Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Volker Says He Found The Reference To Biden During President Trump's July 25 Call Unacceptable; Morrison Says He Had No Concerns About President Trump's July 25 Call, While Volker Says He Wasn't Involved In Bribery; Vindman Testified He Believed Ukraine Was Pressured During President Trump's July 25 Call; Four Witness Testify Publicly, Three Were On Ukraine Call; GOP Fears E.U. Ambassador's Testimony Tomorrow And Whether He Will Turn On President Trump. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired November 19, 2019 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:00]
MORRISON: In that hypothetical, no, I don't think he should do that.
WELCH: Yes. Mr. -- Ambassador Volker, I'm sure you would agree.
VOLKER: Yes.
WELCH: The same would be true if it were a governor withholding the budget request of the state police, unless the state agreed to conduct an investigation into a political rival. Would you agree?
VOLKER: Correct.
MORRISON: Yes, sir.
WELCH: In your view, is it any difference for a member of Congress? Of course not, right? Would you agree that the president has the same obligation, as the mayor, as the governor and a member of congress to not withhold aid unless he gets an investigation into a political rival. Mr. Morrison?
MORRISON: Yes, I would agree with that hypothetical.
VOLKER: I would agree.
WELCH: We're having a debate here, both sides, as to how to read what is plainly before us. The presidential phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisers and National Security Council talking points, and instead chose to talk about the Bidens and talk about Hunter Biden, and asked for an investigation. So we are just going to have to debate that. Isn't the principle that no person, including the president is above the law, absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain that we can guarantee. I'm sorry, Ambassador Morrison? I'm sorry, Ambassador Volker?
VOLKER: Yes.
WELCH: And Mr. Morrison? MORRISON: Sir, the rule of law central to our democracy.
WELCH: That's so true. You know, we've had some discussions and challenge from the other side, that the president has the authority in foreign policy to do what he likes. And in fact, he does. A recent precedent by president trump to take our troops out of Syria and allow the Turkish forces to go in literally meant that some Kurdish families went to bed Saturday night and woke up Sunday morning, pack their kids and fled for their lives. A lot of people, including both sides of the aisle totally disagreed with that, but the president has the authority to do it, impulsive as that decision may have been, unwise as it may have been, as threatening our national security. We are not talking about that here. And Ambassador Volker, I listened to your testimony and I take it and thank you for making efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan Ukraine policy, to help Ukraine get rid of corruption, help resist Russian aggression. But what you came to learn painfully is that there was a sidebar Ukraine policy with Giuliani as an advocate, and it appears Ambassador Sondland is very much involved. Is that correct?
VOLKER: I don't know anything about that, sir.
WELCH: You don't, but as you have been involved, and with the benefit of hindsight, while you were working on what you thought was stopping aggression and eliminating corruption, there was a side deal here to get investigations going, correct?
VOLKER: Yes. So my objective was purely focused on support for Ukraine, national security and I have now have learned though other testimony about the president's statement about investigating Biden and other conversations that I did not know about.
WELCH: Right. Thank you for that, and thank you for your candor about the Vice President Biden's integrity and service. But the bottom line here is that, at the end of the day, we're going to have to make a judgment about what the president was up to with respect to that request for the favor, and how it repudiated the policy that it was the bipartisan effort in Ukraine and raises questions about he, in that hypothetical example I gave of the Mayor, held himself to be above the law. I yield back.
SCHIFF: Mr. Maloney?
MALONEY: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Ambassador Volker, I was struck by your opening statement. It moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in October and I know you gave a reason for that, which is that you were in the dark about a lot of these things. Is that fair to say?
VOLKER: That is one thing, is that I learned a lot out of the testimony of ...
MALONEY: You learned a lot ...
VOLKER: Yeah. MALONEY: ... you learned a lot and what you said on Page 8, I'm referring to your statement that you gave this morning - excuse me, this afternoon, that I did not know - this is quoting -
[20:05:00]
"I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President Biden with Ukrainians or had conflated the investigation of possible Ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President Biden," right?
VOLKER: Correct.
MALONEY: You didn't know Burisma meant Biden. That's what you're saying, right?
VOLKER: Right, I had - I had separated the two.
MALONEY: I got it. Well you didn't know, right? I mean, you were - you were - well I - do we have to go through it, sir? I mean, you were - you were there on May 23rd for the meeting with the President when he said talk to Rudy and Rudy surely cared about the investigations which you now know meant Biden, right? But you missed it on May 23rd, right?
VOLKER: No, sir. I understood at the time that Hunter Biden, Vice President Biden's son, had been a board member of Burisma ...
MALONEY: I understand but you didn't read that as - as a request to investigate the Bidens at that time, that's all I'm saying.
VOLKER: Correct.
MALONEY: And on July 10th, you were in not one but two meetings in the White House where Ambassador Sondland raised the investigations but you didn't know it was about the Bidens. That's your testimony, right, at the time?
VOLKER: That's right. I did not think he was talking about anything specific.
MALONEY: Right. You heard him say investigations, you thought it was inappropriate and the Chairman asked you about that but you said oh, it's cause I didn't know it was the Bidens, I just thought it was inappropriate and then I guess when they were in the War Room (ph) and in - and Ambassador Sondland raised Burisma and the Bidens in 2016, you - you missed that, too, as I understand it.
VOLKER: That is correct.
MALONEY: Right. And - and - and then, of course, on July 18th you knew aid was withheld and then in August, you spent a good part of the time with this statement with Rudy Giuliani, right? I mean you were the guy making the changes and interacted with Ukrainians, you were putting in Rudy's changes, which included a call for investigating Burisma and the 2016 elections, which you now know meant Bidens, right? You didn't know it at the time, right? But now we know it, right? And then on September 1st, you were in Warsaw. I mean, you're at every point at this. You were in Warsaw and you were there when Ambassador Sondland told Andriy Yermak that he was not going to get security assistance, he wasn't going to get a White House meeting unless there was the investigation and - and I understand you missed that, you were out of the loop then ...
VOLKER: That's not correct, sir. So I was not in Warsaw at these meetings.
MALONEY: Oh, excuse me, you were not at Warsaw but you heard about it right after from Sondland. Is that right?
VOLKER: No, that's not quite correct, either. It was some time later.
MALONEY: I got it. So but now we know, right, now you know what - what it meant and you said in retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.
VOLKER: Right, that is correct, and it ...
MALONEY: What are the objections you would have raised, sir?
VOLKER: That - what I would have raised is that people are conflating investigating the Bidens with investigating this Ukrainian company Burisma ...
MALONEY: But if you - would you have objected to the President asking for an investigation of the Bidens? As you sit here now, you said I would have raised my own objections ...
VOLKER: Yes.
MALONEY: ... if you knew it was the Bidens.
VOLKER: If I knew we were talking about investigating Vice President Biden and asking the Ukrainians to do that ...
MALONEY: And his son.
VOLKER: ... that would be - that would be inappropriate and I would have objected to that.
MALONEY: Right, and when - and so if you had heard him ask for it on the call and you said in - in retrospect, Ukrainians clearly would have been - it would have been confusing, right?
VOLKER: That's correct.
MALONEY: Is confusing the right word, sir? I mean, it would have put them in the position of having to do something inappropriate, right ...
VOLKER: No ...
MALONEY: ... investigate the Bidens.
VOLKER: I think confusing's the right word because they were clearly hearing something different from the President in one conversation and different from me, as the U.S. Special Representative, different ...
MALONEY: Well - or maybe, sir, they understood that investigating Burisma and investigating 2016 in fact meant the Bidens, even though you didn't. I mean, in fact, at the time, you were talking to Yermak and putting those changes in the statement, he had talked to Sondland, right, at the same time and - and - and so the point being that - that they were put in an impossible position, they were being asked to do something inappropriate, and you now know that, right, and you would have - you would have raised your own objections.
VOLKER: Well I - I know they were asked in the phone call to do that. In the conversations that I had with the Ukrainians, we were not asking them to do that, and even at that point, the Ukrainians, perhaps with a knowledge of this phone call, which I did not have knowledge of at the time, is that we just don't want to go there.
MALONEY: Right. And so - so in retrospect, though, you would have raised objections, you would have said it's inappropriate for the President to do this?
VOLKER: Correct.
MALONEY: And Mr. Morrison, can I just ask you, sir, so you - I'm stuck - I'm stuck on this issue of - of you didn't see anything wrong with the call but you went straight to NSC Legal to report it. Is that your testimony to us today?
MORRISON: Yes, sir.
MALONEY: Thank you, sir. I yield back.
SCHIFF: Ms. Demings?
DEMINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrison - and to both of you, thank you so much for your service, thanks for being here. It's been a long day. Mr. Morrison, just to follow up on the question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call and basically saw nothing wrong with it, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to legal counsel to find out - I guess to find out what to do because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call. Is that correct?
[20:10:04]
MORRISON: Ma'am, I don't agree with the premise, no.
DEMINGS: OK, could you tell me why you felt the need? You saw nothing basically wrong with the call yet you skipped your chain of command to go to counsel because of what? What was the reason for that?
MORRISON: I - I - I don't know that I - again, I don't agree with the premise, ma'am. I don't think I did skip my chain of command. If I had seen something wrong, I would have ...
DEMINGS: And who do you - who's your direct report?
MORRISON: The Deputy National Security Advisor.
DEMINGS: And the name of the person?
MORRISON: Dr. Charles Kupperman, at the time.
DEMINGS: OK, Dr. Kupperman. Did you speak with him before you spoke with legal counsel?
MORRISON: No - no, ma'am.
DEMINGS: But you don't feel you skipped your chain of command in doing so, going directly to counsel?
MORRISON: Ma'am, if I may, I viewed my engagement with the NSC Legal Advisor as one largely focused on administrative matters. I was interested in locking down the transcript. That's an administrative matter. I was interested in making sure that the Legal Advisor was aware of the call because I didn't see anybody from the Legal Advisor's Office ...
DEMINGS: And why were you so concerned about the Legal Advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or content of the call?
MORRISON: Because I - I did not see anybody from the Legal Advisor's Office in the listening room and I wanted to make sure somebody from the Legal Advisor's Office was aware and I wanted to make sure it was a senior person.
DEMINGS: And what is it that you wanted them to be aware of specifically?
MORRISON: I - I - I wanted them to - to be aware of the call because I - I wanted them to know what had transpired.
DEMINGS: What concerned you to the point where you wanted them to know what had transpired that you went directly to legal counsel to inform them of?
MORRISON: My - my equivalent of the head of NSC Legal was - was and is John Eisenberg, he was - he was my equivalent in that position. I wouldn't go to somebody subordinate to him, I would go to him ...
DEMINGS: Didn't you testify earlier that you were concerned about the political fallout based on the political climate in D.C.?
MORRISON: Yes, ma'am.
DEMINGS: That...
VOLKER: Yes, ma'am.
DEMINGS: OK. All right. And so how long have you supervised Lieutenant Colonel Vindman?
MORRISON: Ma'am, approximately -- well, I guess not approximately, July 15 to October 31 or so.
DEMINGS: OK, all right. Thank you.
Ambassador Volker, you testified that you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the security assistance being released. Do you still stand by that testimony today?
VOLKER: I believe it was important. I met with staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I then saw the letter that several senators signed and sent to Chief of Staff Mulvaney. And I was briefed about the possibility of a couple of phone calls from some senior members of the Senate as well.
DEMINGS: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to you.
SCHIFF: I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ambassador Volker, I just want to follow up on a couple of questions about Ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. You're aware, I'm sure, of the testimony of Colonel Vindman, that in fact he was contacted by someone within the Ukrainian embassy who was concerned about the whole prior to its becoming public?
VOLKER: I was not aware of that. But I take that.
SCHIFF: Are you aware of Ms. Croft's testimony and transcripts that have been released that in fact Ukrainians found out quite quickly after the hold was placed in July that she was impressed with Ukrainian tradecraft, and that the Ukrainians had a reason to keep it silent and not make it public?
VOLKER: I saw that in her testimony.
SCHIFF: You don't have any reason to question whether in fact that testimony was accurate, do you?
VOLKER: No, I don't.
SCHIFF: So the Ukrainians did find out before it was public, at least according to these two witnesses. But, nevertheless, the Ukrainians found out it was public when it was published in the newspaper, right?
VOLKER: That is correct, in August 29th.
SCHIFF: And at the time they found out from the newspaper, they still hadn't had the White House meeting. And they still didn't have the aid. And at that point, they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the Bidens, correct?
VOLKER: That is correct.
SCHIFF: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Good evening to both of you and thank you for your service.
Ambassador Volker, on page seven of your opening statement today, you said since events surrounding your earlier testimony, October 3rd, quote-unquote, "a great deal of additional information, perspectives have come to light, I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question," correct?
[20:15:00]
VOLKER: Yes, that is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: That includes conversations that occurred as well as meetings that occurred of which you weren't a part, correct?
VOLKER: That's correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Sir, you obviously were not a part of the July 25th call, isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: You were not aware that Ambassador Sondland, according to your opening statement, had a call with President Trump on July 26th, correct?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: On September 1st, you weren't present for the sidebar meeting between Ambassador Sondland and special adviser Yermak, isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And you certainly weren't part of the phone call between Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Sondland in which Ambassador Sondland, according to multiple people now, said that everything, a White House meeting as well as military aid, were dependent on public announcement of investigations, isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And certainly, sir, you weren't part of the phone call on September 7th between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump in which President Trump insisted that President Zelensky go to a mic and publicly announce investigations of President Trump's domestic rivals. Isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And certainly you weren't part of the September 8th phone call between Ambassador Sondland and ambassador -- I'm sorry President Trump where President Trump again insists that these announcements have to happen. Isn't that right? VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Sir, you say that you weren't a witness to any kind of quid pro quo or conditionality between military assistance and investigations, what someone called missiles for misinformation today. Isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: But sir, you weren't present for many if not all of the phone calls and conversations where these alleged instances of quid pro quo occurred. Isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is correct.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Sir, let me turn your attention to another topic that's come up today or actually it came up last Friday. You have high regard for Ambassador Yovanovitch, correct?
VOLKER: Yes, I do.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I presume that you were aware that as the Ambassador was testifying, President Trump actually tweeted very disparaging remarks about her, right.
VOLKER: Yes, I saw that moment.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And I presume that you disapprove of those types of tweets, correct?
VOLKER: Yes, I don't think that's appropriate.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: You've supervised many, many people over the years during your career in the Foreign Service, right.
VOLKER: Yes, I have.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And you would never do that to one of your direct reports or anybody who worked in your organization, right.
VOLKER: No, I would not.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: It's just wrong.
VOLKER: Yes, I believe that even when you feel like you need to criticize, criticism is private, praise is public.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And I also believe that you're a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran, you would not attack someone who is currently serving in the military who is doing their duty, correct?
VOLKER: I respect the service of our members in uniform.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: In fact, there's a certain man that we both admire, the late Senator John McCain.
VOLKER: Yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Who unfortunately was attacked not only when he was alive but after he died by the current president. Isn't that right?
VOLKER: That is true.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And I -- I presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on John McCain, right.
VOLKER: Yes, I know -- I knew John McCain very, very well for a very long time. He's an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well today, sir, as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was testifying, our president used the official Twitter account of the Office of the President to attack Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's credibility. I presume you don't approve of those types of tweets either, do you?
VOLKER: I was not aware of that and -- and as with Ambassador Yovanovitch, not appropriate.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you, sir.
VOLKER: Thank you.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you for your service and thank you, Mr. Morrison, for yours as well.
SCHIFF: That concludes the member questioning. I now recognize Ranking Member for any closing comments he has.
NUNES: Thank you. As the first day of this week's impeachment, T.V. marathon draws to a close. I'd like to remind the American people what we're watching. Public hearings are the culmination of three years of incessant Democrat efforts to find a crime to impeach the president.
First they tried to manufacture evidence that the president colluded with Russia. To accomplish this task, the DNC and the Clinton campaign worked with a former British spy, Christopher Steele.
Steele assembled a dossier of false information, alleging the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
[20:20:00]
That dossier was largely assembled from Russian and Ukrainian sources that the Democrat contractors worked with.
Next they primed their hopes on the work of Robert Mueller. Mueller spent two years and millions of tax payer dollars seeking evidence of crime that we know wasn't committed. Mueller's failure was a devastating blow to Democrats who clearly hoped his work to be the basis for the removal of the president.
Today we are witnessing the Ukraine hoax, a direct to T.V. sequel to the Russia collusion hoax. The plot of the Ukrainian hoax is hard to follow. It shifts from day to day. First the Democrats claim they had evidence of quid pro quo, then extortion and witness intimidation.
Now Democrats are pinning their hopes on bribery. Like any good Hollywood production, Democrats needed a screen test before releasing their latest attack on the president.
They leveraged the secrecy of the House Intelligence Committee to interview a cast of characters in preparation for these public hearings. With the media's enthusiastic support, they built a narrative based on selectively leaked testimony.
Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats on this committee are seeking the truth and we want to know the answers to the following questions that they refuse to ask. To what extent did the whistleblower coordinate with the Democrats on this committee and/or its staff.
What is the full extent of Ukraine's election meddling against the Trump campaign in 2016. Why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden and what did he do for them and did his position impact any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration.
The American people were promised a grave and somber impeachment inquiry; instead they got the salacious spy screen (ph) comedy that they have been working on for three years. Goodnight, see you in the morning.
SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman and I thank you both for your testimony today. I would highlight a couple things about what we've heard this afternoon. First, Mr. Volker, your written testimony in which you say in hindsight I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukraine company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden.
I saw them as very different. The former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect you said I should have seen that connection differently and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.
Ambassador, we appreciate your willingness to amend your earlier testimony in light of what you now know. And I think you've made it very clear that knowing what you do today that, in fact, the president sought an investigation of his political rival, Vice President Biden that you would not have countenanced any effort to encourage the Ukrainians to engage in such conduct.
I appreciate also that you were able to debunk, I hope for the last time, the idea that Joe Biden did something wrong when he, in accordance with U.S. policy, sought to replace a corrupt prosecutor. Something that not only the U.S. State Department wanted, not only the European Union wanted, and not only the IMF wanted but was the consensus position of the United States national security infrastructure.
You didn't get a lot of questions about that today as other witnesses did because I think you effectively said that was all nonsense. We appreciate your candor about that. Mr. Morrison, I think what is most remarkable about your testimony is the acknowledgment that, immediately after the vice president met with President Zelensky in Warsaw, you witnessed Gordon Sondland meeting with Andriy Yermak, a top advisor to President Zelensky, and then immediately thereafter, Sondland told you that he had informed the Ukrainians that if they wanted that 400 million in military aid, they were going to have to do those investigations that the president wanted. And you were later informed, and this is also significant as you testified here today, that the -- Ambassador Sondland and his subsequent conversations with President Trump had informed you that it wasn't going to be enough for the Ukrainian prosecutor general to announce the investigations the president wanted, President Zelensky had to do it himself, if he wanted to get that aid in the meeting with the White House.
[20:25:00]
Now you've been asked to opine on the meaning of the term bribery, although you weren't asked to opine on the terms high crimes and misdemeanors. But bribery, for those at home, is the conditioning of official acts in exchange for something of value. The official acts we're talking about here are a White House meeting that President Zelensky desperately sought and as you've acknowledged, Ambassador Volker, was deeply important to this country at war with Russia, to show the United States had this new president's back. That meeting was important, that meeting is an official act.
The military assistance is even more significant, because Ukrainians are dying every day in their war with Russia. And so the withholding of military assistance to get these investigations, which you now have acknowledged Ambassador Volker, was wrong for the president to request, the idea of withholding that military aid to get these political investigations, should be anathema to -- repugnant to every American, because it means the sacrifice, not just Ukrainian national security, but American national security, for the interests of the president personally and politically.
Now, my Republican colleagues all they seem to be upset about with this, not that the president sought investigation of his political rival, not that he held a White House meeting and $400 million in aid we all passed on a bipartisan basis, to pressure Ukraine to do those investigations, their objection is he got caught. Their objection is that someone blew the whistle, and they would like this whistleblower identified and the president wants this whistleblower punished. That's their objection, not that the president engaged in this conduct, but that he got caught.
Their defense is, as well, he ended up releasing the aid. Yes, after he got caught. It doesn't make this any less odious. Americans maybe watching this and asking, why should the United States care about Ukraine? Why should we care about Ukraine? And this was the import of the conversation, the now infamous conversation in that Kiev restaurant with Gordon Sondland holding the phone away from his head because the president was talking so loud. What does the president ask in that call the day after the now infamous call he had with Zelensky? What does he asked on that cell phone call? Not whether the Rada (ph) had passed some new anti corruption reform, no. Are Ukrainians going to do the investigation? Meaning into Biden. And Sondland's answer is, they're going to do it. They'll do essentially anything the president wants.
What's more telling is the conversation I think that Sondland has with the Foreign Service Officer Holmes afterwards, in which the president says, basically, Donald Trump doesn't give an "expletive" about Ukraine. He cares about the big things. Mr. Holmes says, well, Ukraine's at war with the Russians, that's kind of a big thing. And Sondland's answer is, no, he cares about big things that affect his personal interests.
This is why Americans should care about this. Americans should care about what happens to our allies, who are dying. Americans should care about their own national security and their own president and their own Constitution, and they will need to ask themselves as we will have to ask ourselves in Congress, are we prepared to accept that a president of the United States can leverage official acts of military assistance, White House meetings, to get an investigation of a political rival? Are we prepared to say, well, you know, I guess that's what we should expect of a president?
I don't think we want to go there. I don't think our founding fathers would have wanted us to go there. Indeed, when the founding fathers provided a remedy, that remedy being impeachment, they had the very concerned that the president made may portray the national security interests of the country for personal interests. They put that remedy in the Constitution, not because they wanted to willy-nilly, overturn elections, no, but because they wanted a powerful anti-corruption mechanism, when that corruption came from the highest office in the land. We are adjourned. I ask the audience to please allow the witness to leave the room before they exit.
[20:29:55]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:10]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: A marathon day of impeachment testimony now on the books. And once again, we have learned a lot that we didn't know when the day began. In fact, from one of the four witnesses who are questioned today, the President's former special Ukraine envoy, Kurt Volker, we heard testimony that differ from what he himself previously had told lawmakers behind closed doors.
And from Tim Morrison, a former NSC staffer, there was both a benign assessment of the President's July 25th call with the president of Ukraine, but a call he did go straight to NSC attorneys to informed them about and restrict access to.
There was also, his recollection, that Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the E.U. who testifies tomorrow told him that he was pressing the Ukrainians to have, he said, their prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the freeze on military aid lifted. And about that July 25th call, which Morrison told lawyers about, he told them that they should restrict access to it. Morrison claimed it ended up on a compartmented classified server by mistake. The result, he said, of what he called an administrative error.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the decorated army lieutenant colonel and Soviet refugee, spoke about his actions after listening in on a call, which he characterized as inappropriate and improper. And the White House responded with tweets casting doubts on his confidence and his loyalty. It has been a long day.
Joining us, our political teal and our legal team, John Dean, Jeffrey Toobin, David Axelrod, Gloria Borger, also Carrie Cordero, Jen Psaki and former Senator Rick Santorum.
Let's just get some quick thoughts from everybody here. I may interrupt as well, because we expect to hear both from Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff right outside at the podium. So, Gloria?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, what was most striking to me was Ambassador Volker who I think was very honest in saying --
COOPER: And that's him leaving the building.
BORGER: He is leaving. And he came across as a character witness for Joe Bides and said that I'm sorry, I didn't know at the time that Burisma, the energy company, equaled Biden. And I proceeded without knowing that and now I'm sorry that I didn't know that.
And the second thing, of course, was the Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who was so striking in saying -- in proclaiming his patriotism to this country and saying that he reported this because he felt effectively that it was unpatriotic. And that it -- that the President's phone call was stunning to him and then he was attacked by the White House, as well as by some people on that committee.
COOPER: David?
DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, on Volker, I thought he was very interesting. I think that he was in part trying to clean up the record for himself. He also I think was trying to clean up his reputation a little bit here.
BORGER: Yes.
AXELROD: And I think what you have there is someone who genuinely wanted to get aid slowing to the Ukrainians genuinely wanted to get a meeting and played along with all these characters to try and get that done. And I think that's really the story that he was telling here. But one last point on this. I step back and try to look at it from a political -- oh, here you go.
COOPER: Let's listen to Jim Jordan.
AXELROD: Speaking politics. REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You also see now why Chairman Schiff wanted to put them in the afternoon. I mean, and you also see why we -- from the very -- remember, Ambassador Volker was the very first witness we deposed and we call for the release of his transcript and getting that out for the American people to see, because he can -- he's in a definitive source on this. He was the special envoy and I think you saw him tell the story.
The one part I think is so important. He even told the Ukrainians when they did learn late August that the aid had been held. He said, don't worry about it. We'll get this worked out. And that's exactly what happened. And it got worked out without any promise, commitment, announcement start of any type of investigation.
So, this was a very good day for the truth, a very good day for the President of the United States, a very good day for the country. And the sad thing is, as I said in the hearing, these two individuals are no longer working in our government, because they're the kind of public service -- servants that you appreciate. Mr. Webster, Mr. Zeldin?
REP. LEE ZELDIN (R-NY): So some of the important facts to recap, Ambassador Volker says that on the July 25th call that President Zelensky doesn't know that there's a hold on aid. He gets a readout from both the U.S. side and the Ukrainian side and there's no reference to a quid pro quo, extortion, bribery, a hold on aid.
On July 26th, President Zelensky meets with Ambassador Sondland and Volker. There's no reference to quip pro quo, bribery, extortion, a hold on aid. And over the course of the next several weeks, Ambassador Volker is in frequent contact with the Ukrainians and there is no reference in any of those conversations.
[20:35:01]
So hold on aid, quip pro quo, extortion, bribery, in any way shape or form, it's not until the end of August. Ukraine reads it in Politico in August 29th. They didn't get confirmation that there's a hold on aid. The aid gets released shortly thereafter. And guess what Ukraine had to do in order to get that hold lifted? Absolutely nothing. Ukraine didn't have to do absolutely anything to get that hold on aid release shortly after they had that confirmation end of August.
Something else that's really important is that the Democrats and some on the media like to just say that Burisma's (INAUDIBLE) issue is just debunked. Even though a Burisma is a corrupt Ukrainian run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hiring Hunter Biden for -- Hunter Biden's own admission solely because his last name, solely because he's the vice president's son at least $50,000 a month. No Ukraine experience, no energy experience. His son -- his father is meanwhile the person running point, literally the most conflicted personality in the Obama administration.
COOPER: That's Congressman Lee Zeldin talking. I just want to get some quick feedback, continuing David Axelrod. AXELROD: Yes. Well, what I was going to say is, look, I think the facts are not getting better for the President here. And I think -- and this is why you see Devin Nunes close every day with his assault on the process. And I think it probably plays -- Rick can speak to it. He probably will. It probably plays with the base of the Republican Party and for now what the President needs is to hold the Republicans in Congress and make sure the Senate doesn't slide on him.
And so, they're playing a -- I think Democrats are trying to create a fact pattern here and it's been pretty effective. The Republicans are trying to play a political game and it may be effective for them.
COOPER: Jeff?
JEFF TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Today was a graveyard for Republican talking points. Let's start with three of them. One, the idea that all the information here was just secondhand. Well, the morning was devoted almost entirely to the President's phone call of June 25th where --
COOPER: July.
TOOBIN: -- July 25th, where he -- the analysis, the detailed of analysis of what the President said just established how clearly he was doing an exchange, aid, meeting in return for investigation of Biden. Second point, the idea that this couldn't be a exchange because Ukraine didn't know that the aid and the meeting were being withheld because of the failure of investigation.
COOPER: Jim Jordan does that, yes.
TOOBIN: Not true. Vindman said it wasn't true. Volker basically said it wasn't true. And third, the idea that what's this big deal because Ukraine got the money anyway. Ukraine didn't have to do an investigation.
COOPER: Which is what Lee Zeldin just said.
TOOBIN: Which is what Lee Zeldin just said. But the reason, the reason that the President had to give the aid is because he got caught. And the whistleblower, the timing with a whistleblower complaint comes in September 9th, they get noticed that they've been busted and it's only then that the aid is released.
So the idea that, you know, out of the goodness of their hearts, they decided, well, you know, after all we do want to send the aid to protect the Russians. It's not true. The reason the aid was released is because they got caught in this scheme.
COOPER: John?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Big difference to me, Anderson, is today it became very clear that as these hearings are progressing, they're becoming much more partisan, where the Republicans were very civil in the early days. It's not so much today and this is not a predecessor or successor of Watergate. This is a whole new breed of investigation and impeachment inquiry and that was really striking to me today.
COOPER: More polarized, more --
DEAN: More polarized, yes.
COOPER: Carrie?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I thought the two hearings really were very different, the morning hearing and the afternoon. I mean, in the morning we had Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and they are individuals who did not have direct contact with the President. So they couldn't really speak to his exact intent and what he was orchestrating behind the scenes. They could talk about what they heard on the call and their reaction to it.
With Ambassador Volker, we get closer to the core group that was working more in the President's direct interest and was in touch with the President personally. Even though Ambassador Volker then, I think, really -- I agree with David, he's trying to rehabilitate himself in some way trying to present himself in a way where he can be looking forward and doesn't want to be known as being part of the activities that Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland were perhaps doing.
[20:40:05]
And so, I think there is an enormous amount of anticipation going into Gordon Sondland's testimony tomorrow, because he was in touch with the President and he was working with Rudy Giuliani and he was working with the State Department. And so he gets a real --
COOPER: He also said a lot of things to a lot of people. I mean, is he going to make the argument that, well, actually, I was just kind of bragging. I really didn't have constant contact with the President. I couldn't call the President anytime I wanted, which is what he told some people.
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Maybe. I mean, in his agendum too he said he couldn't remember if he had made one or two calls. And we heard the confirmation today that he had bragged that he could be in touch with the President anytime he wants.
I was struck today by the fact that these two, that Morrison and Volker, they were the Republican selections. That's who they wanted to be their witnesses. And yes, they -- you know, they tried to defend the President. They tried to be on Republican talking points of time, but they basically acknowledged that everything that was done was wrong and they just didn't know about it as Gloria said.
Now, I think that completely strange credibility to suggest that Volker, somebody who's been in Washington for decades running a think tank politically connected didn't know this isn't about him.
But, you know, ultimately coming away from today, they said Biden didn't do anything wrong. They said that the Ukraine CrowdStrike is a conspiracy theory. And they both acknowledge that the President of the United States should not be seeking political dirt on an opponent. COOPER: Do you believe Morrison when he said that the reason after he got -- he heard the call he immediately went to attorneys. He didn't go to Kupperman who was his superior, not because -- he said that it was because he was afraid it was going to leak or it might spread out and he hadn't seen an NSC attorney in the situation room monitoring the call.
PSAKI: No, that makes no sense. I will say, no offense to the lawyers on the panel, but you don't go to a lawyer unless you think that's something is wrong in the White House, in the NSC, or if you're working in any portion of the White House. And he clearly heard something that he was concerned about for understandable reasons and he reported it to a lawyer. The only thing wrong here is he didn't acknowledge that.
COOPER: Which -- Senator Santorum, your thoughts, because with -- the follow up to that that Morrison said that he did not also press Ukrainians ever about what would -- the President had said on the call, not because he -- he said he didn't agree with it, but he didn't say that that's why he didn't press.
RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Look, you know, I you find it hard to believe, but I don't see it the way you folks see it. I look at it from a much bigger picture perspective of how the American public is looking at this. And I think what -- if you looked at the witnesses today, the witnesses last week, what you see is that everybody involved in Ukraine policy was on the same page.
I mean, you had -- I mean, listen, everyone was saying this is our policy in Ukraine. By the way, the President put all those people in place.
BORGER: Yes, at least we had about.
SANTORUM: Well, every one of the people that are on there all had the same thing, which was to change the Obama policy, which now Democrats would be crying as horrific and awful policy that was leaving the Ukrainians without any way to defend themselves.
And finally, we have a group of people at the State Department and at the White House who are supporting Ukraine. We have them in there and fighting for Ukraine. And now the Democrats are saying, wow, you know, this is wonderful. But --
AXELROD: Rick, let me just ask this question. What you're saying is that the policy shifted because this lethal aid that was not awarded by the Obama administration is now -- has been awarded by the Trump administration and that's really important to Ukraine, right?
SANTORUM: It is.
AXELROD: Yes. So it gives them quite a bit of leverage to the President if he wants something from them, if he holds up the aid that you say --
SANTORUM: But as you know, the President has gave him a before this aid package. This is not the first aid (INAUDIBLE).
AXELROD: I understood. But this --
SANTORUM: So the reality is -- here's my point. My point is that I like to compare this to really the obstruction case against the President in -- on the Mueller report. What you had in the obstruction, because you had a bunch of adults around there and, yes, the President spouting off saying, oh, we should go after this guy. We should go after this guy. They never did. Why? Because he has adults in the room who put up with his, you know, wild ideas and then they do the right thing. That's exactly what happened here.
BORGER: But the only --
PSAKI: That's not --
SANTORUM: The President does not often say, I want to go after this guy.
COOPER: But that's not --
PSAKI: That's not what happened here.
(CROSSTALK)
PSAKI: No, that is not actually what happened here.
SANTORUM: But they did it.
PSAKI: No. What happened here is they all followed what the President's direction was to hold out this aid and exchange for announcing investigation.
SANTORUM: You heard every single one of --
PSAKI: And they were two days away from doing that. They only didn't do it because they were caught.
SANTORUM: You heard every single one. You've heard the vice president. You've heard the Secretary of State all say that they were working toward getting the President who as we all know is not a big foreign aid guy and doesn't want him involve himself and shooting wars anywhere. And so, the idea that this was the only thing when his natural inclination is to be against these things in the first place, I just think that --
COOPER: Right. But here's the thing I don't understand about your argument, two things. One, you said that everybody was on the same page. They actually weren't. They were on the same page and that they oppose, they thought it was a bad idea and not good that the President brought up Burisma --
[20:45:06]
SANTORUM: Yes.
COOPER: Right.
SANTORUM: Right.
COOPER: Also, they weren't all on the same page executing the same foreign policy. In fact, they have testified that there is this whole -- if they were actually using the arms, the levers of the U.S. government, that would be one thing, but they're using Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas and his --
SANTORUM: I just said all of the people that testified the last few days are all on the same page. I would agree with you, Rudy Giuliani is not.
(CROSSTALK)
AXELROD: But what we also heard today was that they were all on the same page in bewilderment as to why this aid was held up.
SANTORUM: Again, I go back to a President who is prone to saying erratic things and things that are problematic. But in the end --
AXELROD: That wasn't what he said. This is what he did. He froze the aid.
SANTORUM: Well, again, that's -- you say he did. I would say he froze the aid for a variety of reasons. You say -- and again, it's about whether you give the President (INAUDIBLE).
AXELROD: No seems to know that.
PSAKI: Well, here we go.
SANTORUM: Give -- you say, well, he will -- you know, I heard Schiff say that -- Carson and Schiff say that, well, Volker cleared up Vice President Biden. How did they clear it? Oh, I know Joe Biden. He was a good guy. He never do it. That's not clear in anybody. That's a --
(CROSSTALK)
PSAKI: Why did he then -- why did Gordon Sondland go to the Ukrainian official government and have this conversation the day after Trump had the conversation with Zelensky about the investigation and aid? Why then did that happen? Coincident?
SANTORUM: Look, they -- it goes back to the point I've been making. Just because aid and this we talked about in the same conversation doesn't mean they were one was traded for the other. And linkage has never been proven.
COOPER: Let's show Volker when he sort of amended his prior testimony in his opening statement. Let's play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KURT VOLKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: I did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President Biden with Ukrainians where I conflated the investigation of possible Ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former vice president. In retrospect, for Ukrainians, it would clearly have been confusing.
In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving Ukrainian company, Burisma, as equivalent to investigating former president -- Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different, the former being appropriated and unremarkable, the ladder being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently. And had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANTORUM: That's my point.
BORGER: So, it's strange credulity, honestly, that you don't know that Burisma equals Biden. I'm sure Sondland will say this tomorrow, as well. But, he had conversations with Rudy Giuliani. Maybe Rudy Giuliani only mentioned Burisma. Maybe you could look it up. Maybe you could --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: Burisma is a corrupt company.
BORGER: Exactly. But that's what they will say. They will say, oh, it's a corrupt company --
SANTORUM: Which it is.
BORGER: -- one more corrupt company. But why was Sondland talking about deliverables? What were the deliverables here? Why was -- why did he -- did Sondland say to this group of people, oh, the President only cares about Biden. He doesn't really care about Ukraine.
And these were the guys -- they were sitting in the Oval Office with the President, Volker, Sondland, Perry. When the President said to them, talk to Rudy, and he thought that was OK.
PSAKI: Ambassador Volker also referenced the 2016, the investigation --
BORGER: Yes.
PSAKI: -- the 2016 investigations. The only thing that means is the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. There's nothing else that means. He was fine with that when he was working on behalf of the administration. He was fine with getting that through pushing that with the Ukrainians. Today, he said there was no truth to it. So, I mean, his own testimony was a little all over the place.
COOPER: I want to check in with CNN's Jim Acosta, who's at the White House because, again, like Friday, today was marked by attacks on witness from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this time Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Jim? JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, it was a bit more muted coming from the President today. I will tell you, I talked to administration official earlier this evening responding to today's testimony who described the day as somewhere between a tie and a win. So that is what they're hanging in their head on over here at the White House.
But Anderson, the President did not directly attack Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman in the same way he went after Marie Yovanovitch last Friday, the former Ukraine ambassador, and that came as a relief to his people inside the White House. I talked to the administration official who said they were sort of bracing for this to happen.
But when the President went to the microphones or was in front of the microphones earlier today in a Cabinet meeting and talked a little bit about Alexander Vindman, and talked about that moment during the testimony earlier today where somebody -- one of the Republican members referred to him as Mr. Vindmany (ph), he snapped back, that's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. The President reference that.
And inside the White House, they were glad that the President had a chance to get that off of his chest, because they were worried he was going to be tweeting about Vindman all day long.
COOPER: Jim Acosta, thanks very much. We'll have more throughout the night. We're also going to be on from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. So, you know, set your clock.
AXELROD: You know, just on this point of -- that the President is not a big foreign aid guy and that's absolutely true.
[20:50:04]
He's also not really a big anticorruption guy. That hasn't been a big priority of his. One thing we learned today is that he's never raised -- he never raised in previous calls the issue of corruption and even in the call that he had on the 25th. The only things he raised were crowd source from the Biden. So it kind of begs the question, is he really concerned about corruption in Ukraine, or is he concerned about his political career?
COOPER: And Volker was asked about Russia, about Saudi Arabia, about Turkey. And obviously, the President turkey just visited the White House.
SANTORUM: I would come back to this to this simple fact that everybody that he's employed at the State Department, at NSA, are all pushing Ukraine on corruption. So the answer is, yes. And you can say, well, the President personally does it. Well, the President -- look at the President's speech.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: This administration does lots of things. He never talks about any of them. He talks about you. He talks about the meeting. He doesn't talk about us (ph). CORDERO: Wait, hold on. Wait. This argument is insane. You cannot argue that the President of the United States, his words do not matter when you're --
SANTORUM: I didn't say they don't matter.
CORDERO: -- or that he's just sort of spouting off or he has his own views.
SANTORUM: But actually, it matter too.
CORDERO: When you're talking about issues of -- and they held up the aid. Jennifer Williams testified this morning that they had absolutely no idea. Everybody was confounded of why the aid was held up. And OMB said that it was from the White House Chief of Staff, which is Mick Mulvaney, who won't come and testify.
The President's words matter. And it cannot be that on one hand we're supposed to take him seriously as the commander in chief and the person who's running the government, and on the other hand his defender say it doesn't matter what he said, ignore all that other crazy. It doesn't make any sense.
SANTORUM: The reality is we ignore about 80 percent to 90 percent of what the President says because --
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: We do, because -- I mean, look at his tweets. I mean, we ignore most of those things he tweets and say, oh, Trump being Trump.
TOOBIN: So your position is he shouldn't be impeached because he's surrounded by people who are less corrupt and crazy.
SANTORUM: He's not corrupt and crazy. He -- look, this is a man who's been under attack for three years as an illegitimate president with a Congress looking to impeach him from the day that he got in. And so, yes, is he a bit -- I would say he gets a little --
TOOBIN: So Mitch McConnell said that his primary objective as soon as Barack Obama was elected was that Barack Obama should be a one-term president. In return, Barack Obama should have gone to Canada --
SANTORUM: He didn't to impeach the president.
TOOBIN: -- and said -- he should have gone to Canada and said give me dirt on, you know, John McCain or -- and relations. I mean, so what he has political opponents, you know, tough luck. That's how it works.
SANTORUM: Well, this is interesting political opponents who want to fight it out and those who are --
BORGER: But what about the phone call? What the phone call?
(CROSSTALK) AXELROD: Let's just go back to that way this whole thing started. The day after -- the day after Mueller testified, the President called the president of Ukraine and specifically asked him to open investigation on his political opponent. And I'm telling you, I appreciate that you -- you're a strong enable advocate. But you -- if this were another president, another -- you know, you would have a different view of that conversation.
SANTORUM: I was -- no. Look, I would say that what the President did, and I'll use the term that Volker use, it was inappropriate. I agree. I think it was inappropriate. I don't think he should have asked about Biden. He shouldn't have mentioned him in the conversation. Should he be impeached for doing so? No.
AXELROD: You know what, here's -- you know what politically, that would be the smart place for Republicans to go instead you got people --
SANTORUM: I don't (INAUDIBLE) Republicans don't think it was inappropriate.
AXELROD: No, I understand. But there are a very few who will say it.
BORGER: They're not saying it. They're not saying it.
AXELROD: And you know, you have a committee full of people there who are the President's chief supporters in the House who are arguing that up is down and down is up and everything was fine and there's nothing to see here. That isn't a good argument.
BORGER: You know, even Mike Pence's aid thought it was unusual she put it. And Morrison went to the --
COOPER: (INAUDIBLE) has now been disavowed as being --
BORGER: She's been disavowed --
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: So, enough people thought that it was weird that it was put in file 13 because they didn't want people to see it. So it was beyond appropriate.
SANTORUM: Again, here -- no, I disagree. I don't think it's beyond inappropriate. I think, you know, we have a president who does a lot of outrageous things.
BORGER: So it's outrageous.
SANTORUM: You know, I said does a lot of outrageous things. I said this -- in this case, it was inappropriate. The reality is, as I said before, he has a bunch of people around him to make sure that we stay on the straight and narrow.
COOPER: Well, we're going to take a quick break. We're going to be back 11:00 p.m. for another special edition of "360." The analysis, the hearings continue. Quick break. "Cuomo Prime Time" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:59:16]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Hey, I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to "Prime Time." We're live from Washington, D.C. And I have to say, this has been the biggest day yet. And the bulk of testimony that calls the President's defense and his defenders into question came from a witness. Republicans wanted to testify.
We also can't lose sight of the big testimony that happened this morning. Also, it's good to have analysts and experts and we do. But I also have two big players here tonight, a Democrat who had one of the biggest moments of the day and we're going to bring in a Republican player in the house to test their side of it. Let's get after it.
All right, four firsthand witnesses, means they saw, they heard, that's how they know. They've just raised the impeachment stakes.
