julie? >> julie: lauren rainson, thank you very much. rick? >> rick: elizabeth warren stock is falling. and several new 2020 poles we look at the state of the democratic rates dog race for president come up with a former navy secretary has harsh words for president trump in an op-ed. why he is calling out the commander in chief. ♪ at bayer, we're helping put more gold into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% c

. >> julie: i am julie banderas in for sandra smith. the fate of undocumented immigrants who came to the u.s. has children will be in the hands of the justices in just one hour from now. >> bill: hundreds leading up to watch it and whether or not the trump administration can end the obama era executive order that shields the dreamers from deportation. >> julie: chief justice john roberts may be the key vote. we have shannon bream live at the supreme court with the very latest. >> so much at stake today, the estimates are 7,800,000 who were brought here illegally as children, this is a program that was instituted under the obama administration. this administration has argued that it was unlawful and unconstitutional, so they wait in limbo while we wait to see what happens. the government has argued any brief by the solicitor general says this, ending daca would send a strong message that children who are sent or taken on this perilous and illegal journey will not be afforded preferential treatment. this gives them a work permit and prote

julie? >> julie: matt finn, thank you very much. president trump again kind of democrat impeachment push a sham as the house judiciary committee since a new date for public hearings next week, this time wednesday. we are learning about the president's strategy. we will tell you. plus, there's a new poll we have to show you. it shows a big shake-up of the democratic field. a new leader, and one candidate plummeting. what it might say about voter feelings on medicare for all. >> i believe that health care is a basic human right, and we fight for basic human rights. i support medicare for all. i figured out i would pay for it without raising taxes on middle-class families, by even 1 penny. ♪ (employee) enterprise car sales has access to over half a million preowned vehicles, most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. hey here, hol

julie won. not a surprise to julie, she was confident she would win. but sitting in court listening to the trial, she couldn't stop herself from thinking about the time her old boss dr. george tiller was in a similar spot, when he too got halled in to court, when he too had to defend himself in court from charges that wouldn't have existed if not for relentless campaign by antiabortion activists went on topping him from doing his job, and how one of the spectators in that courtroom scott roader would be so galvanized by watching that spectacle. >> he was my only target. >> and would get so furious when the wall came down on tiller's side that he would murder him over it. >> do you worry someone was sitting in that courtroom who's going to be the next scott roader? >> absolutely, yes. yeah. >> that's a lot to carry around. >> that's why as much as i wanted to win, sorry, sometimes i thought losing might be better. >> julie burkhart told us she has tightened security at her home, that she is cautious. but she told us her work is what she loves to do. she

julie. >> julie: thank you so much. bill. >> bill: new accusations emerging about one of the terrorists behind the boston marathon bombing and how it might affect his brother's appeal. >> julie: wall street set to open after the dow closed above 28,000 for the first time on friday. wow. will the bulls keep running? maria bartiromo joins us coming up >> bill: a new 2020 frontrunner in iowa. buttigieg on top and bernie sanders launches a new add with ocasio-cortez and bloomberg becomes the latest democrat to apologize for something from his political past. >> look, i think the democrats need to hire the great wonderful brenda lee to open their national convention and let her sing her signature song i'm sorry. every one of them are sorry about something. excuse me a minute... hi dad. no. don't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no ma

on july 25th or july 26th and if so, with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> miss williams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. and just to clarify, i'm in the office of the vice president, no the nsc. i have not. >> thank you. lieutenant colonel vindman, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so with whom? >> yes. i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy and i spoke to two individual with regards to providing a -- some sort of readout of the call. >> two individual that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house. cleared u.s. government officials with the appropriate need to know. >> and what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state deputy assistant secretary george kent who is responsible for the portfolio, eastern europe includin

julie? >> julie: benjamin hall, thank you very much. joining me now a staff sergeant joey jones, a retired u.s. marine corps bond technician and fox news contributor. really happy to have you on, because i want you to talk to us specifically about this hoax device. this explosive device that was apparently worn on the suspect's best, or on his waist, and he was wearing some sort of belt. even a trained eye, had they seen this, would have thought this was the real thing. if you believe that a terrorist suspect is wearing some sort of explosive device, what is the first thing you do? >> absolutely. that is the most important, you have to treat anything that could be something as something. that is important in our field, as a prior bond technician in the military. even among first responders like police, they have to be trained in this as far as identification goes. you have to believe it's a live device. your immediate instinct, we call this immediate action drill. to either alleviate the threat or get everyone away. the order you do tha

3rd i so on or about july 3rd i became aware of inquiries into. security assistance funding in general there are 2 typical parts state department and d. o. d. and i believe it was around that day that o.m.b. put a hold on congressional notification and you had any earlier indications that this might be the case prior to that there were there were some general inquiries on how the funds were being spent things of that nature nothing specific but no no hold 'd certainly we'll where anyone in the national security community who supported withholding the aid know no one from the nationals security none no one from the state department correct no one from the department of defense correct and anyone into your understanding raise the look galatea withholding this system it was raised on several occasions and who raised those concerns so the following the july 18th. sub p.c.c. which is again what i coordinate or what i convene at my level there was a july 23rd aapc see that would have been conducted by mr morrison there would be there were questions rais

i want to emphasize to the committee that when i reported my concerns on july 10th and july 25th, i did o so out of a sense of duty. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. i never thought that i would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american public about my actions. when i reported my concerns my only thought was to act properly and carry out my duty if following each of my reports i returned to work to advance the president's and our country's foreign policy objectives. i focused on what i have throughout my career, promoting america's national security interests. i want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues that appears before this committee. the attacks on these public servants is reprehensible. it is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, and this has been our country's founding since the time of our founding fathers but we're better than personal attacks. the uniform i wear today second-degree that of the united states army. the members of our a

now infamous july 25th call. them and what was your real time reaction to hearing that call chairman without hesitation i knew that i had to report this to the white house counsel i had concerns and it was my duty to report my concerns to the proper. proper people in the chain of command and what was your concern of a chairman as i said in my statement. it was inappropriate. it was improper for the president to request and to demand an investigation into a political opponent opponent especially at foreign power where there's a best dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation and that this would have significant implications if it were became public knowledge and it would be perceived as a partisan play it undermine our ukraine policy and it would undermine our national security. colonel you would you describe this as a demand this favor that the president asked. what is it about the relationship between the president and states and the president of ukraine that leads you to conclude tha

williams, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or july 26th. >> no, i did not discuss the phone call. >> ms. williams, during the time on your nsc, have you accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior approval. >> no. i'm not the office of vice president. not in the nsc. >> did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so, with whom? >> yes, i did -- my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, interagency policy, and i spoke to two individuals with regards provide ing a some sort of readout with the call. >> two individuals that were not in the white house. >> not in the white house, clear u.s. government officials with appropriate need to know. >> what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state deputy assistance george can kent, responsible for the portfolio, eastern europe including ukraine. and an individual from the office of -- an individual in the intelligence community. >> what as you know the intellig

one was received july 25th at 2:31 p.m. that email said that the ukrainian embassy and house foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. the second email was received july 25g9 th at 4:25 p.m. that the hill knows about the fmf situation to some extent and so does the ukrainian embassy. i did not receive either of these emails. my staff does not recall informing me about them. i do not recall being made aware of their content at the time. i do not have any additional information about precisely what the ukrainians may have said, what may have been their source of information about a hold or any possible issues with the flow of assistance or what the state department officials may have told them. my staff also advised me the last few days of the following additional facts that may be relevant to this inquiry. again, my staff does not recall informing me about them and i do not recall being made aware of this. on july 3rd at 4:23 p.m., they received an email from the state department stating that they heard

on july 25th or july 26th and if so, with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> miss williams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. and just to clarify, i'm in the office of the vice president, no the nsc. i have not. >> thank you. lieutenant colonel vindman, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so with whom? >> yes. i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy and i spoke to two individual with regards to providing a -- some sort of readout of the call. >> two individual that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house. cleared u.s. government officials with the appropriate need to know. >> and what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state deputy assistant secretary george kent who is responsible for the portfolio, eastern europe includin

in the same july 19th phone call, they gave me an account of a july 10th meeting with ukrainian and american officials at the white house. they told me that partway through the meeting ambassador sondland had connected investigations with an oval office meeting for president zelensky. which so irritated then national security adviser john bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling dr. hill and leiutenant general vindman they should have nothing to do with domestic politics. he also directed dr. hill to brief the lawyers. dr. hill said that ambassador bolton referred to this deal as this is a drug deal after the july 10th meeting. ambassador bolton opposed a call between president zelensky and president trump out of concern that it would be a disaster. needless to say, the ukrainians in the meetings were confused. ambassador bolton and the regular ukraine policy-decision making channel wanted to talk about security, energy and reform. ambassador sondland participating in the irregular channel wanted to talk about the connection between a white house meeting and ukrainian investigation

discussed on july 31st and. at that point did anyone provide a specific reason for the whole in those meetings the o.m.b. representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the white house chief of staff and did they give reasons why beyond was being withheld by the white house chief of staff not specifically the reason given was that there was ongoing review whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities that anyone in any of those meetings or any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid there were discussions i believe in the july 31st meeting and possibly prior as well in terms of defense and state department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which your marked funding from congress that was designated for ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approach the end of the fiscal year and from what you witnessed in anybody in the national security community support wi

williams, did you discuss july 25 phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25, or july 26? and with so, whom? >> i did not discuss the call with anyone inside or outside the white house. >> ms. williams during your time on the nsc have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. just to clarify, i'm in the office of the vice president, so not on the nsc. no, i have not. >> thank you for that clarification. >> lieutenant colonel vindman did you discuss the july 25 phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25 or the 26th? and if so, with whom. >> yes, i did, my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, interagency policy and i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing a, some sort of read-out of the call. >> two individuals that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house, cleared u.s. government officials, with appropriate need to know. >> what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state. department of state, deputy assistant secretary george kent,

williams, did you discuss july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or july 26th? if so, with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> during your time on the nsc have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. just to clarify i'm in the office of the vice president. not on the nsc. >> right. >> no, i have not. >> thank you for that clarification. lieutenant colonel vindman did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so, with whom? >> yes, i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy. i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing some sort of read-out of the call. >> two individuals that were not in the white house. >> not in the white house. cleared u.s. government officials with appropriate need to know. >> what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state, deputy assistant secretary george kent who is responsible for the

that is a july 19th e-mail. and who who is this from. looks like it's is it from maine and it's from you i've been had from may to to the group now who is the group. people mentioned on the e-mail blair kenna mccormack mulvaney perry pompei oh and who is robert blair i believe he's a deputy chief of staff or a advisor to the chief of staff and you've already told us that lisa ken is the executive secretary for secretary pompei oh who's brian mccormack the chief of staff for he was the chief of staff for secretary perry. and then we has we see mr mo veiny secretary perry and secretary pompei oh can you read what you wrote on july 19th so this group please. he is prepared to receive a call will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation will turn over every stone it would greatly appreciate a call prior to sunday so you can put out some media about a friendly and productive call no details prior to ukraine election on sunday so sunday was the 21st which was the date of the parliamentary elections in ukraine is that

july 26th, and if so, with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> ms. williams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not, and just to clarify i'm in the office of the vice president, so not on the nsc. >> right, but representing the vice president. >> no, i have not, no. >> thank you for that clarification. lieutenant colonel vindman, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th, and if so, if whom? >> yes, i did -- my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, inter-agency policy and i spoke with two individuals with regards to providing some sort of readout of the call. >> two individuals that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house. cleared u.s. government officials with appropriate need to know. >> and what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of st

williams were on the july 25th call. vindman testified that due to the unequal bargaining position of the two leaders and ukraine's dependency on the u.s., the favor trump asked of zelensky was really a demand. after the call, multiple individuals including vindman were concerned enough to report it to the national security council's top lawyer. it was the second time in two weeks that vindman had raised concerns with nsc lawyers. for her part, williams also believed that asking zelensky to undertake these political investigations was inappropriate and that it might explain something else that she had become aware of, the otherwise inexplicable hold on u.s. military assistance to ukraine. both colonel vindman and ms. williams also took note of the explicit use of the word burisma by zelensky. in fact, speleft out of the cal. colonel vindman believed it was a fact that other witnesses have now confirmed. in the weeks that followed the july 25 call, colonel vindman continued to push for a release of the military aid to ukr

for example, on july 13th -- this is three days after that july 10th meeting -- i emailed tim morrison. he had just taken over dr. hill's post as the nfc, eurasian director and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words. the call between zelensky and potus, president of the united states, should happen before 7-21, which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending, unbundling moving forward and -- and i emphasize, any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend. mr. morrison acknowledged and said thank you and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations. moreover, i have reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th the very same day tha

before the july 25th call and you testified ambassador taylor in your your opening statement that it was in the middle of july when you understood that the white house meeting was 1st a condition on these investigations is that is that accurate. yes we were preparing and i agreed that the white house meeting was going to be an important step in u.s. ukranian relations so in june and in early july attempts to to work out a way to get that meeting included a phone call and so there were several conversations about how to have this phone call that eventually happened on july 25th and you described in your opening statement a a july 10th white house meeting with a number of officials where ambassador bolton used the term that something was a drug deal what did you understand him to mean in hearing that he said that use this term drug deal is gone i don't know i don't know what a bus or bolton had in mind and was that in reference to a discussion in that meeting related to the white house meeting that president selenski wanted and in connection to the investigations the context of that co

williams, did you discuss july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or july 26th and if so with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> ms. mill yams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. i'm in the office of the vice president. not on the nsc. >> right. but representing -- >> no, i have not. >> thank you for that clarification. lieutenant colonel vindman, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th and if so, with whom? >> yes. i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, interagency policy. i spoke to two individuals with regards to proceviding some sor of readout. >> to individual that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house, cleared u.s. government officials with appropriate need to know. >> what agencies were these officials with? >> department of state, department of state deputy sis stant secretary george ken

the notice on july 3? lt. col. vindman: on or about july 3 i became aware of inquiries into security assistance funding in general. i believe it was around that put a hold on congressional notification. >> had you had any earlier indications that this might be the case? lt. col. vindman: prior there were general inquiries on how the funds were being spent, nothing specific. but no hold. >> were you aware of anyone in the national security community who supported withholding the aid? lt. col. vindman: no. >> no one from national security or state department? lt. col. vindman: correct. >> no one from the department of defense. lt. col. vindman: correct. >> did anyone raise the legality of withholding the assistance and who raised those concerns? lt. col. vindman: following the , which is what i convene at my level, there was a c that would've been conducted by mr. morrison and questions were raised about the legality of the whole over the subsequent week. the issue was analyzed, and then 26th, deputies from

julie? >> julie: that's the whole issue right now the people in london are thinking about. is there an imminent threat? and other likely threat? that's why the u.k. terror threat level is the indicator for those who are potentially worrying, since a similar attack happened just two years ago and eight people were killed. right now the u.k. terror threat level is not substantial. politically to her viewers exactly what that means. substantial is basically two notches down from the most severe. it's critical, severe, then substantial, which means and attack is likely. not imminent, likely. explain more. >> 2014, 2015 onwards, there are a number of attacks both in the u.k. and across europe. you remember, in france. at that point the threat level, when isis was still strong, the caliphate was taken to the very highighest. that means an attack is imminent. he remained at that critical level for a few years until two weeks ago when it was released to severe. that means an attack is highly likely. we don't yet know what will happen to them attack level, whether it goes up or not.

i only have a little time but july 24, july 25 and july 26. july 24th, director mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond a doubt that it was russians who interfered in our election. he expressed the fear that would be the new normal. on july 25th, according to the read-out of the president's campaign, he asked the ukraine yuntukrainians to having ukrains in our election that had been reputated. on july 26 the way i understand it, thistigations again in ukraine. so this is the question. the new normal that director mueller feared, is president, any president can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is is in his interest but not the public interest. >> that should not be the case, mr. welch. >> i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the tran script of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky misc>> gentlem woman will suspend. by unanimous consents i'll be happy to enter the call into the record.

williams, did you discuss july 25 phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25 or july 26, and if so, with whom? >> no, i did not discuss the call with anyone inside or outside of the white house. >> during your time on the nsc, have you ever access to a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. to clarify, i'm in the office of the vic vice president, not the. >> right, but representing -- >> no, i is not. >> thank you for the clarification. >> did you discuss the july 25 phone call with anyone outside of the white house on july 25 or the 26th, and did so with whom? >> yes, i did. my function is to coordinate u.s. government policy interagency policy, and i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing some sort of a readout. >> two individuals that were not in the white house. >> not in the white house. u.s. government officials with appropriate needed to know. >> what agencie agencies or visa officialwere theseofficials awa? >> department ofls state, state, deputy assistant secretary, who was responsible for the portfoli

19th phone call they gave me an account of a july 10th meeting with ukrainian american officials at the white house they told me that part way through the meeting a besar someone had connected investigations with an oval office meeting for president alinsky which so irritated then national security adviser john bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting telling dr hill and authentic heard of him and that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics he also directed dr hill to brief the lawyers dr hill said that ambassador bolton referred to this deal as the this is a drug deal after the july 10th beating besar bolton opposed to call between presidents alinsky and president trump out of concern that it would be a disaster needless to say the ukraine the meetings were confused besar bolton in the regular ukraine policy decision making channel want to talk about security energy and reform better some an up or to space in the irregular channel one to talk about the connection between a white house meeting and ukrainian investigations also during our july 19th call dr hill inform

the notice on july 3? lt. col. vindman: on or about july 3 i became aware of inquiries into security assistance funding in general. there were two typical pots, state department and department of defense and i believe it was around that date that there was a hold on congressional notification. >> had you had any earlier indications that this might be the case? lt. col. vindman: prior there were general inquiries on how the funds were being spent, nothing specific. but no hold. >> were you aware of anyone in the national security community who supported withholding the aid? lt. col. vindman: no. >> no one from national security or state department? lt. col. vindman: correct. >> no one from the department of defense. lt. col. vindman: correct. >> did anyone raise the legality of withholding the assistance and who raised those concerns? lt. col. vindman: following the july 18 sub pcc, which is what i convene at my level, there was a july 23 pcc that would've been conducted by mr. morrison and questions were r

in july 2018 i was asked to serve at the white house national security council. at the ncs, i'm the principal adviser to the national security advisor on ukraine and other countries in my portfolio. my role at the ncs is to develop, coordinate and implement plans and policies for the countries in my portfolio. i coordinate policy with departments and agencies. the committee has heard from many of my colleagues about the importance of ukraine as a bulwark against russian aggression. our country's policy of supporting ukrainian sovereignty and instructing a free and democratic ukraine has been a consistent bipartisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations, both democratic and republican. and that president zelensky's election in april 2019 created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our objectives. i became of two disruptive actors, primarily ukraine's then prosecutor and former mayor rudy giuliani promoting false narratives that undermined the united states ukraine policy. the ncs and its partners, including the state department g

>> 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 co

i attended meetings on july 23rd and july 26th where the security assistance hold was discussed. i believe it may have also been discussed on july 31st. >> and at that point, did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold? >> in those meetings the omb representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the white house chief of staff. >> and did they give reasons beyond that it was being withheld by the white house chief of staff? >> not specifically. the reason given was that there was an ongoing review whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities. >> did anyone in any of those meetings or in any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid? >> there were discussions, i believe, in the july 31st meeting and possibly prior as well, nerin terms of defense an state department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which earmarked funding from congress that was designated for ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approached the end of the f

this is july 19th before the july 25th call. do you remember whether there was a need from any of the white house officials or other national security officials for president zelensky to provide some assurance of what he would say to president trump before a phone call? not the meeting but a phone call was scheduled. >> there was initially, apparently, a condition, but that condition was obviously dropped because the phone call took place and there was no such statement made. the phone call took place, as you said, on the 25th of july. >> when you say there was no such statement that took place, what do you mean? >> well, the ukrainians never made their public statement prior to the phone call on the 25th of july. >> we're not talking about a public statement. i'm asking whether president zelensky needed to relay to you or the other american officials that he would assure president trump that he would do these investigations in a phone call. that is -- >> well, in my email i obviously had just spoken with him, and he -- he being

>> we had a number of hand-off discussions between 1 july and 15 july. >> so in that period of time, you were certainly aware of this effort to promote this burisma investigation that ambassador sondland and rudy giuliani were going about or at least you had heard about it from dr. hill? >> i had heard about it from dr. hill. >> okay. i want to pull up another excerpt from a recent "wall street journal" article that quotes an email from july 13th that ambassador sondland sent to you. and he wrote to you, quote, sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town. corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. and you responded, tracking. what did you understand ambassador sondland to mean when he wrote to you, any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently? >> i don't know that i had any understanding. these are emails -- july 13th emails, i wasn't even in the seat yet. but i knew that among the head of state meetings we were tempting attempting to schedul

on july 2018, mr. morrison join the national security council as senior director for countering weapons of mass destruction following the pressure of dr. fiona hill in july 2019, he assumed the position of senior director for russia and europe. two final points before the witnesses are sworn, first witnesses and depositions as part of this inquiry were unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be held at the unclassified level. any information they touch unclassified information will be addressed separately. second, congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal, or attempt to reconnect to allocate against any u.s. government official testifying before congress including you or any of your colleagues. you would both please rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony were about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show that the witnesses answered in the af

for example, on july 13th, and this is three days after that july 10th meeting, i emailed tim morrison, we just taken over dr. hill's post as the nsc eurasia director, and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words, "the call between zelensky and potus, president of the united states, should happen before 7/21, which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and, and i emphasize any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparentally. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend." mr. morrison acknowledged and said thank you, and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations. moreover, i've reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th, the very same day that a

on july 25, 2018, the call occurred. i listened in on the call in the situation room with white house colleagues. i was concerned by the call. when i heard was inappropriate and i forwarded my concerns to mr. eisenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a politicalen and opponent. also clear that if ukraine i was proceeded investigation into the elections, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. this would undoubtedly result in ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining u.s. strategicecurity and objectives in the region. when i reported my concerns on july 10 related to ambassador sondland, and to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. i never thought that i would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the american publ

for example, on july 13 -- this is three days after that july 10th meeting -- i e-mailed tim morrison. he had just taken over dr. hill's post as the director and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words. the call between zelensky and potus -- president of the united states -- should happen before 7/21. which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose to give potus reassurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending on bundling moving forward and -- i emphasized any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend. mr. morrison acknowledged and said, thank you. and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigation. moreover, i've reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th, the very same day that ambassador volker, secreta

giuliani on july 10th. but through ambassador volker and i probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. that seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. i don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. that would have been very memorable if someone had stormed out a meeting. >> no one accused you of being involved some sort of drug deal? >> no. >> dr. hill relate her concerns? >> never. >> you were surprised when testimony emerged that she thought that there was a drug deal gone on? >> i was shocked. >> in fact, after the meeting you went out and took a picture, right? >> yeah, ambassador bolton, or his assistant indicated he was out of time, we all walked out of the white house, every was smiling, every was happy, we took a picture on the lawn on a nice, sunny day. >> did you retire to the ward room? >> i think secretary perry asked to use the ward room to continue the conversation and the real subject that was under d

>> a number of handoff discussions between one july and 15 july. >> so in that period of time, you were certainly aware of this effort to promote to this burisma investigation that ambassador sondland and rudy giuliani were going about? at least you had heard about it from dr. hill? >> i heard about it from dr. hill. >> i want to pull up another excerpt from a recent "wall street journal" article that quotes an email from jul july 13th that ambassador sondland wrote to you. he wrote to you "sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town. corruption ending, unbundling moving forward and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently." and you responded "tracking." what did you understand ambassador sondland to mean when he wrote to you any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently? >> i don't know that i had any understanding. these are emails july 13 emails, i was not even in the seat yet. but i knew that among the head of state meetings we were attempting a schedule was one between the president and pr

i want to turn quickly to the july 10th meeting. the july 10th meeting in ambassador bolton's office involving ambassador volker, mr. danylyuk, mr. yermak, has been the subject of some controversy. ambassador volker testified yesterday it wasn't until the end of the meeting, mr. danylyuk he said he was going through some real detailed information about some of the plans he had. but it wasn't until the end of the meeting ambassador volker rec lekts that you mentioned something general about investigations. what do you remember from that meeting? recollection, particularly if he had notes. i know the desire to have the 2016 election dnc server and burisma were already being discussed by them. again, i had no direct contact with mr. giuliani on july 10th, but through ambassador volker and, i probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. that seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. i don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. that would have

for example, on july 13th, and this is three days after that july 10th meeting, i emailed tim morrison. he had just taken over dr. hill's post as the nsc eurasia director. and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words, the call between zelensky and potus, should happen before 7:21, which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and i -- and i emphasize -- any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend. mr. morrison acknowledged and said, thank you and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations. moreover, i have reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th, the very same day that ambassador volker, secre

for example, on july 13th, and this is three days after that july 10th meeting, i emailed tim morrison. he had just taken over dr. hill's post as the nsc eurasia director, and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words, the call between zelensky and potus, president of the united states, should happen before 7/21, which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose is for zelensky to give potus assurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and, and i emphasize, any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend. mr. morrison acknowledged and said thank you and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations. moreover, i've reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th, the very same day that a

>> i attended a meeting on july 23rd and july 26th. i believe it may have also been discussed on july 31st. >> at that point did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold? >> in those meetings, the omb representatives reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the white house chief of staff. >> did they give reasons beyond that it was being withheld by the white house chief of staff? >> not specifically. the reason given was that there was an ongoing review whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities. >> did anyone in any of those meetings or in any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid? >> there were discussions, i believe, in the july 31st meeting and possibly prior as well in terms of defense and state department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which earmarked funding from congress that was designated for ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approached the end of the fiscal year

on july 25th, 2019, the call occurred. i listened in on the call in the situation room with white house colleagues. i was concerned by the call. what i heard was inappropriate and i reported my concerns to mr. eisenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. i was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation, it was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. this would undoubtedly result in uk losing bipartisan security and advancing russia's strategytic objectives in the region. i want to emphasize to the committee that when i reported my concerns on july 10th relating to ambassador sondland and then july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because t

25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or july 26th? and if so, with whom? >> i did not discuss the call with anyone outside or inside the white house. >> miss williams, during your time on the nsc, have you ever accessed a colleague's work computer without their prior authorization or approval? >> i have not. and just to clarify, i'm in the office of the vice president, so not on the nsc. >> right. but -- >> representing the vice president. >> no, i have not. no. >> thank you for that clarification. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, did you discuss the july 25th phone call with anyone outside the white house on july 25th or the 26th? and if so, with whom? >> yes, i did. my core function is to coordinate u.s. government policy, interagency policy, and i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing a -- some sort of readout of the call. >> two individuals that were not in the white house? >> not in the white house, cleared u.s. government officials, with the appropriate need-to-know. >> and what agencies were these officials with? >>

13th and this is 3 days after that july 10th meeting. i emailed tim morrison he had just taken over dr hill's post as the n.s.c. you're asia director and i met him that day for the 1st time i wrote to mr morrison with these words the call between selenski and poetess president of the united states should happen before 721 which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine sole purpose is for the lens ski to give potest assurances of new sheriff in town corruption anding unbundling moving forward and i emphasize any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently goal is for potest to invite him to oval volcker perry bolton and i strongly recommend mr morrison acknowledged and said thank you and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations moreover i have reviewed other state department documents some of which are not currently in the public domain detailing mr giuliani's efforts for example on july 10th the very same day th

july 24, july 25, and july 26. july 24th, director mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered in our election. and he expressed a fear that would be the new normal. on july 25th, according to the readout of the president's campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainian interference in our election that has been repudiated and then on july 26, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. so this is the question. the new normal that director mueller feared, is there a new normal that you fear that a president, any president, can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is in his interest but not the public interest? >> that should not be the case, mr. welch. >> i yield back. >> i ask consent to enter into the record the transcript from the call. you have mischaracterized the call in fact in the first open hear -- >> the gentl