here's an exchange that tim morrison, nsc adviser, former nsc adviser, senior direct at the nsc had with dan goldman, democratic majority counsel. i want you to listen to this. >> vice president pence left the room and in an anti-room, ambassador sondland and presidential adviser yermak had this discussion, yes. >> and what did ambassador sondland tell you that he told mr. yermak? >> that the ukranians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. >> so there it is. there's the so-called quid pro quo. the investigations referring to ukraine's involvement in hacking, whatever, the 2016 presidential elections on behalf of hillary clinton. that was a made point as well as investigation of the biedens. >> -- bidens. >> he talked about he had spoken with sondland who had just gotten off the phone with trump. he testified that someone related there was no quid pro quo, but zelensky had to make a statement about the investigations and he had to want to do it. aka, that's the exchange to get the military aid

hill around this time was her discovery of a potential nsc-backed channel on ukraine. hill learned that an nsc staff member who did not work on ukraine and for her may have been providing ukraine-related information to president trump that dr. hill was not made aware of. according to holmes, following the zelensky inauguration, sondland and perry took a very active and un conventiconventio in formulating our priorities for the new zelensky administration and personally reaching out to president sondland's newfound assertiveness concerned dr. hill who previously had enjoyed a cordial working relationship with the ambassa on june 18, 2019 hill had a blowup with sondland when he told her that he was in charge of ukrainian policy. dr. hill testified that sondland got testy with me. i said who has put you in charge of it?. on july 10 dr. hill was part of a meeting at the white house with a group of u.s. and ukrainian officials including bolton, sondland, and energy secretary perry, another of the three amigos. the meeting was attended to give the ukrainians an opportunity t

it was the second time in two weeks he raised concerns with nsc lawyers. asking him to take these investigations was inappropriate and it might explain something else she had become aware of, the inkplikable able hold on the money for ukraine. zelensky must have been prepped for the call to make the connection between biden and burisma, a fact that other witnesses have now confirmed. in the weeks that follow the july 25th call, colonel vindman continued to push for a release of the military aid to ukraine and struggled to learn why was being withheld. more disturbing, word of the hold had reached ukrainian officialsplier officials prior to it becoming public. they asked vindman why the united states was withholding the aid. although vindman didn't have an answer, he made it explicit to them at a meeting in warsaw. they needed to publicly commit to these two investigations if they hoped to get the aid. ms. williams, we all saw the president's tweet about you on sunday afternoon. and the insults he hurled at ambassador yovanovitch last friday. you are here t

and were similarly to others assigned from another agency, from cia to the nsc. understandably, the nsc grew after 911 into being a counter terror action group as well. there were a lot of people added. now it is being cut back notably according to the new national security advisor robert o'brien. and according to john gantz, trump's nsc has been home to a pitched and persistent battle between those dedicated to this irregular presidency. this fight has lasted longer and grown far more heated for two reasons. first, trump brought in incredibly unorthodox views to the west wing and, second, the nsc's power grew immensely during the post 911 years making it a force difficult to tame. i recall being over at the nsc during the transition on the day you all were doing a table top with the incoming folks. i was interviewing susan rice and there was no preparation from the new transition team. the new people had no understanding of the way policy generally works. >> and they showed no interest in it. much of the last year even predating the last year into 2015 was dedic

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding that it was not a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended, but again, it was intended to prevent leaks and limit access. >> you testified both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier, and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption, but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house readout from the april 21st call, and i'm not going to read the whole thing. do you see the highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> so in the end, this readout was false, is that right? >> maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate, but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was consistent with u.s. poli

>> no, sir. >> and you were the top person for crane in the white house, at the nsc level? >> i would argue ambassador bolton would be. >> reporting to ambassador bolton. >> i was the senior official, yes. >> and ambassador volker, you have a storied career and thankful for your service and you were the special envoy to ukraine. >> that is correct. >> did anyone at the white house ever ask you to bribe or extort anything out of anyone at any time? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i want to thank you both for being here and i'll yield to mr. caster. >> thank you, mr. nunes, thank you both for being here today and participating in the lengthy depositions. ambassador volker you were the first one on october 3rd and mr. morrison you were with us on halloween so thank you for your participation. mr. morrison, i also want to thank you. a long time hill staffer. i certainly have appreciation for that. nearly 20 years, so thank you. and ambassador volker, pennsylvania resident. >> absolutely. >> that is a critical part of the country. >> very proud of it. >> i'm from nearby. just want to

it was the second time in two weeks that vindman raised concerns with nsc lawyers. for her part, williams also believed 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 aid. vindman and miss williams took note of the word burisma by zelensky. a fact conspicuously left out of the call now locked away on an ultrasecure server. colonel vindman believed zelensky must have been prepped for the call to make the connection between biden and burisma, a fact other witnesses have now confirmed. in the weeks that followed the july 25th call, colonel vindman continued to push for a release of the military aid to ukraine and struggled to learn why it was being withheld. more disturbing, word of the hold reached ukrainian officials prior to it becoming public. by mid-august the deputy ambassador asked vindman why the united states was withholding the aid. vindman didn't have an answer. they needed to publicly commit to these two inv

you report this incident to the nsc lawyers? >>, yes i did. -- >>, yes i did. >> was at your clear understanding that the ukrainians understood they had to commit to investigations president trump wanted in order to get the white house meeting? >> it may have not been entirely clear at that moment. certainly ambassador sondland was calling for these meetings and he had stated that this was per a conversation with the chief of staff mr. mick mulvaney. >> but the import of what ambassador sondland said during the meeting was that there was an agreement with mick mulvaney that zelinski would get a meeting if they would undertake these investigations. >> that is correct. >> about two weeks after that july 10 meeting, president trump and president zelinski had their second call. what was your real-time reaction to hearing that call? german, without hesitation i knew 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 people in the chain of command. >> and what was you

the nsc proposed that president trump call president zelensky to congratulate him. on july 25, 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. izen berg. it is improper that the president of the united states demand to investigate a u.s. citizen and political opponent. i was clear that if the ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play and would undoubtedly result in ukraine losing partisan report and advancing russia's strategic 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 on july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications f

ellis are nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to put it on the highly classified system by the lawyers or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended but again it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now, you testified, both of you, about the april 21 call a little earlier, and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house readout from the april 21 call. i'm not going to read the whole thingut highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> in the end this readout was false, is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- i i i entirely accurate but i'm not sure i would describe it as false. it was consistent with u.s. policy and these ite

of the state department and the nsc informed of our activities. and that included communications with secretary of state pompeo. his executive secretary lisa kenna. and also communications with ambassador bolton. they knew what we were doing. on 7/10/2019. senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton. ambassador volker. and several others in washington d c. during that meeting we all discuss the import. the 2 action items identified earlier. a working phone call. a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. the july 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. while i'm now aware of that counts of the meeting. their recollections of those events simply don't square with my own. with those of the bass under volcker our secretary perry. i recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. but i do not recall any yelling or screaming or up. the nation's as as others have said. outside on the white house lawn. those recollections of protests

hill around this time was her discovery of a potential nsc back channel on ukraine. hill learned that an nsc staff member, who did not work on ukraine and for her may have been providing ukraine-related information to president trump, that dr. hill was not made aware of. according to holmes, following the zelensky inauguration, sondland and perry took an active and unconventional role for the new zelensky administration and personally reaching out to president zelensky and his senior team. sondland's new found assertiveness also concerned dr. hill who previously enjoyed a cordial working relationship with the ambassador. hill had a blowup with sondland when he told her he was in charge of ukraine policy. dr. hill testified that sondland got testy with me, and i said who has put you in charge of it? he said the president. on july 10th, dr. hill was part of a meeting at the white house with a group of u.s. and ukraine yann officials with bolton, sondland and secretary perry, another of the three amigos. the meeting was to give the ukrainians they were answer to set up

hill at this time was her discovery of an nsc back channel on ukraine. hill learned that a staff member that did not work on ukraine, for her may have been providing ukraine-related information to president trump that dr. hill was not made aware of. according to holmes, following the zelensky inauguration, sondland and perry took an active and unconventional role in formulating priorities and reaching out to president zelensky and his senior team. sondland's newfound asserti assertiveness also concerned dr. hill who had a cordial working relationship with the ambassador. hill had a blowup with sondland when he told her he was in charge of ukraine. hill says sondland got testy with me, and said, who thhas pu you in charge? he responded, the president. bolton, sondland and energy secretary perry, another of the three amigos. the meeting was intended to give ukraine the opportunity to convey they were anxious to set up a first meeting between their new president and president trump. sondland interjected to inform the group that according to white house chie

and their staff at the nsc. they knew what we were doing and why. 2019, senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton, ambassador voelker, dr. myself,cretary perry, and several others, in washington, d.c. during that meeting, we discussed the importance of the two action items i identified earlier, one, a working phone call and two, a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. the july tent meeting was a positive step towards accomplishing our shared goals. while i am now aware of accounts of the meeting from dr. hill and lieutenant vin men, their recollections do not square with my own, or those of ambassador voelker or secretary perry. i recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or recall anyt i do not yelling or screaming or abrupt terminations of others have said. instead, after the meeting, ambassador bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures together outside on the white house lawn. more importan

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> it was your understanding it was not a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers? or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended. but it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> you testified, both of you, about the april 21 call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points, the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption. but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house read-out from the april 21st call. and at the, i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see the highlighted portion where it says "root out corruption"? >> yes. >> in the end this readout was false, is that right? >> maybe that's a bit of a -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was consistent with u.s. policy an

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding that it was not a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure inunderstan und. >> was it intended to be on the highly classified system by the lawyers or a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended, but again, it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now, you testified, both of you, about the april 21st call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include, in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption, but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house read out from the april 21st call and i'm not going to read the whole thing, but you see the highlighted portion where it says, root out corruption? >> yes. >> so in the end, this readout was false. is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of a -- it's not entirely accurate, but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it wa

morrison, and their staff at the nsc. they knew what we were doing and why. on july 10th, 2019, senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton, ambassador volker, dr. hill, secretary perry, myself, and several others in washington, d.c. during that meeting we all discussed the importance of the two action items i identified earlier. one, a working phone call and, two, a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. from my perspective, the july 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. while i am now aware of accounts of the meeting from dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman, their recollections of those events simply don't square with my own or with those of ambassador volker or secretary perry. i recall mentioning the prigatiobefore ahite house call meeting. but i do not recall any yelling or screaming or abrupt terminations, as others have said. instead, after the meeting, ambassador bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures together outside on the white ho

it was the republican witnesses as well, tim morrison formerly with the nsc. morrison, he said, that the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. he was pressed again. what did you say to the senior adviser zelensky? the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make that statement of investigation. >> ambassador sondland has taken his seat. let's enter the room. following the normal course of action here. chairman schiff will gavel it in. opening statements from the chairman and congressman nunes as well, the ranking republican on the committee. of course, it will be followed by those 45 minutes of questioning from the councils. i would expect that they will have extensive questioning for the ambassador, and maybe even go to second rounds which we haven't seen too much of. let's go to martha raddatz. this also directly ties secretary pompeo to so much his work. >> reporter: it does, and we have both talked to secretary pompeo, and he has been ev

so they are buddies at the nsc. then that guy who is at the nsc, the friend of the whistleblower, goes over to work for adam schiff, and sure enough, shortly thereafter, the whistleblower's complaint gets filed. it was a perfect looking complaint as though somebody with a legal background looked it over. adam schiff on national television saying we did not have any contact with the whistleblower. he then had to amended that. his team said indeed we did. it seems as though the whistleblower were good friends with aadam schiff team member. what's going on. >> we have a whistleblower who we know is as professional civil servant within the bureaucracy of the intelligence community. you tell me this person does not know the protocol of being whistleblower. going to the i.g. within their own department. that whistleblower goes where? goes up to the hill to adam schiff's office to his buddies. you just pointed out the relationship. this is not like kevin bay on six steps removed. this one step removed. you worked with thes

diplomat kurt volker and former nsc staff member tim morrison. volker denied any link between the holdup of military aid and investigations that the president wanted. today he's changing his tune, acknowledging that while he was not aware of any specific condition placed on the military aid for ukraine, he says it is now clear to him that there was after all a link. with us, with me, msnbc chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat," ari melber. we're also joined by msnbc legal analyst maya wily who worked in the southern district of new york, former senator from missouri, claire mccaskill, both our rear ends are glued to our seats because we've been sitting here so long. and ned price, former senior director and spokesperson for the national security council, joins us. we're also joined by axios' jonathan swan. jonathan, i know you've been covering multiple sort of threads today on the white house beat, but take me inside the dynamics for republicans and having these two witnesses who were supposed to sort of take the pressure off, perhaps,

but when pressed what was it that you specifically wanted the nsc's lawyers to be aware of, he's not able to give a direct answer to that question. and when asked why is it that you're concerned this call might leak, it doesn't really make much sense that's the kind of concern you'd go to the nsc legal office about. so both aspects of his answer to this question, why did you run straight to nsc legal don't seem to quite add up. >> tom nichols, did it make any sense to you? >> i couldn't figure it out. it seemed like he he knew something was wrong, he sort of blurted that out for a moment. and at one point he was asked why did you go to lawyer and he said he wasn't in the room, he wasn't at the meeting. and of course the immediate question is would that be normal? so he wasn't in the room. and then again he was asked, and he said well i just wanted to let them know what happened. and what did you think happen? well, nothing happened. everything was fine. as one does i just ran off to a lawyer after a phone call. the whole thing was really strange. >> yeah, and he'd never done that bef

i left the nsc completely of my own volition. i felt no pressure to resign or feared retaliation. i made this career choice sometime 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 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 understood them at the time. i did this on october 3rd in private and i 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

at the nsc level. >> i would argue ambassador bolton would be. >> reporting to ambassador bolton. >> i was the senior official, yes, sir. >> ambassador volker, you have a storied career, we're very thankful for your service. you were the special envoy to ukraine. >> that is correct. >> did anyone at the white house ever ask you to bribe or extort anything out of anyone at any time? >> no, sir. >> thank you. i want to thank you both for being here and i'll yield to mr. castor. >> thank you, mr. nunes. thank you both for being here today and also for participating in the lengthy depositions. ambassador volker, you were the first one on october 3rd. mr. morrison, you were with us on halloween. so thank you for your participation. mr. morrison, i also want to thank you, you're a long time hill staffer. i certainly have an appreciation for that. nearly 20 years. so thank you. and ambassador volker, a pennsylvania resident. >> absolutely. >> an incredible part of the country. >> very proud of it. >> i'm from nearby. i just want to walk through some of your positions. you are a senate-confi

morrison and their staff at the nsc. they knew what we were doing and why. on july 10th, 2019, senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton, ambassador volker, dr. hill, secretary perry, myself and several others in washington, d.c. during that meeting, we all discussed the importance of the two action items identified earlier. one, a working phone call, and two, a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. from my perspective, the july 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. while i am now aware of accounts of the meeting from dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman, their recollections of those events simply don't square with my own, or with those of ambassador volker or secretary perry. i recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. but i do not recall any yelling or screaming or abrupt terminations as others have said. instead, after the meeting, ambassador bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures toge

eisenberg and ellis are the nsc lawyers. it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended but it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now, you testified both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption. but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house read-out from the april 21st call and i'm not going the read the whole thing but you see the highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> so in the end the read-out was false, is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate, but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was consistent with u.s. policy and

it is not something the nsc, certainly a director at the ns kroochc would do. as a matter of fact we are prohibited from being involved in any transaction between the department of justice and a foreign power to ensure that there is no perception of manipulation from the white house. so it is not something that we would participate in. >> ms. williams, in your experience did the official policies of the united states include asking ukraine to open investigations into the bidens? >> i had not seen any reference to those particular cases in our policy formulation process. >> let me just say to you, lieutenant colonel vindman, in listening to your opening statement, i had chills up and down my spine. i think most americans recognize what an extraordinary hero you are to our country. and i would say to your father, he did well. i yield back. >> mr. stewart. >> thank you. ms. williams, lieutenant colonel vindman, thank you to both of you for being here today. lieutenant colonel vindman, i see you're wearing your dress uniform. knowing that's not the uniform of the d

the nsc suggested that the president call him to congratulate him. on july 25th, 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 if you crane pursued an investigation, it was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation, the bidens, and buresma is would be interpreted as a partisan play. it would result in undermining the support of ret john. 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 pr

eisenberg, whose the lawyer for the nsc said don't talk about it. keep it secret. >> so we reported earlier that colonel vindman was very disturbed by not the fact that the lawyer john eisenberg had placed the call into this top secret nsc code word system where normally those calls don't go, that doesn't necessarily seem like a cover-up up to him but later he went back to him and said don't talk about this phone call. that's significant because vindman was one of the people listening to the call and add firsthand knowledge of it. the other reason he said that to him is because he was trying to figure out a process to cleanup the mess the president had created but eisenberg felt it stymieing him from doing i see job because he wasn't able to talk to interagency folks to talk about this phone call. >> what do you make of that, before, during and after they had consciousness of guilt, they planned this conversation with the president of ukraine, they talked about the deal all the way up to it and afterwards they tried to hide it. >> narcotic . >> nata

. >> tim morrison took over as the nsc direct for for european affairs. he had been briefed by the predecessor fi ah ona hill. vindman and miss williams from whom we heard this morning, like them, morrison emerged from the call, troubled. i was concerned about what he heard on the july 25th he went to see the nsc legal advisor soon after it ended. his fear was the president had broken the law potentially. he said that his concern was that the call could be damaging if it were leaked. soon after this discussion with lawyers at the nsc, the call record was hidden away on a secure server used to have highly classified intelligence where it remained until the call record was released ambassador volker worked with sondland and ukraine than president than president on statement that would satisfy guiliani. when yermak sent over a draft failed to

morrison and their staff at the nsc. they knew what we were doing and why. on july 10, 2019, senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton, ambassador volker, dr. hill, secretary perry, myself and several others in washington, d.c. during that meeting, we all discussed the importance of the two action items i identified earlier. one, a working phone call and two, a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. from my perspective, the july 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. while i am now aware of accounts of the meeting from dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman, their recollections of those events simply don't square with prerequisite of investigations but i do not recall any yell or screaming or abrupt terminations as others have said. instead, after the meeting, ambassador bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures together outside on the white house lawn. more important, those recollections of protests do not square with the documentary record of

the nsc promoted that president trump call zelensky to congratulate him. 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. isenberg. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. but i was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation -- it was also clear if ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens and ba reeurisma, itd result in ukraine lawsing bipartisan support, undermaining u.s. security, and advancing russia in the region. i want to emphasize in the committee when i reported my concerns relating to ambassador sondland and then july 25th relating to the president, i did so out of a sense of duty. i proouft privately reported bys in the proper channels in the chain of command. my intent was to raise these concerns because they had national security implications for our country. i never thought th

like the head of the nsc and people of that nature. i think those are the people who are currently being blocked to testify, should come forward and give us the answers so we can put this to bed. right now we want to know what the truth is, both sides. >> all right. we appreciate your call. we'll go to bill next in fayetteville, arkansas, on our democrats line. what are your thoughts? >> caller: hi. number one, i want to start out with, i am only on as a democrat because i'm forced to go ahead and reg story as such during democrats so on and so forth. i had voted for republicans in the past. so i can go either way as long as the person shows that he's willing to do the best job for the american people, which is what the whole idea of american politics is about. now whoever the gop is following, that's another story. i voted republican in the past. myself and my wife both voted for ronald reagan and proud to say it. >> so from your fairly independent viewpoint, what do you think of the hearings so far, in particular, the testimony today

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

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> it was your understanding it was not i mistake to put it on the highly classified system, is that right? >> i'm not sure i understand. >> was it intended to be put on the highly classified system by the lawyers? or was it a mistake that it was put there? >> i think it was intended but, again, it was intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now, you testified at both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house readout from the april 21st call. and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see highlighted portion where it says root out corruption? >> yes. >> so in the end this readout was false, is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of a -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was consisten

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

mulvaney replies to all saying i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. were these the only responses that you received this email? >> i don't know. if i have them i would show them. i don't know. >> no one wrote back to you and said what are you talking about in terms of these investigations and turning over every stone? >> there was a chain and i don't know if it was a part of this email or a subsequent email i believed ambassador bolton pushed back and said he did not want a call to president zelensky made by president trump until after the parliamentary elections. >> that would explain why it was mute from the next day until the 25th, is that right? but a master bolton is not on this email is he? >> i don't think he is. >> you were asked by mr. castor is there any other key witnesses who might be able to help with our investigation. you mentioned brian mccormick the chief of staff for secretary perry. >> i did. >> you are aware that the committee subpoenaed him, are you not? and he refused to come testified. >> i was not. >> where you also aware that

>> my equivalent of the head of nsc legal was and is john eisenberg. he was my equivalent in that position. i wouldn't go to somebody subsordinate to him -- >> didn't you testify ural you were concerned about the political fall out based on the political climate in d.c.? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay, all right. and how long have you supervised lieutenant colonel vindman? >> ma'am, approximately -- i guess not approximately. july 15th to october 31 or so. >> okay. ambassador volker, you testified you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the security assistance being released. do you still standby that testimony today? >> i believe it was important. i met with staff members of the senate armed services committee. i had then solved a letter the senator signed and sent to chief of staff mulvaney and i was briefed on a couple of phone calls from some senate members as well. >> mr. chairman, i yield the reminder of my time. >> ambassador volker, i want to follow-up up on a couple of questions of ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. you'r

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

they related to the nsc legal adviser. again, i've had very, very limited conversations with mr. mulvaney. >> this email indicates that you spoke to president zelensky and werean relaying what he said to very senior officials, is that right? >> which i email again? >> sorry, the july 19th email, where you say, the subject is, i talked to zelensky just now. >>ed yes, i got it. >> was there some sort of assurance that president zelensky needed to provide about what he would say to president trump in order just to getsa th phone call? >> i think that part was verbal. and then there were a lot of communicationser going around bk and forth with the ukrainians. and that's when someone, and i don't remember who, came up with the ideame of a draft statement sodr there would be no misunderstanding about what in fact the ukrainians would say and would be willing to say that we could rely on and negotiate something on a piece of paper. >> so just to place you in time, we're going to get to that draft statement which was in august. th

was this congradlatory letter drafted through the procedures that they nsc sends letter? >> the fist part was except the last paragraph. >> you also testified that ambassador sondland dictated that line to the president and that mr. mulvaney. he told mr. mulvaney to add that to the letter, is that correct, ma'am? >> that's correct. >> you said you were nervous about that. why were you nervous, dr. hill? >> because at this juncture, it had become quite apparent that the president wasn't very keen on having a meeting with mr. zelensky for all the reasons we are trying to lay out today. you raise the expectation of an invitation coming shortly. >> dr. hill, you also testified, ma'am, that ambassador sondland was frequently meeting with mr. mulvaney. mr. giuliani's campaign of lies ultimately led to ambassador yovanovitch being recalled from her post in april 2019. her removal was pretty despa despairaging. can you explain this to us? >> as we all made clear ambassador yovanovitch a person of great integrity. one of our career foreign service officers and with it being a deci

that is morrison, who by the way is this nsc official who was listening to the phone call, he said he also had interactions with sondland. that name keeps coming up. sondland, quote, believed and at least related to me that the president was giving him instruction. again, the president was giving him instruction when it came to

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the high lie classified systly >> i don't understand. >> was it intended to be on the highly classified system by the lawyers or a mistake it was put there? >> i think it was intended, again, intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now you testified that both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption. but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house read out from the april 21st call and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see the highlighted portion. root out corruption. >> yes. >> so in the end this read out was false? is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was squiconsistent with u.s. policy. so a statement that goes out,

ellis are the nsc lawyers? >> correct. >> but it was your understanding it wasn't a mistake to put it on the high lie classified systly >> i don't understand. >> was it intended to be on the highly classified system by the lawyers or a mistake it was put there? >> i think it was intended, again, intended to prevent leaks and to limit access. >> now you testified that both of you about the april 21st call a little earlier. and colonel vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of ukraine rooting out corruption. but that president trump did not mention corruption. i want to go to the white house read out from the april 21st call and i'm not going to read the whole thing. you see the highlighted portion. root out corruption. >> yes. >> so in the end this read out was false? is that right? >> that's -- that's -- maybe that's a bit of -- it's not entirely accurate. but i'm not sure if i would describe it as false. it was squiconsistent with u.s. policy. so a statement that goes out,

in addition, there's been a degree of downsizing and de-emphasizing nsc integration, a trend that goes back to the last administration. there's been a sense that decisions could be put back to departments and agencies -- excuse me -- partly because of a perception of micromanagement and a zee didesire to wean depas and agencies off relying on the nsc. we need to watch this very carefully to determine how well it does or doesn't work. there's no question, the nsc will continue to handle the highest priority issues, but what happens when lesser important questions aren't recognized as important until they are? remember, it was the very arcane subject of watchlisting and screening that failed the country leading up to 9/11. and it was the technical issue of classified network access that gave rise to wikileaks and eventually snowden. how do we ensure l lower-visibility issues that implicate multiple department agency equities get adequately addressed before they become strategic failures? finally, one result of a decline in nsc engagement is the potential for loss of interagency muscle me

>> actually, i was still technically on the payroll of the nsc until the end of august. august 30th of 2019. but i was not physically in the building and i have handed over my duties to mr. morrison. >> and you were not on the call? >> irs not on the call, that is absolutely correct. >> and it's also correct that you did not participate in the preparation of talking points or the specific coordination of setting up the call? >> not for that call, but let me just say for the record that there had been a long anticipated and eventually there would be a call. so there was a call package that was prepared in advance. i just cannot say how much of that call package that had perhaps been prepared since, for example, the inauguration of president zelensky was then used as the basic material for that call. so i did take part in the preparation of that standard call package, but i did not take part in any preparation for the specific call on july 25th. >> and the first time you actually read the transcript of the call was when it was released to the public? >> that's correct. >>

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 sometime before i decided to testify on october 31st. i am 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 am here today voluntarily and i remain committed to cooperating fully and truthfully with his committee. all i can do is provide the facts as i understood them at the time. i did on october 3rd in private and i will do so again today. like many others who have testified in this inquiry, i am a career foreign policy professional. i began my ca

that's a ukraine expert on the nsc, the national security council. it looks like vindman may be the subject of a campaign to discredit him as ex-nsc official tim morrison -- i know it's a lot of names -- and senator ron johnson are raising questions about his judgment. a source telling cnn tonight vindman is prepared to answer those questions in his public testimony tomorrow. two trump campaign advisers telling cnn they hope the president doesn't tweet about vindman tomorrow. good luck with that. and expect fireworks if there is a repeat performance by republicans who ask questions that seem designed to out the whistle-blower during vindman's closed-door testimony. and then there is this jennifer williams that we're talking about, right, who sure got under the president's skin with her closed-door testimony released over the weekend, saying that his request on the july 25th call for investigations was unusual and inappropriate. the president, true to form, lashing out and calling her a never trumper even though she works in the vice president's offic