recollection. >> thank you. ambassador volker. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, ranking member, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this testimony today. as you know, i was the first person to come forward to testify as part of this inquiry. i did so voluntarily, and likewise, voluntarily provided relevant documentation in my possession in order to be as cooperative, clear, and complete as possible. i'm here today voluntarily and i remain committed to cooperating fully and truthfully with this committee.

all i can do is provide the facts as i ubd them at the time. i did this on october 3rd in private and will do so again today. like many others who have testified in this inquiry, i'm a career foreign policy professional. i began my career as an intelligence analyst for northern europe for the central intelligence agency in 1986. before joining the state department in 1988. i served in diplomatic postings primarily focused on european political and security issues for over 20 years under presidents ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, bill clinton, george w. bush and barack obama. my last three positions before leaving the senior foreign service in 2009 were as director for nato and west european affairs at the national security council, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for european affairs at the state department, and finally, as u.s. ambassador to nato.

in the spring of 2017, then-secretary of state tillerson asked if i would come back to government service as u.s. special representative for ukraine negotiations. i did this on a part-time voluntary basis with no salary paid by the u.s. taxpayer, simply because i believed it was important to serve our country in this way. i believed i could steer u.s. policy in the right direction. for over two years as u.s. special representative for ukraine negotiations, my singular focus was advancing the foreign policy and national security interests of the united states. in particular, that meant pushing back on russian aggression and supporting the development of a strong, resilient, democratic and prosperous ukraine, one that overcomes a legacy of corruption and becomes integrated into a wider trans-atlantic community. this is critically important for u.s. national security.

if we can stop and reverse russian aggression in ukraine, we can prevent it elsewhere. if ukraine, the cradle of slovic civilization predating moscow succeeds as a freedom loving, prosperous, democracy, it gives us enormous hope that russia may one day change providing a better life for russian people and overcoming its current plague of authoritarianism, corruption, aggression toward neighbors, and threats to nato and the united states. the stakes for the united states in a successful ukraine could not be higher. at no time was i aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge ukraine to investigate former vice president biden. as you know from the extensive realtime documentation i have provided, vice president biden was not a topic of our discussions. i was not on the july 25th phone call between president trump and president zelensky. 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. from july 7th, 2017, until september 27th, 2019, i was the lead u.s. diplomat dealing with russia's war on ukraine. my role was not some irregular channel but the official channel. i reported directly to secretaries of state tillerson and pompeo, kept the national security adviser and secretary of defense well informed of my efforts, and worked closely with ambassador masha yovanovitch. then-assistant secretary mitchell. and phil reeker. deputy assistant secretary george kent. deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper. nsc director alex vindman and many, many others. i've known many of them for several years.

it was a team effort. when ambassador yovanovitch left -- so we would still have a strong, seasoned professional on the ground. for two years before the events at the heart of this investigation took place, i was the most senior u.s. diplomat visiting the conflict zone, meeting with victims of russia's aggressi aggression, urging increased u.s. security assistance including lethal defensive weapons, working with ukrainian president poroshenko and then his successor president zelensky and their teams. working with france and germany and the so-called normandy process. pressing for support from nato, the eu, and osce. supporting the osce's special monitoring mission. and engaging in negotiations and other contacts with russian officials. at the time i took the position in the summer of 2017, there were major complicated questions swirling in public debate about the direction of u.s. policy

toward ukraine. wi would the administration lift sanctions against russia? would it make some kind of grand bargain with russia, which it would trade recognition of russia's seizure of ukrainian territory for some other deal in syria or elsewhere? would the administration recognize russia's claimed annexation of crimea, would this become another frozen conflict? there are also a vast number of vacancies in key diplomatic positions so no one was really representing the united states in the negotiating process about ending the war in eastern ukraine. during over two years of my tenures a u.s. special representative, we fundamentally turned u.s. policy around. u.s. policy toward ukraine was strong, consistent, and enjoyed support across the administration, bipartisan support in congress, and support among our allies and ukraine. we changed the language commonly used to describe rush shesia's

aggression. i highlighted russia's invasion and occupation of parts of ukraine calling out russia's responsibility to end the war. i visited the war zone three times, meeting with soldiers and civilians alike, always bringing media with me to try to raise the public visibility of russia's aggression and the humanitarian impact on the lives of the citizens of the dombas. we coordinated closely with our european allies in canada to maintain a united front against russian aggression and for ukrai ukraine's democracy, reform, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. ukraine policy is, perhaps, the one area where the u.s. and its european allies had been in lockstep. this coordination helped to strengthen u.s. sanctions against russia and to maintain eu sanctions as well. along with others in the administration, i strongly advocated for lifting the ban on the sale of lethal defensive weapons, or at least the defensive arms to ukraine, advocated for increasing u.s.

security assistance to ukraine, and urged other countries to follow suit. my team and i drafted the pompeo declaration of july 25th, 2018, in which the secretary clearly and definitively laid out the u.s. policy of nonrecognition of russia's claimed annexation of crimea. i engaged with our allies, with ukraine, and with russia, in negotiations to implement agreements holding a firm line on insisting on the withdrawal of russian forces, dismantling of the so-called people's republics and restoring ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. together with others in the administration, we kept u.s. policy steady through -- and worked hard to strengthen the u.s./ukraine bilateral relationship under the new president and government helping shepherd in a peaceful transition of power in ukraine. short, whereas two years ago most observers would have said time was on russia's side, by 2019 when i departed we had

turned the tables and time was now on ukraine's side. it's a strategy for the united states and for ukraine that our efforts in this area which were bearing fruit have now been thrown into disarray. one of the critical aspects as my role as u.s. special representative is as the most senior u.s. official appointed to work solely on the ukraine portfolio, i needed to stipforward to provide leadership. if we needed to adopt a policy position, i made the case for it. if we needed to -- if anyone needed to speak out publicly, i would do it. when we failed to get a timely statement about russia's illegal attack on ukraine's navy and seizure of ukraine sailors, i tweeted about it in order to condemn the act. if a problem arose, i knew it was my job to try to fix it. that was my perspective when i learned in may 2019 we had a significant problem that was impeding our ability to strengthen our support for ukraine's new president in his effort to ramp up ukraine's fight against corruption and

implementation of needed reforms. i found myself faced with a choice. to be aware of a problem and to ignore it, or to accept that it was my responsibility to try to fix it. i tried to fix it. the problem was that despite the unanimous, positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the u.s. presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of president zelensky, president trump was receiving a different negative narrative about you cra ukraine and president zelensky, fueled by accusations from ukraine's then-prosecutor general and conveyed to the president by former mayor rudy giuliani. as i previously told this committee, i became aware of the negative impact this was having on our policy efforts when four of us who were part of the presidential delegation to the inauguration met as a group with president trump on may 23rd. we stressed our finding that

president zelensky represented the best chance for getting ukraine out of the mire of corruption it had been in for over 20 years. we urged him to invite president zelensky to the white house. the president was very skeptical. given ukraine's history of corruption, that's understandable. he said that ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. he said they tried to take me down. in the corpse of that conversation, he referenced conversations with mayor giuliani. it was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new president, president trump had a deeply rooted negative view on ukraine rooted in the past. he was receiving other information from other sources including mayor giuliani that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view. within a few days, on may 29th, president trump, indeed, signed the congratulatory letter to president zelensky which included an invitation to the

president to visit him at the white house. however, more than four weeks passed and we could not nail down a date for the meeting. i came to believe that the president's long-held negative view toward ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting much as we had seen in our oval office discussion. after weeks of reassuring the ukrainians that it was just a scheduling issue, i decided to tell president zelensky that we had a problem with the information reaching president trump from mayor giuliani. i did so in a bilateral meeting at a conversation on ukrainian economic reform in toronto on july 2nd, 2019, where i led the u.s. delegation. i suggested that he call president trump directly in order to renew their personal relationship and assure president trump that he was committed to investigating and fighting corruption, things on which president zelensky had based his presidential campaign.

i was convinced that getting two presidents to talk with each other would overcome the negative perception of ukraine that president trump still harbored. president zelensky's senior aide, andre yermuck, approached me several days late to s late. i agreed to make that connection. i did so because i understood the new ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like mayor giuliani who believed such a negative narrative about ukraine that ditimes have chang and under president zelensky ukraine is worthy of u.s. support. ukrainians believed if they could get their own narrative across, in a way that convinced mayor giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, mayor giuliani would convey that assessment to president trump, correcting the previous negative narrative. that made sense to me and i tried to be helpful. i made clear to the ukrainians that mayor giuliani was a

private citizen, the president's personal lawyer and not representing the u.s. government. likewise, in my conversations with mayor giuliani, i never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions. rather, the information flow was the other way. from you yukraine to mayor giul in the hopes this would clear up the information reaching president trump. on july 10th after hearing from mr. yermak, i wrote to mayor giuliani. finally on may 19th we met for breakfast for a longer discussion. i told mr. giuliani that my view, the prosecutor general with which he'd been speaking, mr. lutsenko, was not credential and was asking in a self-serving capacity. to my surprise, mayor juligiuli said he'd already come to that same conclusion. mr. giuliani also mentioned both the accusations about vice president biden and about interference in the 2016 election and stressed that all he wanted to see was for ukraine

to investigate what happened in the past and apply its own laws. concerning the allegations, i stressed that no one in the new team governing ukraine had anything to do with anything that may have happened in 2016. they were making television shows at the time. i also said that it's not credible to me that former vice president biden would have been influenced in any way by financial or personal motives in carrying out his 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. but the accusation that vice president biden acted inappropriately did not seem at all credible to me. after that meeting, i connected mayor giuliani and mr. yermak by text and later by phone. they met in person on august 2nd, 2019. in conversations with me

following that meeting, which i did not taeattend, mr. juliagiu said he stressed the importance of ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past and mr. yermak stressed he told mr. giuliani it's the government's program to root out corruption and implement reform and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process, anyway. mr. giuliani said he believed the ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with mr. yermak. i said, i did not think that this would be a problem, since that is the government's position, anyway. i followed up with mr. yermak and he said that they would, indeed, be prepared to make a statement. he said it would reference burisma and 2016 in a wider context of bilateral relations and rooting out corruption, anyway. there was no mention of vice president biden. rather, in referencing burisma and 2016 election interference, it was clear to me that he, mr. yermak, was only talking about

whether any ukrainians had acted inappropriately. at this time, i was focused on our goal of getting president zelensky and president trump to meet with each other and i believed that their doing so would overcome the chronically negative view president trump had toward ukraine. 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 convincing mr. giuliani to convey to president trump a more positive assessment of the new leadership in ukraine. on august 16th, mr. yermak 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 further conversation with mr. giuliani who said that 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 these points and i edited the statement drafted by mr. yermak to include these points to see thousand how it l. i then discussed it further with mr. yermak. he said for a number of reasons including the fact that mr. lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention burisma or 2016. i agreed and the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. these were the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17th, 18th. my last contact with mr. giuliani, according to my records, was 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 this statement had been definitively scrapped. in september i was surprised to learn that there had been further discussions with ukrainians about president zelensky possibly making a statement in an interview with u.s. media similar to what we had discussed in august. since these events and since i gave my testimony on october 3rd, a great deal of additional information and perspectives have come to light. identi i've learned many things i did not know at the time of the events in question. first, at the time i was connecting mr. yermak and mr. giuliani and discussing with mr. yermak and ambassador sondland a possible statement that could be made by the ukrainian president, i did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and ukraine pursuing investigations. no one had ever said that to me and i never conveyed such a linkage to the ukrainians. i opposed the hold on u.s. security assistance as soon as i learned about it on july 18th

and thought we could turn it around before the ukrainians ever knew or became alarmed about it. i did not know the reason for the hold, but i viewed it as a u.s. policy problem that we needed to fix internally and i was confident we would do so. i believe the ukrainians became aware of the old on august 29th and not before. that date is the first time any of them asked me about the hold by forwarding an article that had been published in "politico." when i spoke to the ukrainians about the hold after august 29th, instead of telling them they needed to do something to get the hold released, i told then the opposite, that 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 different message to them around the same time. second, i did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then-national security adviser john bolton to members of his nsc 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 and defense council, alex denuliuk. as i remember the meeting was essentially over when ambassador sondland made a general comment about investigations. i think all of us thought it was inappropriate. the conversation did not continue. and the meeting concluded. later on in the wardroom, i may have been engaged in a side conversation or had already left the complex because i do 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 tantamount to investigating vice president biden. i drew a sharp distinction between the two. it has long been u.s. policy under multiple investigations to urge ukraine to investigate 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 conspiracy theory that vice president biden would have been influenced in his duties as vice president by money paid to his son. as i previously testified, i have known vice president 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 former vice president biden and as you know 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 zelensky, 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 understood that there was an important distinction between burisma and biden and i urged the ukrainians to maintain such a distinction. i did not know president trump or others raised vice president bide within the ukrainians or

conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former vice president. in retrospect, for the ukrainians it would clearly have been confusing. in hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the ukrainian company, burisma, as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden. i saw them as very different. the former being appropriate and unremarkab unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. in retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. fourth, much has been made of the term, "three amigos" in reference to secretary perry, ambassador sondland and myself. i've never used that term and, frankly, cringe when i hear it because for me the three acme goes will always refer to senator mccain, senator leb lieberman and senator graham in witness for their work to support the surge in iraq. moreover, i was never aware of designation by president trump

or anyone else putting ambassador sondland or the three of us as a grooup. each of us in our own respective official capacities continued to work together after our attendance of president zelens y zelensky's inauguration to push for greater u.s. support for ukraine. leading the diplomacy around ukraine negotiations had long been my official responsibility but i welcomed the added support and influence of a cabinet member and our eu ambassador. fifth, i was not aware that ambassador sondland spoke with president trump on july 26th while ambassador taylor and i were visiting the conflict zone. mr. chairman, members of the committee, allow meioning, we'l proceed under the five-minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions. i now recognize myself, counsel, for the first round of questions. ambassador volker, i was going to yield to the minority counsel but there were a couple points you made in your opening

statement that i wanted to ask about first. you said lutsenko was not credible, author of a number of allegations against ambassador yovanovitch, a number of allegations that were shared with john solmand of "the hill." a number of allegations repeatedly brought up by my republican colleagues. why is it you found mr. lutsenko not credible and told mr. giuliani so? >> thank queyou, mr. chairman. first all, 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. the suggestions that she was acting in some inappropriate

manner were not credible to me. i've known vice president biden for a long time. those accusations were not credible. separate from that, i also was aware of the political situation in ukraine. we had a situation where president poroshenko appeared to not be in a favorable position going into the elections where it was increasingly apparent then-candidate zelensky was going to win. as is often the case in ukraine, a change in power would mean change in prosecutorial powers as well. and there have been efforts in the past at prosecuting the previous government. i think mr. lutsenko in my estimation, i said this to mayor giuliani when i met with him, was interested in preserving his own position. he wanted to avoid being fired by a new government in order to prevent prosecution of him, possible prosecution of himself. possibly also this is something president poroshenko would have welcomed as well.

so by making allegations like this, and making sure they were reaching u.s. media, i think mr. lutsenko is trying to make himself appear to be an important and influential player in the united states. >> ambassador, let me also ask you about the allegations against joe biden because that has been a continuing refrain from some of 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 other than act as how he sees best for the national interest. >> finally, ambassador, before i turn it over, i was struck by something you said on page 8 of

your statement which reads, "in hindsight, i now understand that other saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the ukrainian company, burisma, as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden. i saw them as different. the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable." in retrospect, you said, "i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections." what is it now, in retrospect, that leads you to conclude that you would or should have raised these objections? >> others did not see the distinction between these things as i saw it. as i said, there's a history of corruption in ukraine. there's a history with the company of burisma. it's been investigated. that is well known. there's a separate allegation about the vice president acting

inappropriately. his son was a board member of this company, but those things i saw as completely distinct. and what i was trying to do in working with the ukrainians was to thread a needle to see whether things that they can do that are appropriate and reasonable as part of ukraine's own policy of fighting corruption, that helped clarify for our president that they are committed to that very -- that very effort. if there's a way to thread that needle, i thought it was worth the effort to try to solve that problem. as it turns out, i now understand most of the other people didn't see or consider this distinction, that for them it was synonymous. >> one of those people who 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 in that call doesn't raise burisma, he asks 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 him so? >> i would have objected to that, yes, sir. >> mr. goldman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just one follow up on that, ambassador volker. w when you say "thread the needle", you mean 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 ukrainians that may have

tried to corrupt things or buy influence. to me, they are very different things and as i said, i think the former is unacceptable. i think the latter, in this case -- >> understaood. you understood the relationship between hunter biden and burisma? >> i knew he had been a board member of the company, yes. >> let's go back -- >> why it was so important to maintain a distinction. >> let's focus on the july 25th call for a moment. mr. morrison, july 25th was day number what for you as the senior director overseeing ukrai ukraine? >> i officially took over on the 15th. approximately ten days, very few days actually in the office. >> you testified in your deposition that you received an email on the morning of july 25th from ambassador sondland shortly before the call. is that right? >> yes. >> and i believe in that email, ambassador sondland told you that he had briefed president trump about, in advance of the

call, is that right? >> yes. >> and you also testified that ambassador sondland had told you on another occasion that he could call the president whenever he wanted, is that right? >> i -- 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 -- did it happen? >> yes. >> on other occasions when ambassador sondland told you that 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, should be

another one. oh, yeah, sorry. ambassador sondland with you, ambassador volker, and at 7:54, ambassador sondland -- in the morning -- ambassador sondland says, "call asap." then at 9:35, ambassador volker, you respond. is the screen working in front of you or just to the side? yeah. if you could go ahead and read what you said -- >> yes. >> -- at 9:35. >> yes. so i say, "hi, gordon. got your message. had a great lunch with yermak and then passed your message to him. he will see you tomorrow. think everything is in place." >> and who is yermak? >> andriy yermak is the senior adviser to president zelensky of ukraine. >> now, what was the message that you had received? >> that president zelensky should be clear, convincing,

forthright, with president trump about his commitment to fighting corruption, 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. >> and did you understand from that message that ambassador sondland had spoken to president trump? >> i wasn't sure whether he had or not. he, as mr. morrison just said, said that he does speak with president trump. i knew that he had conversations in general. i didn't know, specifically, about one leading up to this. >> now, on the screen in front of you is another text message from you that same morning. >> yes. >> at 8:36 in the morning to andriy yermak. >> yes, i believe because of the time difference, this is actually in the afternoon in ukraine. >> in ukraine. so this is east coast time. that's right. >> correct. >> so this is slightly less than a half hour before the call between president trump and

president zelensky. >> right. >> and could you just read what you you there? >> yes. just after the lunch i had with andriy yermak. says "good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z. convinces trump he'll investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington. good luck! see you tomorrow. kurt." >> does this accurately relay the message you had received from ambassador sondland? >> yes. >> now, mr. morrison, did the national security council also prepare talking points for president trump for this call? >> the nsc staff did, yes. >> and per usual custom, are these -- were these talking points based on the official united states policy objectives? >> they were. >> and since there's been a little bit of dispute about what that means, can you explain how official u.s. policy is determined with -- through the interagency process? >> we operate under what's known as nspm4, national security

presidential memorandum 4. it's available on the internet. that lays out how the president wants to be provided options for his decision. >> and there's an extensive process to finalize any policy, is that right? >> sometimes. >> did you -- mr. morrison, you listened to this call on the 25th, is that right? >> i did. >> where did you listen from? >> the white house situation room. >> in your deposition, you testified that the call was not what you were hoping to hear. what did you mean by that? >> i was hoping for a more full-throated statement of support from the president concerning president zelensky's reform agenda given where we were at the time with respect to the overwhelming mandate president zelensky's servant of the party people had received in the rada election. >> and that roda, which is the

ukrainian parliament, that election had occurred four days earlier? >> sounds right. >> and president zelenskzelensk party won in a landslide, is that right? >> they received more than a majority in their own right. >> so at least in ukraine, there was tremendous support for zelensky'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 zelensky? >> there was broad support for giving president zelensky a chance. >> and to that point, he had shown that he was -- he had at least put his money where his mouth was for the three months that he had been in office. is that right? >> approximately three months, yes. >> now, 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 zelensky 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 crowdstrike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it." if we could go to the next excerpt where president trump says, "the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me." now, mr. morrison, were these references to crowdstrike, the server in 2016 election and to vice president biden and his son, were they included in the president's talking points? >> they were not.

>> and 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. >> and, in fact, subsequent to this call, you did nothing to implement the investigations that president trump -- implement the requests 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 who was doing that either, is that right? >> correct. >> now, you've testified in your deposition that hearing this call confirmed what you called the parallel process that your predecessor, fiona hill, had 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 nspm4 process and the parallel process and in the context of discussing the parallel process, she mentioned issues like burisma which were noteworthy 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's something here. >> and who did she inform you was involved in this parallel process? >> as i recall, it was definitely ambassador sondland and i believe mr. giuliani. >> and after she informed you of this company, burisma, what, if anything, did you do to determine what that was? >> after that particular handoff meeting, i proceeded to look it up on the internet. i googled it. >> and did you find that it had some association with hunter biden? >> yes.

>> now, ambassador volker, you did not listen to this call, but you testified that you were surprised and troubled when you read the call record after it was released on september 25th. and you also said that after reading the call record, it was clear to you that the biden/burisma and the 2016 election investigations that 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 senate that? >> sorry, i don't recall that language from my testimony. from my october 3rd testimony? >> yes, it was. >> thank you. what i do mean by that, i'd like to phrase it 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 theories that 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, its own fight against corruption domestically, its struggle against russia, its defense capabilities. these are the heart of what we should be doing and i don't think pursuing these things serves a national interest. >> now, mr. morrison, shortly after you heard the july 25th call, you testified that you alerted the nsc legal adviser john eisenberg pretty much right away. is that right? >> correct. >> and 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, 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 recommended the president discuss. >> now, in a second meeting with mr. eisenberg, what 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 nsc legal adviser to restrict access before? >> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor, dr. kupperman, before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you subsequently learn 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? >> 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 adviser's 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 you were concerned about the political, potential political consequences? not because anything was wrong? >> correct. political consequences was an umbrella term i used in my r do you need a break?

okay. ranking member nunes, you're recognized for 45 minutes. >> well, ambassador and mr. morrison, i have some bad news for you. tv ratings are way down, way down. don't hold it personally. it's not you guys. whatever drug deal they're cooking up you're on the deus and the american people aren't buying it. i know you both answered this in your opening statement, but i just want to bring a little more clarity to it. mr. morrison, i'll start with you. did anyone ever ask you to bribe or export 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 senior official.

yes, sir. >> you have a stored career and we thank you for your service and you were ambassador to ukraine? >> that's 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. caster. >> thank you, mr. nunes. thank you both for being here today and for participating in the lengthy depositions and ambassador volker you were the first one on october 3rd and mr. morrison you were with us on halloween and thank you for your participation. mr. morrison, i also want to thank you. you are a longtime hill staffer. i certainly have appreciation for that, nearly 20 years. so thank you, and ambassador volker, a pennsylvania resident? >> absolutely. >> that's 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 were a senate confirmed

ambassador to nato, is that correct? >> that's correct. and you were at state department and your portfolio spanned much of what i believe george kent has currently? >> i was the assistant secretary so i am working for the assistant secretary and had all of europe, asia and had particular responsibility for western nato and the european union. >> and you were involved with the national security council. you were the director for nato of western europe? >> that is correct. >> and then you were the senior director for european and eurasian affairs? >> i was acting for several months, six months or so in that capacity. >> mr. morrison had -- and we'll note that all of the witnesses that we've interacted with have heaped praise on you. ambassador yovanovitch has said you're a career diplomat and has

had very high praise, and that is correct? >> and you served for free? >> that is correct. >> you served on a voluntary basis? >> i did. >> and 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. [ laughter ] >> and you believe america's policy for ukraine has tenured as raptive? . >> absolutely. we did an awful lot to support ukraine. >> is that due to president trump. >> president trump approved each of the decisions made along the way, providing lethal defensive equipment and the non-recognition statement with crimea being two of the most important ones. >> and for many years there had been an initiative in the inner agency to advocate for lethal defensive weaponry for ukraine, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> it wasn't until president

trump and his administration 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, but i believe it was the large of the national delegation. >> included in the delegation was secretary perry. >> secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself, senator ron johnson was there, and also the affair at the u.s. embassy at the time joe pennington. >> okay. the -- we talked a little bit this morning, but president zelensky's inauguration came together rather quickly? >> it did. we had three days' notice in which to put the delegation together? >> there was discussion as to whether the vice president would lead that effort and as it turned out he was not able to

lead it. do you have information as to why the vice president was unable to join? >> i don't. >> mr. morrison, do you have any information as to why the vice president was unable to participate in the delegation? >> no. >> ambassador volker, you testified during your deposition that aid, in fact, does get held up from time to time for a whole assortment of reasons. is that your understanding? >> that is true. >> sometimes the holdups are rooted in something at omb, sometimes it's at the defense department, sometimes it's at the state department and sometimes it's on the hill, correct? >> that is correct. >> and so when the aid was held up for 55 days for ukraine, that didn't in and of itself strike you as uncommon. >> no. it's something that had happened in my career in the past. i've seen holdups of assistance. i just assumed it was part of

the decision making progress, someone had an objection and we had to overcome it. >> in fact, there were concerns that perhaps president zelensky wasn't going to be the reformer that he campaigned on? >> that was a sub session that i made because of the meeting with the president on may 23rd. i thought that could be what's behind it. >> and in fact the aid was lifted shortly after he was able to convene at parliament? >> i believe he -- let me get the day straight. i believe he was able to convene on the 8th of september. >> when he was able to convene a parliament he was able to push through anti-corruption initiatives. >> than began with the parliament seated on that day and it continued for some time. >> that was annen are encouraging sign? >> it started off in a very encouraging way, yes.

>> and other than these things going on in the background with the pause in the aid the u.s. relations with ukraine, you testified, are -- you stated it was about as good as you'd want them to be? >> can you repeat the question? i'm sorry. >> you testified at your deposition that once the aid was lifted, despite all of the things going on in the background that u.s.-ukrainian relations were strong and where you'd want them to be. >> yes. yes. >> you referenced that the security sector assistance was lifted and any hold on that, that there was a positive meeting in new york. >> that's correct. >> -- at the unga, and there was momentum in putting pressure on the russians, is that correct? >> that is correct. in your deposition you made it clear that president trump had a deep-rooted negative view in ukraine and their corruption environment? >> yes. >> and you first became aware of his views back in september

2017? >> that's correct. >> can you tell us about that? >> yes. in september 2017 i was invited by secretary tillerson to do a pre-brief with president trump before his meeting with president poroshenko on the general assembly. i did the pre-brief and i took part in the bilateral meeting. >> and so long before president zelensky was elected, president trump had a negative view of -- >> yes. he had a very strongly negative view. >> back in 2017, do you remember anything he said or did that gave you a feeling that he had these negative feelings? >> yes. i want to be very careful here because this was a bilateral meeting between the two presidents and i don't want to strain the classified material, but i can tell you my impression is that he had a strongly negative view of ukraine at the time. >> fair enough. and you described the president's skepticism at your deposition as a reasonable position? >> yes.

and i believe you said most people who know anything about ukraine would possibly think that? >> yes. >> and you viewed it as part of your role that helped change his mind that president zelensky was a genuine reformer and he wasn't running for office for self-enrichment. that he was, indeed, a good person. >> that's correct. >> during the may 23rd meeting with the president in the oval office, could you just relate to us the concerns the president articulated with the ukraine. >> the president came into the meeting and immediately started speaking. he had just a string of comments that ukraine is a terrible place. they're all corrupt and they're terrible people and they tried to take me down.

i tried to explain along with the others that were there. each of us took turns speaking. i tried to explain that president zelensky agrees with you. he was elected because of that situation in ukraine and he has a strong mandate from the people of ukraine to change it, and that's why it's important that we actually show him very strong support now, but the president was not convinced and he said that zelensky is no different, that he has terrible people around him, you know, it's not what i hear about ukraine, what we're telling him. you know, i hear nothing has changed. talk to rudy. that kind of dialogue as i described. >> and when the president said that the ukrainians tried to take him down, did you have any good what he was referring to? >> i did. i believe he was referring to the rumors of efforts interfering in the 2016 election by providing damaging

information about the election or paul manafort to the hillary clinton campaign and that was one of the rumors that had been out there and had gotten some support from the ukrainian prosecutor general. >> to the best of your knowledge the president genuinely believed that, right? >> i believe hes concerned about it. i don't know what he actually believed, but he brought it up. >> okay. mr. morrison, you were also aware of the president's skeptical view of foreign aid, generally? >> yes. >> and that there was an initiative that he was looking at foreign aid pretty broadly in. >> yes. >> and trying to scrutinize to make sure the u.s. taxpayers were getting their money's worth? >> yes. >> and the president was also interested, was he not, in a better understanding opportunities for increased burden sharing among the europeans? >> yes. >> and what can you tell us about that? >> the president was concerned that the united states seemed to

bear the exclusive brunt of security assistance to ukraine. he wanted to see the europeans step up and contribute more security assistance. >> and was there any inner agency activity whether it be with the state department or the defense department in coordination with the national security council to look into that for the president? >> we were sur vague the data to understand who was contributing what and sort of in what categories. >> and so the president, he concerns the inner agency tried to address them. >> by late august, we just discussed, and it could give some hope that he'd be able to push through some of these reforms rjs and during this 55-day period when the aid was

paused, do you think eid be able to strain ooh and to get the president to lift the aid? >> yes. in fact, you -- you traveled with ambassador bolton to the ukraine right around labor day weekend, correct? >> yes. >> and you met with president zelensky on, i believe, it was august 29th? >> ambassador bolton had a meeting with president zelensky and i staffed that meeting. >> and that's right around the time that rata had met and they started to push through their reforms? >> as i recall the date of the meeting between ambassador bolton and president zelensky was the new day of the new rata. >> and some of these reforms included naming a new prosecutor general. a brand-new cabinet. yes. >> and they pushed through some

legislation that eliminated members, and i believe you provided some color into this experience, this meeting and you said that the ukrainian his been up all night working on some of these legislative initiatives. >> yes. the ukrainians with whom we met were by all periods exhausted by the activity. >> was ambassador bolton encouraged by the activity? >> yes, he was. >> was the meeting altogether favorable? >> quite. >> and at that point in time after the meeting ambassador bolton, did he head off to warsaw with the vice president or did he just -- i know you went to warsaw. >> well, we had a few stops between ukraine and poland, but yes, ambassador bolton proceeded to warsaw where we were expecting to ensure everything was staged properly for the president's arrival.

>> and did you have an opportunity to brief the vice president on -- >> i did not. >> did ambassador bolton? >> he did. >> what do you remember from what ambassador bolton shared with the vice president about the zelensky meeting? >> i was not there. the issue i remember most starkly was ambassador was quite annoyed that ambassador sondland crashed the pre-brief, but the ambassador had everything he needed to ensure that either the president or the vice president were well prepared. >> but did you brief ambassador bolton before he had an opportunity to meet with the vice president? i didn't need to. >> ambassador bolton was there. >> as far as you know ambassador bolton communicated that the goings on were positive? >> at this time, ambassador bolton was advocating for the lifting of the aid? >> he had been for some time, yes.

and did you participate in the warsaw meetings? >> we had a reduced schedule from what had been arranged for the president for the vice president, but the vice president met with president duda of poland and i participated in both meetings. >> what do you remember from the meetings with president zelensky? >> it seemed very positive. >> president zelensky raised the issue of the aid, right? >> yes. >> how did the vice president respond? >> he represented his support for the aid. he represented the strong commitment of the united states to ukraine and he explained that president trump, because this is after the politico article had come out that made clear there was a hold, he explained that what we were doing, the united states government and the inner agency was examining what more europe could do in the security

space and taking a look at how ukraine was reforming what has been a history of corruption. >> and was there any discussion during the meeting with president zelensky on the part of the vice president about any of these investigations we've come to talk about? >> no. >> so burisma wasn't raised? >> no. >> 2016 election wasn't raised? >> no. >> and the vice president didn't mention any investigations at all, did he? >> no. >> you mentioned the august 28th politico article. was that the first time that you believe the ukrainians may have had a real sense that the aid was on hold? >> yes. so from the 55-day period spanning july 18th through september 11th, it didn't really become public until august 28th? >> that's correct. ambassador taylor and i had a

number of phone calls where we, in fact, talked about did the ukrainians know yet because we both felt very strongly that it was important that we ensure that the president was able to make the decision to release the aid before the ukrainians found out about it. >> ambassador volker. is that also your recollection? >> yes, it is. th blower statute that was made an ominous and the prior comments talking about the whistleblower and i now recognize stool. >> thank you mister chairman. ambassador volker, it seems by early july it's become pretty clear that wrister giuliani has become a major problem for the u.s. ukraine relations and you testified on july 2nd, we met with ukrainian president and his aide in toronto is that right? >> i had a bilateral meeting between the u.s. and the delegations and with the president's chief of staff.

>> you then discuss mr. giuliani's quote negative view quote of the ukraine based on a conspiracy theory of the 2016 election. >> he was repeating the narrative based on accusations of the prosecutor general. >> are you saying you didn't think that there were negative views. >> they were negative views. >> that wasn't your description? >> i'm sorry i've lost a question. >> i was trying to get at who said the negative views? >> the prosecutor general of ukraine was putting out the series of conspiracy theories that i believe were self serving and inaccurate. mr. giuliani, had repeated these to me and he was at least affected by those and was concerned.

>> he believe that they were negative? >> they were conveying them to the president. >> was it problematic that he had negative views? there is a true? >> yes. the whole thing is problematic. >> ambassador taylor testified that they told ukrainians that they need to cooperate on investigations and quote. you are now saying that you don't recall seeing those words, is that correct? >> i don't believe i said the words cooperate on the investigations. did >> you see investigations? >> i believe i did, yes. what >> did you mean by investigations? >> burisma in 2016 was in my mind and wanted to keep in general. ukraine in being convincing to also the president was serious about corruption would engage in whatever in negotiations necessary to clean up the country. >> moving to july 10th, ambassador volker sent you a text message. who was sent to

giuliani and it's on the screen now. you said mister mayor, can we meet for coffee or lunch in the next week or so? i'd like to update you on my conversations about ukraine. i think we have an opportunity to get you what you need. did you say that? is that accurate? >> that is an accurate text message. >> what did you mean by what you need? >> contacts with the actual government to ukraine that are not representing prepresidential and see. >> later that day you and ambassador sondland met with ukraine officials at the white house. we heard from several witnesses that ambassador sondland told ukraine that they needed to cooperate with the investigation. in order to get the oval office meeting scheduled on the books. were these investigations apart of the official u.s. policy towards ukraine? >> u.s. policy towards ukraine was about fighting corruption.

>> was it specifically about these kinds of investigations which was burisma? >> in order to fight corruption you need to conduct the investigation any to see what they are doing. >> was that the purpose of that? or was it because the president -- that the president wanted the investigation to be done as a condition of them to have a meeting with the white house? >> first off, we have to be clear will were talking about in terms of the investigation. were not talking about vice president biden -- >> charisma has nothing to do -- >> i'm saying the ukrainians within burisma had acted in a corrupt way. were insulted by the reference and if ukraine can make a statement of their intentions on fighting corruption that is helpful in order to convince president

trump ultimately -- >> with all due respect ambassador volker, we heard from two witnesses this morning that those investigations were not official u.s. policy. ambassador volker, i don't know if you understand what you are getting yourself into and sitting here today. i trust that you understand that pressuring ukraine to involve itself in this domestic policy is simply wrong. i yield back the balance of my time. (inaudible) mr. turner. >> i yield my time to jim jordan. >> i thank the gentleman. ambassador volker, you're the special ambassador to ukraine is that right? >> that's right. >> use worked at the nsc and the deck that is a decade terry of state and ambassador you distinguish the diplomatic career. it may not bother you when you referred to as the channel but it bothers represent eternal it turner and it bothers me. you're the envoy to ukraine in that role you said and her opening statement

that the administration's most outspoken public figure highlighting russia's invasion and occupation of ukraine and calling out the responsibility, is all right? >> that's correct. >> in that capacity, new strongly advocated for the debate on legal defensive arms ukraine, right? >> that's correct. >> president trump did it in the? >> he did. >> president trump was still skeptical of giving hard earned tax dollars ukraine, right? >> yes. you >> said that the testimony you said that in the skeptical is because he doesn't like foreign aid, right? >> that's one reason and ukraine's history of corruption is another. >> there is a third most corrupt country in the planet. europe isn't doing enough and by the way in the president's mind, he did think ukraine was trying to influence the 2016 election. things have happened and democrats will tonight but the ambassador of ukraine writes an op-ed on august 4th 2016 criticizing president trump, that is trying to influence the election. when a

key minister in the government says negative things about had the trouble that looks like a strike to influence the election and when they state and the financial times during the campaign that the political figures arnold want hillary clinton to win that sticks in the candidates mind. we all run campaigns, we see bad things about us but we don't necessarily think about them and when you are convinced that the lewinsky was a real deal, right? >> that's correct. >> you spent a lot of time with a guy. guess what? when it was frozen, you get these guys together to work out when it was frozen what did you say? you told the crane ukrainians don't worry about it and he said don't be alarmed, right? >> that's correct. >> guess what happened? when aides were frozen when, it was released all kinds of interactions between president zelensky and senior u.s. officials, right? >> that's correct. >> start with the call with

president trump and zelensky. next day you eat with president zelensky in ukraine. then we have ambassador bolton meeting with -- that we have pence meeting with, u.s. and johnson and murphy meeting with them and guess what? and none of those meetings, not a single one did security assistance tell in exchange for the investigation, not once they come up in that conversation, is all right? >> that's correct. >> not once. no discussion of foreign investigation and as you testified, you never bleed aid was ever being talked about either in any of these conversations. >> that's correct. >> but what happened in those meetings? they all became convinced of the same thing you knew. they all saw the same darn thing and that it was a real deal. he's a legitimate reformer and they all came back and we all came back to tell

the president hey mister president, this guy is real. go ahead and release the dollars and by the way at that same timeframe you, know it else up and? their newly elected parliament was mr. morrison stayed up all night to cast the reform measures to get the prosecutor, put in this supreme a high anti-corruption court and to get rid of this -- this ability to that no one in their congress or ever be hit with it and that is -- all that happens where they come back until president trump, hey, guess what? time to release the dollars and he did it, right? >> dollars were released. >> he did your job. and you gotta put up with all this because the democrats are about to get the president. you did the way your job turner described it. all these years and the democrats put you through this. you have served our country well and the kind of diplomat we want serving but here is the saddest things

about all of this with the democrats are putting us through. you two guys or he'll tunneling it straight are decided you're going to step out because of what these guys are doing. that is the thad telling people like volker and morrison who have served well and are stepping up because of what these guys are doing. that's why mr. turner got so fired up a few minutes ago because we appreciate -- we appreciate what you guys did it and i yield back. >> mr. carson. >> thank you chairman schiff. ambassador volker, how to focus on a statement that president trump and rudy giuliani wanted to announce with the investigations to benefit president trump. on august 9th, ambassador sondland had this exchange. ambassador sondland says, morrison, ready to get dates as soon as you no confirms. you reply excellent,

how did you sway him? ambassador sondland said >> not sure i did i think potus really wants the deliverable. the deliverable here was the announcement that ukraine was going to conduct the investigation and alleged the 2016 election with ukraine is, that correct sir? >> thank you. i understand the deliverable to be the statements that we are talking about. >> on august 13th, ambassador sondland discussed the statement from ukraine to mr. giuliani. sir, why did you discuss the statement would really giuliani? >> the idea in the statement came up from the meeting with mr. giuliani and when mr. yermak asked me to connect him to mr. giuliani i did and they both called me afterwards, mr. giuliani said ukraine should make a statement about the corruption then we will say specifically burisma in 2016.

you are bogged the statement and i wanted it to beach assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine with what they stand for now. so that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i observed with the meeting with the president. the problem being, these getting the bad set of information that could potentially correct that. >> was mr. giuliani satisfied? he >> was not. he believed that he needed to see burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible or not mean anything. >> in fact, mr. giuliani that the statement was referenced and the 2016 election explicitly, that would benefit president trump. ambassador, here is the text you sent to the ukrainian official on

august 13th i will put that up on the screen. you said, i andre, good talking as the text with an insert at the end with the two key items. mister ambassador, those two key items specifically reference to investigations a burisma and the 2016 election, is all right sir? >> is that correct. >> they did take those two key items. >> i just had a conversation with prince or mr. yermak with the conversation we had just had would mr. giuliani mr.. giuliani said that we need to include these things to be convincing to him. we put them in so he understood what he was talking about and shared it with andre to say this is what. he is talking about. >> you had clue the if the proposal with the ukrainians? >> we told ukrainians this is what the conversation was. >> mister ambassador, if you

believe that rudy giuliani did in august was not that idea, why were the ukrainian still considering giving an interview with the same themes in september? >> if i may, congressman, i conveyed this to ukrainians to be clear so we knew what the conversation was about and following out the prior conversation. the ukrainians then they had reasons not to do that and disrupt those reasons and i agreed with them to just scrap the statement. from that point on, i had had further conversations about this statement. so i don't know how it came up or will you keep up with president zelensky doing an interview in saying something like this at a do that here. >> thank you sir. mr. morrison, you said that the president's request in july 25th call about the assistant u.s. policy that i agree with you sir. this text

messages show that volker spent much of august pressing ukraine to meet those requests. we can only be grateful. the president essentially got caught and congress passed a law to ensure the footage was released ukraine for his too late. i thank you both for your service and terminate yield back. >> thank you mister chairman. both gentlemen thank you very much for being here. i want to start with you mr. morrison. and discussing the 7:25 phone call and vindman came to aids for the transcript and you stated that you accepted all of that evidence is that correct? >> i would have selected all of the evidence that we were faithful to what was discussed. >> did he come to you with

something that said they would demand what should be in there? i >> don't recall know. >> how soon after the phone call was there that particular issue? we >> got the draft that was enrolled fairly quickly after the call. >> that same day. today he said, i reported my concerns to mr. eisenberg and the president of the united states to handle foreign government investigate the opponent. we were going to mr. eisenberg to observe the conversation that he did not in any point say that there should be a demand and you know, he didn't do that at you did say he did cup to you with his concerns because you were available but that same day he came to you with evidence. was that correct? i >> believe that's generally

correct, yes or. you weren't available and you heard the president's demand did you? >> no sir. >> sometime between the call and today lieutenant colonel vindman must of heard some voices and her demand at the time i didn't hear that day and didn't make an addition that day but today he does. i think that is pretty reason are. when lieutenant colonel went to 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 beds and it certainly more than one country can be trying to influence our election, would you agree with? that >> i agree with that. >> we keep hearing that that whole thing about the

ukrainians is all been debunked. that comes from an icy community where some of the people that have come up with those conclusions are some of the very people that were going to find out if we have an already with this whole russian collusion hoax. i want to say, you did a great job with president zelensky's intention and what you say that's accurate? >> yes, in fact one of the key facts of the litigation of the inauguration to take your own judgment. >> that's what your job should be. you got comfortable with this president correct? >> yes i did. >> you work to assure our president that you are comfortable with this? correct? >> that's correct. >> in some ways new had to work sometimes with any means available and that might include working with rudy giuliani if it could be helpful to get that advice to the president, would not be correct? >> the message is being

conveyed by giuliani because they were -- they were at variance with the message to what the president was and not conveying that assessment that we had. i thought it was important to step in and fix the problem. >> with that i think you turned a useful barometer of where things were. >> the barometers can come in a lot of different fashions like dennis robin in north korea and i think you've got a friend. if they can help to cause and in that situation, it's a good job ambassador and thank you very much. >> miss spear. >> chairman, thank you and thank you both for your participation and for your service. all in a takeout 30,000 feet for a minute and talk about cover-up's. but for the fact that the whistleblower came forward and we didn't know anything about this but for the

fact that the inspector general of the cia founded to be urgent and credible and he would know anything about it and mr. morrison and he said that after you heard the call he went directly to the attorneys and the security council and recommended that they be limited access and they were put into a special server. the white house has not released any documents whatsoever to this committee do you mr. volker thank you but for the fact that you as a private citizen with your own personal phone and you're text messages with mr. giuliani and sondland i mister my yak and whoever else. for those text messages that we've been putting up on screen all day, we would have nothing. nothing. this cover-up would be complete. that is

something we should think about. now, on july 19th, you had breakfast with rudy giuliani at the trump hotel, correct? >> that's correct. >> in that conversation at one point he brought up mr. was saying go and let's send goat was saying was not credible. massacre act? >> yes. you >> brought up mr. biden and i've known him for a long time and he's a person of integrity to giuliani. he's simply not credible to me and joe biden would be influenced in his duties as vice president by money hour for his son or anything like that. we've had many discussions over the last few days about these investigations into burisma and biden and the 2016 crowdstrike server. you in that

conversation with mr. giuliani basically debunked all of that. ipad time at that breakfast who else was with you at that breakfast? >> there was someone that giuliani brought along and it was someone we learned a lot about soon stead. >> mr. look parnas was at this lunch and mr. parnas was indicted for campaign contribution to president trump's political committee. is that correct? >> i haven't seen that. >> on may 23rd, you were in that discussion with the president and at one point he referred to zelensky adding terrible people around him. who do you think he was calling terrible people around him?

>> there were two people that came to mind. one of them was a former investigative journalist name yuriy lutsenko who is seen as bringing forth the black ledger for paul manafort sector and ukraine and the other person that it was referred to was a person who is being named president zelensky's chief of administration andre poked on. he was a lawyer for one of the oligarchs and a lot of controversy at the time. >> do you think of the most terrible people? i >> don't think either one of them is terrible people. >> thank you. mr. morrison, earlier and a testimony that we had from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you indicated that others had

represented to you that colonel ben men leaked. tomorrow saying that? >> yes ma'am. >> all right, colonel vindman this morning under oath said that he did not and does not leak. now, what you therefore want to make a brief rearrange of your comments of the references you made to colonel vindman? >> no ma'am. >> even though under oath he said that he has never leaked do, you believe that people who said to you that he may have leaked. >> ma'am, i didn't believe or disbelieve that's what they told me. >> that's what they told you and then you decided to continue to put that forward even though you had no evidence. no >> ma'am. i'm sorry, if i could answer. that is incorrect. dr. hill, he rough and others raise

concerned and they were noted and i took them for face value and i was on alert and i had my own judgments and took no judgments at that i couldn't independently validate. >> mr. stewart. >> thank you gentlemen and welcome to the >> thank you gentlemen and welcome to the impeachment-palooza 2019 which is the democratic plan to tell america to impeach president donald j trump to the sheer force because it's been a long day and it turns out it's very boring if you don't have anything compelling or get any evidence. good news is bad news. i'll be very brief undergoing on ten plus hours on this. i will yield back some of my time because most of my colleagues after me won't. so we've soaks got some time to go. ambassador volker, very quickly. do you think that someone should be immune from investigations on the suspect of ethical or

criminal activity just because they were a candidate for office or for office of the president of the united states? >> i don't think anyone should be above the law. >> of course not that would be absurd to address that and what if someone was was a ethical or criminal investigations overseas in the country. would it be improper to seek the host countries help which we entered poll or any other law enforcement? >> there are channels for doing that for american citizens in the crimes abroad. >> again, the host nation in their governments help is not unusual at all? >> we often have treaties for that. >> thank you. that's painfully obvious so all the things that the president was doing. mr. morrison, i want to go to colonel vindman's testimony where he described the

six people i believe it was five or six people in a situation where he listed the phone call between the two presidents. vindman described the succession and said there was no reason to question the integrity or professionalism. this is the exchange he had it in close testimony. do you agree with the description of the national security? >> they are patriots, yes. >> great integrity and professionalism? yes >> sir. >> do any -- did any of these exceptional individuals -- people of unquestionable integrity and professionalism indicate that the president of the united states was not engaged in any illegal or unethical behavior as a result of this phone call? >> not that i'm aware of congressman. >> did they suggest to you in any way that they thought the president was involved in bribery or anything associated with that?

i'm >> not aware congressman. >> at only leaves two possible explanations of these individuals that we described as integrity, either that's not true that i will don't believe or they just determined an ambiguous conversation that colonel vindman. just as a side of an air force officer we don't know why president obama was against legal aid and why they refused to do that. >> i would only point to the statement of the administration at the time. there. was a perception that our allies that germany would oppose it and perception that germany should be in the lead and that it could be provocative to russia or de-escalate the conflict. as i've said extensively at the time, as i don't agree with those arguments and the record is out that the defensive arms are very important. >> i agree with you ambassador you've got a right in the president got a right and with that i yield back. >> mr. quigley >> thank you mister chairman. ambassador, i want to direct your attention to the

meeting you had with ambassador taylor and you are back in remember the meeting sir? >> it was about the time of the u.s. conference. do you remember discussing with mr. yermak you ukraine intend to investigate their former president mr. yuriy lutsenko. i >> remember the possibility of prosecution. >> they raised it and you talked about it. >> excuse me congressman i'm sorry. to be clear, there was a lot of talk in kiev at that time about whether the new team would be prosecuting the former president. i had met with the president before any opposition as well. i wanted to call mr.

earmarks attention to the problems and i'm very familiar with other examples that have gone for prosecutions of the former government. these have created deep divisions in the society. so i cited president zelensky's inauguration speech -- i'm sorry, his national speech from august 24th and it was all about unifying the country. i cautioned mr. yermak saying that pursuing prosecution of president pushing go risks deepening the opposite of president zelensky as he wants to do. it's >> fair to describe that you discouraged him from such action? >> i discouraged him on the potential impact and what was mr. yermak's response. >> i am professionals in saying that an -- >> ambassador taylor and mr. kent. >> based on that testimony there would be like asking us to have a saint clinton biden. it >> was something along the lines of it's okay for you to ask us to

investigate in the matter in which you are in these so-called investigations but you don't want us to investigate our own is that fair to describe it? >> i don't understand what he was referring to because it was looking to have as a clinton or biden so i was puzzled by the remark. >> did you investigate what he might have been asking anybody? >> i took it something of a deflection from a point i was making. >> and all this time -- mr. giuliani mentioned the biden investigation and mentioned biden over 50 times and 20 something times in the relationship with ukraine and it sir your curiosity? that you have now finally come to this point? >> i met with giuliani once and vice president biden and i maintained a clear

distinction that ukraine investigating its own corruption would be fine and going beyond that to investigate the vice president is not fine. >> did you have any discussions with anyone in the state department or anywhere else and administration about concerns in two poroshenko. >> i raised this was ambassador taylor and we've been in some of the same meetings with the country team there. i don't remember whether i had racist with george can't or not. but it was something that we had discussed as part of our meetings in kiev at that time. >> i yield to the chairman. >> ambassador, we had this conversation when you urged ukrainians not to investigate

and prosecute to the former president, their response was you mean like you're asking us to investigate the clinton and the bidens. that was the response? that's >> what i recall now from seeing them. you >> didn't understand that at the time but you are at the call record? you read the call record which makes more sense? >> yes. >> i was curious what sudden you said earlier when you said -- the 2016 conspiracy theory had no merit but you didn't see any harm if they wanted to investigate it. is that right? >> yes. >> don't they have enough legitimate corruption to investigate without spending time investigating a debunk conspiracy theory? >> there's all kinds of corruption's to

investigate? >> you propose that new to this investigation with something without merit because this is part of an effort to fix the problem that giuliani was creating? i >> did not propose it. >> well, i think you said you are okay with it or in the statement we've seen to include it. because, if it would help the giuliani problem was at the thinking? >> that's correct. it threads the needle between what's reasonable for ukraine and resets the negative perception by mr. giuliani and the president then why not. >> this is what you described in your opening statement as an effort to see a problem and fix it. he's a clearly now ambassador volker, based on the september 25th call that you are not able to fix it? >> based on the transcripts released on the 25th, i can see now that there was a lot else going on with vice president biden at the time and the efforts that i was making or not in the context of what had

already been discussed with the president on july 25th. >> it's fair to say you can fix the giuliani problem? >> that's correct. >> missed fanatic. >> thank you ambassador volker and four years of service and you're professional expertise and leadership on security issues and i want to thank mr. morrison for his great work on the house committee which i served and i want to start with the july 25th call between president trump and zelensky. mr. morrison you are on that call and there was no mention of withholding aid on alcohol, correct? >> correct. there >> was no quid pro quo, correct? >> correct. >> no bribery? >> correct. >> no extortion? >> correct. >> ambassador volker, i presume you were out on the call, is that correct? >> yes. >> in this

tertiary readout ambassador from the withhold from aid? there >> was not. >> any reference to quid pro quo? >> no. >> extortion? >> there was not. i >> presume we got feedback from ukrainian counterparts on how that went. they mentioned the withhold? >> they did not. >> did they mention any quid pro quo? >> they did not. >> any bribery? >> they did not. >> in fact, the day after the call you met with president zelensky on july 26. in that meeting, he made no mention of quid pro quo. he made no pension of aid? >> no. >> bribery? >> no. >> the fact is that ukrainians were not even aware of this is that correct? >> the app. >> in the upcoming weeks you are in touch with the official duties and this included talking to ukrainians over the phone and,, by text and ukrainians never brought up the investigation into the bidens, zach wrecked? that's >> correct. >> they never brought up withholding of the aid? >> that's correct. they >> never brought up paraded -- quid

pro quo bribery? >> they did after it appeared. >> until the political article dated not bring it up. you said in your closed-door deposition it never came up in conversation and i believe they had to trust in me that they would ask until it was really what they were worried about is, that correct? >> it is. >> as you pointed out, the ukrainians never even knew their foreign aid was on pause until the article was published in august. >> that's correct. >> they did not know during the call. >> that's correct. in >> fact, you had to correct chairman schiff on this timeline in the closed-door deposition. the chairman of this committee asked you, when they became aware that military assistance was being withheld for a reason you cannot explain, no one could

explain, they were under greater pressure to give the president he asked for in the call. you answer ambassador volker to, my knowledge the, news about the hold on security assistance to not get to the ukrainian government circles as indicated to me by the current foreign minister and academic advisor in august. it's higher testimony? >> yes it is. >> chairman schiff also got the facts wrong again when he asked to do this. quote, at the point they learned about this pause, wouldn't they give -- wooden that give them the emergency to beat the president's quest on the bidens. you bad certain bass and volker, the ukrainians felt like they're going in the right direction and they had not done anything. they had not done anything on the investigation end quote. is in this the case ambassador volker at one point chairman schiff said to you, you are truly

testifying but ambassador you are making this much more complicated than it has to be end quote. it's page 1:27 from the deposition. >> i remember that. >> the truth is the facts are they are not complicated. i will close up with two questions for both of you. did ukraine open investigation into biden's? mr. morrison? >> not to my knowledge. >> ambassador volker? >> not to my knowledge either. did >> either of you ever have any evidence of quid pro quo? mr. morrison? >> no man. >> ambassador volker? >> no ma'am. >> bribery? >> no ma'am. >> no. >> any evidence of treason? >> no ma'am. >> no evidence of treason. >> with that i yield back. (inaudible) mr. swalwell. >> mr. morrison, did ambassador bolton want the security hole lifted? he >> did. >> new testified that bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump in late august related to the ukraine assistance is, that correct? >> can you point to our testify to that. >> page two 66 you said bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump in august

2019, but the president was not ready to approve the release of the assistance, to remember that? >> 2:26? >> yes. two 66 and to 68. i'm asking you did that happen or did not? i >> want to be clear characterizing it. yes sir i see. >> you testified to that. what was the outcome of that meeting with bolton and trump? >> ambassador bolton was ready to approve the assistance. did >> ambassador both inform you for the end gone going ways of his speech? no >> sir. >> mr. morrison, do you consider yourself loyal to the president? >> yes sir. >> and the president executes before both feel you stated, how right? >> i would say he designs -- yes sir. >> as a staffer on national

security council and someone who served in the military, it's your job to faithfully executed foreign policy priorities of the president, is that right? >> it's to obey all orders. >> on july 25, the president of the united states talked about ukraine, is that correct? >> yes sir. >> regardless of what you had prepared as, far as talking points for that call from the president, you heard the president of the united states asked the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens, to correct? >> yes sir, he made a request. >> after the july 25 call between trump and ukrainian president is it fair to say that you talk to the ukrainian counterparts enough times? >> sir. >> how many times when you talk to the ukrainian counterparts did you ask them to investigate the bidens? >> never sir. >> why not? >> sir, there was not a policy objective that i was aware of. >> with all due

respect mr. morrison, you are not in the white house to carry out the policy objectives. you testified that the president sets the foreign policy objective for the united states and the one call that you listen to between the president of united states and the president of ukraine, the president of united states priorities were to investigate the bidens. i'm asking you sir, why didn't you follow up on the president's priorities when you talk to ukrainians? >> i did not understand the policy objective. >> mr. morrison, i know that you put that conversation in the server because as you said, you fear the political consequences of some of the reasons that you gave. you also chose to define the president's request to not come here as others have like mr. mulvaney and bolton, you

have come here and been truthful, i appreciate that and mr. morrison whether you acknowledge or publicly or not, i believe that you knew that what the president asked the ukrainians to do was wrong. as you just described, your duty as to follow the foreign policy of the president but to also only follow something that is a lawful order and i don't believe it was a lawful order which is why you did not follow up on his priority. mr. volker. we've heard a lot today about this president being an anti corruption president. he cares about fighting corruption and is russia a corrupt country? >> president zelensky? >> president trump? it's russia corrupt country? yes >> it is. >> trump has met a number of times with the president is, that right? >> yes a few times. >> he said a number of phone calls, i right? >> yes. his >> turkey a corrupt country? i >> believe so. >> just last week despite their corruption, at the white house president erdogan had lunch with

the president united states is, that right? >> yes. >> finally, mr. giuliani on may 9th told the new york times president trump basically knows what i'm doing as his lawyer. are you familiar with that statement? >> i'm not. >> but you agree as a lawyer is sitting next to you, a lawyer acts on a client behalf. and only ana klein's behalf, is all right? >> i believe that a lawyer acts on his clients behalf. i'm not sure about only on a client's behalf because as i understood mayor giuliani, in

this case he was doing what i don't believe he was always a instructed. we >> are not meddling in an election, or meddling on an investigation. correct? >> i'm taking it from the statement. >> i yield back. >> mr. morrison, my colleague from california suggest he knows your opinions, and your thoughts but he didn't give you the opportunity to respond. do have a response or want to give a response? >> no sir. i hope i heard the president's request and to lead a policy process different by deposition. i was directed by mr. cooper bid to ensure a unity of opinion and the importance of continuing and that's what i did. i advocated what i was given. >> copy. while we are with you mr. morrison and we appreciate your testimony today. did you participate in your conversations with political information directed by ukraine on the bidens and the

user political gain? >> no sir. >> ambassador volker, same question. did you participate or over here any conversations about essential information by the ukraine and the bidens for the use a political gain? >> no. >> there's been lots of discussions of text change that you had with mr. yermak that talked about this statement. mayor giuliani provided some feedback on what needed to be included on that. did mayor giuliani get feedback on the proposed meant? >> i have no reason to think that they had discussed that.. >> but based on your recollection ambassador volker, has mayor giuliani interacted with in addition to mr. yermak who already talked about and the former attorney general. >> i do not know who else he had worked with other than zelensky government. i'm aware of him having believed

that mr. yuriy lutsenko -- >> but is not a current regime of which were talking about. i >> don't know who else he would've met with. >> is it possible what was your understanding of ambassador sondland's role? >> he cared about ukraine. he wanted to see ukraine increased and wanted to see european union support increase but the sanctions and wanted to be helpful. >> was ambassador sondland having conversations without letting people know? >> i don't believe that he was not letting people know, i think he may have had some conversations where he was acting and i think we circled back frequently with my bell myself. >> can you say that you have a clear understanding and what ambassador sondland and mayor

giuliani were doing with all other interactions with ukrainian officials? >> i can't say i had a clear understanding. i thought that ambassador sondland and i were working from the same objective which was getting a meeting between zelensky and president trump. and a statement as i understood from 2016 would be potentially helpful and anything more than their interactions. >> you didn't have a clear understanding of the special representative to ukraine. do you think they have a clear understanding. >> no i don't. >> he thought there was a difference between biden and his 2016 election? >> that's correct. >> and you think the ukrainians had some similar understanding? >> yes i did. >> there is also a perception that when ambassador yovanovitch with her 33 years of being an often ambassador. when she left kiev, that the u.s. position on

corruption would weaken the narrative that's floating around. who was the person that took over for her? who was the charge a after? >> immediately after, was this individual strong or weak? >> i would say with the rest of our policy. >> who is that person in place with? that's all you suggested for the position? was tailor strong or weak? >> very strong. >> mr. morrison, in my last 23 minutes he said u.s. policy? >> the president. >> not some other staffer within the nfc process? >> that's to ensure the president has the full process for this decision. >> thank you and i yield back. >> it's a castro. >> thank you chairman,

thank you gentlemen for your testimony today, is a crack to say that both of you gentlemen or appointed or hired by the white house in the trump ministration? >> yes sir. in >> my case by secretary tillerson. >> but part of the trump administration? >> yes. >> sure. ambassador volker, you testified that gordon sondland but we just know and in one text message on july 26 ambassador sondland was a great photo, can you get this to potus without intermediaries. july 26 with the same day that sunlen spoke to the president from a restaurant in kiev, design right? >> the date again? >> july 26? i >> know that to be correct now. >> were you aware of that call. >> were you aware

that in visitor sondland? >> he claimed he spoke to the president frequently. >> ambassador sondland is a big personality he was a political appointee. >> he had also been a large donor to one of trump president trump's campaign committees. >> i have learned that yes. >> mr. morrison mutate stated during your testimony that when you met ambassador song and for the first time, he represented the president which was to donate youth. in fact, you testified with the july 25th and so to number 11 of this year that they learned that ambassador sondland and president trump spoken several of occasions. is it accurate that every time you checked you were able to confirm and they had in fact spoken to the president? >> mr. morrison, you testified that sunlen

emailed you of several staff that they breathed president trump in advance of the july 25th call with the ukrainian president. is that correct? >> that's correct. then >> ambassador sondland tell you about the president at all? >> he sent me an email sir and it was less distinct in the item with respect to ukraine. >> new testified that you confirmed that ambassador sondland and trump has spoken before the july 25th call. >> that's correct congressman. >> the white house situation keeps a record of those calls. >> that it follows able to confirm it >> they suggested points for the question for the president i u.s. policy is i correct? >> yes. >> putin uses point, did he? >> he did not. and you prepared materials for the president and they do not include references on the 2016

election. >> that's right. >> ambassador sondland, the guy who is be gordon problem who's got a direct link to the president. the guy who's talking about making deals, beat president trump. >> correct congressman. >> president trump raised the 2016 election and his son to the ukrainian president after he was briefed by ambassador sondland. is that right? >> that's correct. it >> sounds like ambassador sondland who are on the same page. they both were working to the political

interests even when it undermined u.s. foreign policy. i wanna ask you in a short time i have to serve the united states, whether putting president trump aside that you believe that is proper to a foreign government to investigate u.s. citizens ambassador? >> i don't believe it's appropriate for the president to do that. we have law enforcement concerns with a u.s. citizen generally and the channels are for that. >> mr. morrison? >> i agree with passer bolger sir. >> thank you chairman, i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you chairman. gentlemen, i appreciate both of you being here today i know it's been a long day for you. mr. morrison

i'm, trying to summarize some of what we heard to shorten this. who are on the july 25th call, correct? >> yes congressman. >> i will tell you that he testified earlier today that he heard what he thought was a demand of the call that was improper and felt we had a duty to report back. i think we establish already and didn't discuss any of that. but you did have a discussion about other concerns with the call and i believe the fidelity of the translation and the fact that they both shared the discussion about not being a full-throated is that fair? >> yes congressman. >> with respect and something improper and specifically and no point did he come to you and say that i heard something that was

improper. i >> have no recollection of doing that. >> no quid pro quo and everything that they asked you? >> no sir. >> as you were listening, did you hear president trump make a demand of anything that constituted a crime? >> i was trying to stay on the same side, >> you have a law degree. with bribery and extortion but is it fair to say that as you are listening and bribing the president of ukraine or he was extort sorting the president of ukraine. or doing anything improper. >> have you heard

where president zelensky agrees with you and repeatedly consisting of any conditions and he didn't feel any pressure and experience anything improper on the call. >> i attended the line in new york and felt that he is under pressure. >> did anyone on the national security council after this call expressed to you in some crime or bribery or expand potion anything occurred? >> no sir. i >> want to ask you, mr. morrison about the whistleblower complaint. i don't want to ask as the identity but i want to ask you about the accusation that started about this. the whistleblower was not on the call as the igic that he or she was concerned about the president's conduct that constituted under section 30 33, a serious problem for violation

of law or executive order. again, to be clear, you didn't hear a violation of law or executive order as you listen to the call? >> sir, i made no judgment about anything. >> the whistleblower also reported in the start of the inquiry that the president sought to pressure the ukrainian leadership to take action to help the president's 2020 reelection. president trump does not mention 2020 in the call, does he? >> no sir, i don't believe he did. >> president trump doesn't mention his reelection bullet bid in the call? i >> don't believe he did. >> you did not hear president

trump pressured or have a demand of any kind as established, correct? >> yes. >> a colonel vindman uses the word demand -- >> i don't think -- >> council you shoes the microphone. >> with all due respect, i believe you just said the whistleblower. >> like vindman also and ambassador volker are both providing advice to ukrainian leadership on how to demand the president who invaded zelensky and quote. there were no demands from the perspective mr. morrison? >> that's correct. speculation about the whistleblower aside the fact is that the whistleblower was wrong about the facts as well,

correct? >> i'm not familiar with this complaint but i did not hear a demand. >> i yield back. >> mr. heck. >> thank you mister chairman. ambassador volker, i want to thank you for being here today and we found some of your opening statement to be not just genuine but downright eloquent. we noted the particular passages of the aggression and the strong resilient parts of ukraine and this is important for national security and some of them believe that they're not strong enough in russia and are not supportive enough of ukraine and one of the challenges is help explain to them why it is in our national security interest. you

will never have again to look into the camera and tell the american public, why it is important to support ukraine. why should it matter to them it the biggest issue in their life it's getting their kids to school and paying their bills and the like. sir? >> thank you so much congressman. i agree with you completely doubt we are not pushing back hard enough on russia and that we owe ukraine a great deal of support. >> why does it matter? >> russia is trying to upheld the security in new york and reassert its domination and it has led to war in europe. and the war in ukraine have left more people dead with the balkans and are being to splays by war and europe since world war ii and these are people that stand up for freedom and

democracy and won't reform and want to see their country be successful like germany, like sweden, like us and are fighting a war of aggression that are designed to hold them back and if we want to live in a world of freedom that we ought to be supportive for them around the world. >> thank you for that. more here in part because of the cover of concern for general corruption and in fact there was something quite nefarious as the alternative. there wasn't a concern about general corruption. revealing the record on that, is not true that in march of this year, he department of defense certified ukraine as having sufficient progress that continue to receive military assistance? >> i don't know the details of that. is >> it true that on april 24 as president zelensky was an overwhelming mandate

which was largely on its effort and corruption? >> that's correct. it >> is not true this mandate was expanding july 21st as party control began on anti corruption? >> that's correct. >> in fact, he was sweeping forms of anti corruption did, he not? >> yes he did. >> it's not true everyone in the ground thought it was filled with optimism that ukraine was getting serious about combatting corruption? that's >> correct. >> ambassador volker, did you know that one of the very first anti corruption measures asked in the ukraine which was a lot to provide for the impeachment of the president? >> i did not. >> it's true. he thought we should start with himself. i raised this because my friends on the other side of the aisle characterize this impeachment inquiry as wrong because and i'm quoting them, it will overturn an election. it will overturn an election but impeachment is an

anti corruption tool. four people on the other side of the aisle, it does overturn an election by definition it overturns an election. i don't know if they got a problem with the constitution or provisions for impeachment but we recommend they really read the bell them relevance and passages in one, two and three and some of the history but none of us want to be here despite what's being said. none of us came to this easily. were a call for the rest of my life to 40 hours i spent here literally plunged in self reflection and literally deliberation about this whole matter. collectively, we are going to have to go with this decision and it's going to get hard and it's hard in proportion to its importance to our great republic. a republic if we can keep it. i yield back mister

chairman. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you mister chairman ambassador volker, and the transcript on the bottom of page three president trump said this. i heard you had a prosecutor and he was shut down and just for clarification. do you believe trump was talking about shokin? >> shokin. thank you so much that's what i thought as well. mr. morgan new talked about issues with colonel vindmans judgment, is that right? >> it is sir. >> you said specifically you had concerns about vindmans appropriate judgment as to who we said what is, all right? >> yes sir. you >> testified doctor hill that she had concerns about colonel vindman's judgment is, that right? it >> is her. you >> testified colonel vindman was not just only the chief of command? i >> believe so, yes

or. you >> are aware the issues with trying to access information outside is that correct? >> i believe as i stated, that there were those who were concerned about that. >> you just like colonel vindman it was not included on trips a? right >> yes or. >> and he testified that colleagues expressed concern to you about colonel vindman leaking information is, that right? >> yes sir. when >> i asked curdled about what he did go to you with his concerns about the call, even though new had no concerns about anything in your language which was nothing improper anything illegal on the call. i asked him in earlier this morning and we'll talk to the lawyers his,

brother, secretary can't and one other person that he wouldn't tell us and chairman schiff when i tell us. i'm asking why he did that and he indicated that the lawyer said that you're trying to get a hold of you. is that fair? >> sir, i watched part of the proceedings was boarding. >> something chairman schiff brought up this morning was that he pointed out that colonel vindman's boss also went to the lawyers. but your reason to go into the lawyer is a little bit different. >> yes sir. >> i think you had a few things that you talked about earlier but i think at the top of your list was you were concerned about the contents of the call leaking out. is that fair? >> yes sir. >> that's exactly what happened. isn't it? >> sir, i don't know

-- i don't know that the context was a whistleblower complaint and the president chose to classify. >> it seems to me you were prophetic because you said in your statement today as i stated during my deposition that the time of the call on july 25th, how disclosure of the contest would play in washington's political climate. my fears have been realized and you saw what might happen and it sure did. it's a fair to say? >> yes sir. >> we get all of this, we give all of this and was it worth it? we get all of this and in the hearings this week and we spent a bunker in the basement and for facts that we kept coming back to i've never changed and will never change from both of us today and these facts with the call transcript and no linkage to security system in the transcript and the two individuals who were on the call who said no linkage, no pressure, no pushing and got the fact that the ukrainians didn't go and nominate and were withheld until august 29th and most importantly they did nothing as far as starting and congress didn't start announcing they're going to start an investigation did nothing and they got released. i believe he got released because we were

talking about the good work of the ambassador volker. and others who saw this might happen in here we are. you called it all, knew saw this coming and that's why you went to the lawyers and that's why -- that's why the concern was there. and that's the part that's most troubling and i yield back. i yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> ambassador volker until male you said ukraine special on kirk volker walks back is closed door testimony and says, in quote as now learned there, was a link between the u.s. military aid and that is not your testimony today is? it that is

not in my testimony. >> mr. welch? >> thank you. just following up on mr. jordan, the easiest way to avoid investigation is to not do anything wrong. i want to talk a little bit about why we are here. official government actions cannot be traded for help in a political campaign. let me give an analogy and ask if you if you agree. could a mayor of a city withhold funding for the police department budget unless they agree to open up investigation into a political rival. mr. morrison? >> no, i don't take a chief think he should do that. >> ambassador volker? >> yes. the >> same will be true if it were a governor withholding the budget request of the state, unless the state

agreed to conduct an investigation into a political rival. would you agree? >> correct. >> yes, sir. >> isn't a difference for a member of congress -- of course not, right? would you agree that the president has the same obligation, as the mayor, as the governor and a member of congress to not withhold aid unless he gets an investigation into a political rival. mr. morrison? >> yes, i would agree with that hypothetical. >> i agree. >> we are having a debate here, both sides, as to how to read what is plainly before us. the presidential phone call where the president ignored the advisers and talking point, and instead chose to talk about the bidens and hunter biden, and asked for an investigation. so we are going to have to debate that. isn't the principle that no person, including the president is above the law absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain that

we can guarantee. i'm sorry, ambassador volker? >> yes. >> the rule of law central to our democracy. >> that's so true. we had some discussions and challenge from the other side, that the president has the authority in foreign policy to do what he likes. in fact, he does. a recent president by president trump to take our troops out of syria and allow

the turkish forces to go in literally meant that some kurdish families went to bed saturday night and look up sunday morning, pack their kids and fled for their lives. a lot of people, including both sides of the aisle disagreed with that. the president has the authority to do it. impulsive asset has been about threatening our national security. we are not talking about that here. master volker, i listened to your testimony and i take it and thank you for making efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan party, to help ukraine get rid of corruption, help resist russian aggression. but you came to learn was that there was a sidebar ukraine policy with giuliani as an advocate, is that correct? >> i don't know anything about that.

>> as you have been involved, while you were working on what he thought was stopping aggression and eliminating corruption, there was a sigh deal here to get investigations going, correct? >> yes. my objective was purely focused on support for ukraine, national security and i have now learned from other testimony about the president's statement about investigating biden and other conversations that i did not know about. >> thank you for that, and thank you for your candor about the vice presidents and hagerty and service. but the bottom line here is that, at the end of the day, we will have to make a judgment about what the president was up to with respect to that request for the favor, and how it repudiated the policy that it was the bipartisan effort in ukraine, and raises

questions about he and that hypothetical example i gave of the mayor, held himself to be above the law. i yield back. >> mr. mulroney? >> thank you for being here. ambassador volker, i was struck by her opening statement. it moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in october. i know you gave a reason for that, which is that you were in the dark about a lot of these things, is that fair to say? >> that is one thing, i learned a lot -- >> you learned a lot. what you said on page eight, that i did not know, this is a quote, i did not know that president trump or others had raised vice president, biden, or conflated the investigation with the former vice president. you did no

breeze moment biden, that's what you say? i had separated the two. >> you were there on may 23rd for the meeting with the president when he said talk to rudy, and rudy care about the investigations, which we now know met biden, right? you miss

that on may 23rd? >> i understood at the time that hunter biden has been a board member -- >> you did not read that as a request to investigate the bidens at the time? >> correct. >> and you were in meetings were ambassador sondland rates the investigations, like you did know was about the violence, that your testimony, right? >> i did not think he was talking about anything specific. >> you thought it was inappropriate, and the chairman asked you about that, but he said i did know was

the bidens, i just thought it was inappropriate, and then when they were in the war room, and ambassador sondland race burisma and the violent in 2016, you missed that two as i understand. on july 18th you knew aid was withheld and an august he's been a good part of the time with this statement. you are the guy making the changes, and interacting with the ukrainians. you're putting and british changes, which included a call for investigating burisma, and the 2016 elections, which you now know meant biden, right? >> you do note at the time, but now we know. on september 1st, you were in warsaw. you are at every

point of this. you were there when ambassador sondland told andre yermak that he was not going to get security assistance or a white house meeting unless there were investigations. you missed that, you are out of the loop then? >> i was not in warsaw at these meetings. >> you heard it from sondland? >> no, it was sometime later. >> now you know what it meant, and you said in retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently, and had i done, so i would have raised my own objections. >> that is correct. >> what are the objections you would have raised? >> what i would have raises that people are conflating investigating the bidens with investigating this ukrainian company, burisma. >> when you objected to the president asking for an investigation of the bidens as you sit here now, you should i would have raised my own objections if i knew it was the bidens. >> if i knew we were talking about investigating vice president biting in asking the ukrainians, that would be inappropriate. i would have objected to. that >> it's if you heard him ask for it on the call, and enrich inspect, the ukrainians would have been confusing. it's confusing the right word? it would put them in the position of having to do

something inappropriate, right? >> i think confusing is the right word because they were hearing something different from the president in one conversation and different from me as a u.s. special representative. >> maybe they understood that investigating burisma and investigating 2016, and documented biden,'s even though you did not. you were talking to yermak and putting the changes in the statement, he had talk to sondland at the same time. so the point being, they were putting an impossible decision. they were being asked to do something inappropriate, and you now know that and you would have raised your own objections? >> in the conversations that i had with the, ukrainians we were not asking them to do that. the iranians, perhaps with the knowledge of the phone call, which i did not object to at the time said we do not want to go. they're >> in retrospect, you would have raised objections, you said it was inappropriate for the president to do this, and mr. morrison, can i ask you? i'm stuck on this issue of, you didn't see anything wrong with the call, but you went straight to nfc legal to report it. is that your testimony to us today? >> yes. >> to both of you, thank you so much for your service, and thank you for being here, it's been a long day. mr.

morrison, just to follow up on the question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call, and basically saw nothing wrong with it, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to legal counsel to find out what to do, because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct? >> i don't agree with the premise, no. >> can you tell me why you felt the need -- you saw nothing wrong with the call, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to council, because of what? what was the reason for that? >> i don't know -- i don't think i skipped my chain of command. if i had seen something wrong -- >> who should direct report? >> the deputy national security adviser. >> the name of the person? >> doctor charles kupperman. >> did you speak with him before he spoke with legal counsel? >> no. >> but you don't feel that you skip your chain of command by going directly to council? >> if i may, i feed my engagement with the and i see legal counsel one and investigating legal matters. i was interested in making sure that the legal adviser was aware of the call,

because i did not see anybody from the legal advisers office -- >> where you start concerned about the legal adviser being aware of this call that you saw nothing wrong with, basically the substance or content of the call? >> i did not see anybody from the legal advisers office in the listening room, and i wanted to make sure somebody from the legal advisers office was aware. i want to make sure was a senior person? >> what did you want them to be aware of, specifically? >> i wanted them to be aware of the call, because i wanted them to know what had transpired. >> what concerns you to the point where you wanted them to know what had transpired, that he went directly to legal counsel to inform them of? >> my equivalent, was and then john eisenberg, he is my equivalent in that position, i wouldn't go to somebody subordinate to -- him >> you said that you were concerned about the political fallout based on the political climate in d.c.? >> yes ma'am. >> so how long have you supervise lieutenant colonel vindman? >> july 15th two

october 31st or so. okay, thank you. ambassador volker, you testified that you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the security systems being released. do you still stand by that testimony? >> i believe it was important. i met with the staff members of the armed forces committee, and that solved a letter that several senators signed and sent to chief of staff mulvaney, and i was briefed about possibilities of a couple of phone calls from senior members of the senate as chiff: ambassador

volker, i want to follow up on a couple questions about ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. you are aware of the testimony of colonel vindman, he was contacted by someone in the ukrainian embassy was concerned about it prior to it becoming public. >> i was not aware of that. chairman schiff: are you aware of the testimony entrenchments released in transcripts that the ukrainians found out quite quickly that the ukrainians had a reason to keep it silent and not make it public? >> i saw that testimony. chairman schiff you have no : reason to question that testimony is accurate? >> i do not. chairman schiff: so the ukrainians did find out before it was public, at least according to these two witnesses. but nevertheless, the ukrainians certainly found out it was public when it was published in the newspaper. >> that is correct. august 29.

chairman schiff: and at the time they found out from the newspaper, they still haven't had the white house meeting, and they still didn't have the aid. and at that point, they already had a conversation in which the president, in which he asked them to investigate the bidens. >> that is correct. >> good evening to both of you, and thank you for your service. ambassador volker, on page seven of your opening statement today, you said "since events surrounding your earlier testimony october 3, "a great deal of information and perspectives have come to light. i have learned many things that i do not know at the time in question." is that correct? >> correct. >> that includes meetings in

which you were not part of. >> correct. >> sir, you obviously were not part of the july 25 call. isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> you were not aware that ambassador sondland, according to your opening statement, had a call with president trump on july 26. >> that is correct. >> on september 1, you were not present for the sidebar meeting between ambassador sondland and spells -- and special advisor it isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> and you certainly were not a part of the conversation in which ambassador sondland, according to multiple people, said that everything, a white house meeting as well as military aid, were dependent on public announcements for investigations. isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> as certainly, sir you were

, not part of the phone call between ambassador sondland and president trump, in which president trump insisted president zelensky go to a mic publicly announce investigations of president trump's domestic political rivals, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> and you were not part of the september 8 phone call between ambassador sondland and president trump, where president trump again insists that these announcements have to happen. isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> sir, you say you were not a witness to any kind of quid pro -- quid pro quo or conditionality between any military assistance and investigations, what somebody called missiles for this information today. isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> but sir, you were present for many, if not all of the phone calls in which these alleged incidents of quid pro quo occurred. isn't that right?

>> that is correct. >> sir, let me turn your attention to another topic that has come up today. actually, it came up last friday. you have a high regard for the novitch, correct? >> yes, i do. >> at the time the ambassador was testifying, president trump testified disparaging remarks about her, right? >> i saw that moment. >> i presume you disapprove of those tweets. >> i do not think that that is appropriate. >> you supervised many people during your career in foreign service. you would never do that to one and of your direct reports or anybody who work in your organization, isn't that right? >> no, i would not. >> it is just wrong. >> i believe even when you feel you need to criticize, criticism is private, praise is public.

>> i also believe that you are a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran, you would not attack someone who is currently serving in the military who is doing their duties. >> correct. i respect the service of our members in uniform. >> and in fact there is a , certain man we both admire, the late senator john mccain, who unfortunately was attacked not only when he was alive, but , after he died, by the current president. isn't that right? >> that is true. >> i presume you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain. >> yes, i knew john mccain well for a very long time. he is an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country. sir as lt. col. , vindman was testifying, our president used the official twitter account of the office of the president to attack lieutenant colonel vindman's credibility.

i presume you don't approve of those types of tweets either, do you? >> i was not aware of that, and as with ambassador yovanovitch, it is not appropriate. >> thank you, sir. thank you for your service, and thank you, mr. morrison, for yours as well. >> on sunday, more key testimony from this week's impeachment hearings, starting with gordon sondland, u.s. ambassador to the european union, followed by fiona hill, national security council former director for russia and david holmes, u.s. official political affairs counselor for ukraine at 10:30 five eastern sunday morning on c-span. you can also stream the hearings anytime online at c-span.org/impeachment. c-span's campaign 2020 has live coverage of upcoming presidential campaign events. today at 3:40 5 p.m. eastern