Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Key Witnesses Questioned in Public Impeachment Hearing; Vindman: I Reported My Concerns About Call "Out of a Sense of Duty". Aired 12-1p ET
Aired November 19, 2019 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
SEWELL: -- United States and Ukraine policy. Is that right?
VINDMAN: It is to coordinate United States policy vis-a-vis Ukraine, correct.
SEWELL: You testified in the spring of this year that these officials, these Ukrainian officials began asking you, quote, "advice on how to respond to Mr. Giuliani's advances," end quote. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SEWELL: What do you understand they meant by "Mr. Giuliani's advances"?
VINDMAN: I understood that to mean both his public commentary, so publicly calling for investigations into 2016, Burisma and Hunter Biden as well as his direct overtures to the government of Ukraine, directly and through proxies. That's what I understood.
SEWELL: And as you understand it, under whose authority do you think Mr. Giuliani was acting under?
VINDMAN: Congresswoman, I don't know.
SEWELL: Did the Ukrainian officials you spoke to understand that Mr. Giuliani was telling them to investigate Vice President Biden's son and debunk the 2016 conspiracy theories?
VINDMAN: I'm sorry. Can you say that again, ma'am?
SEWELL: Do you think that the Ukrainian officials that you spoke to understood the underlining meaning of -- of Mr. Giuliani's advances to be both investigating the Bidens as well as debunking the 2016 conspiracy theories?
VINDMAN: Yes. I think -- to be clear, I think you're referring to debunking that it was a Russian interference...
SEWELL: Exactly.
VINDMAN: ... and...
SEWELL: Now, was this...
VINDMAN: ... somehow implicating themselves (ph) that it was Ukrainian, interference, I'm not sure.
SEWELL: Exactly.
Now, was this official U.S. foreign policy, to push for investigation into the Bidens?
VINDMAN: It was not part of any process that I participated in.
SEWELL: Now, Ms. Williams, do you agree that pressing these two investigations was inconsistent with official U.S. Ukraine policy?
WILLIAMS: Obviously, anti-corruption reforms is a big part of our policy.
SEWELL: I...
WILLIAMS: I understand. I was not in a position to determine whether these particular investigations were appropriate.
SEWELL: That's fair.
Colonel, is it true that President Trump directed the Ukrainian president on the call on July 25th, to work with Mr. Giuliani on these investigations?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SEWELL: In fact, Mr. Giuliani has made no secret of the fact that he is acting on behalf of President Trump. As Mr. Giuliani told The New York Times -- and I'm going to put this on the screen -- he told them, quote, "My only client is the president of the United States. He's the one I have the obligation to report to. Tell him -- and to tell him what happens."
He added that the investigations would be, quote, "very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government," end quote.
Colonel, is it fair to say that Ukrainian officials that you are, on a daily basis -- well, you're in contact with, given your portfolio, were concerned about Mr. Giuliani's advances?
VINDMAN: Yes, they were.
SEWELL: In your assessment, did they understand the political nature of the request being asked of them?
VINDMAN: I believe they did.
SEWELL: Did they understand that it was affecting U.S. domestic policy? VINDMAN: I'm not sure what they frankly understood about U.S.... (CROSSTALK)
SEWELL: Had (ph) you...
VINDMAN: ... I think...
SEWELL: ... just (ph)...
VINDMAN: ... they understood the implications, yes.
SEWELL: Now, you testified earlier that you warned the Ukrainians not to get involved in U.S. domestic policy, is that right?
VINDMAN: I counseled them, yes.
SEWELL: Counseled them.
In fact, you testified that -- that they -- they -- that you felt like it was important that you were espousing not just what you thought, but -- but tradition and policy of the United States, to say that?
VINDMAN: It is what I knew for a fact to be U.S. policy.
SEWELL: Now, why do you think it's important for foreign governments not to get involved in political affairs of a nation like the United States?
VINDMAN: Congresswoman, the first thought that comes to mind is a Russian interference in 2016. The impact that had on internal politics and the consequences it had for Russia itself...
SEWELL: Exactly.
VINDMAN: This administration enforced sanctions -- heavy sanctions against Russia for their interference that would not be in U.S. policy...
SEWELL: and so Mr. -- Mr. Colonel, I'm running out of time.
VINDMAN: I understand.
SEWELL: Is it -- is it normal for a private citizen, anon-U.S. government official to get involved in foreign policy and foreign affairs like Mr. Giuliani?
VINDMAN: I do not know if I have the experience to say that but certainly wasn't helpful and it didn't help advance U.S. national security interests.
SEWELL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
SCHIFF: Mr. Turner.
[12:05:00] TURNER: Ms. Williams, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I want to thank you
also for your service. Your knowledge and expertise is incredibly important as we look to formulating policy with both our allies and to try to counter those who are not our allies. I think we're all very concerned about an European policy and how it can thwart Russian aggression. Ms. Williams, and you are responsible as you said as part of your portfolio you advise the vice president about Ukraine. Correct?
WILLIAMS: Correct.
TURNER: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you said that you are the principal -- in your opening you say you are the principal advisor to the president on Ukraine and you are coordinate U.S.-Ukraine policy. Correct?
VINDMAN: Congressman, I -- in this statement I issued this morning I probably eased that back. I took that off my job description that I have on my eval but I certainly spend much more time advising ambassador than I did the president. I had no contact(ph).
TURNER: But your statement as you submitted it and read it today says, At the NSC I am the principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and the president on Ukraine. Correct?
VINDMAN: That is not what I read into the transcript. That might have been what I had in there yesterday when I was drafting it but I chose to ease back on that language even though it was in my evaluation just because I didn't to overstate my role.
TURNER: But you wrote what I just read.
VINDMAN: But Congressman, what I'm saying is what I read into the record this morning didn't say that.
TURNER: OK. Noted. Because you know Ukraine, you know that we work through our allies and our multilateral relations and you know that Ukraine is an aspiring member of the E.U. and NATO, right Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: Yes, that's correct.
TURNER: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman?
VINDMAN: Yes, that's correct.
TURNER: And you know that probably that the E.U. and the NATO and NATO both have offices in the Ukraine and that we try to advance our policy with the E.U. and NATO and you would agree that our Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Ambassador Sondland would be responsible for advancing our policy interests with Ukraine at the E.U. and at NATO. Right Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: I would say that certainly in terms of this specific relationship between NATO and Ukraine, that would fall to Ambassador Hutchinson and between the E.U. and Ukraine to Ambassador Sondland but obviously we have an ambassador in Ukraine as well.
TURNER: Right. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you would agree?
VINDMAN: I -- I agree with Ms. Williams.
TURNER: Great. Now Lieutenant Colonel you said in your written statement that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani promoted false information that undermined the United States Ukraine policy. Have you ever met Giuliani?
VINDMAN: Just to be again accurate I said false narrative just because that's what I said in the record this morning but I have not met him.
TURNER: And so you've never had a conversation with him about Ukraine or been in a meeting where him -- with him where he has spoken to others about Ukraine?
VINDMAN: No, just what I saw him -- his comments on TV...
TURNER: So news reports?
VINDMAN: ... and the news. Yes.
TURNER: And similarly you've never met the President of the United States, right?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
TURNER: So you've never advised the President of the United States on Ukraine?
VINDMAN: I advised him indirectly. I made all his preparations for the calls and...
TURNER: But you've never spoken to the president and told him advice on Ukraine?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
TURNER: So on your -- in your written statement, you said in May I attended the inauguration of President Zelensky as part of the president delegation led by Secretary Perry. Following the visit the members of the delegation provide President Trump a debriefing. Well, that's not really accurate, right? Because the members didn't because you were a member but you weren't in that meeting were you?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
TURNER: OK, so we'll just have a note there that that meeting occurred without you. Now you do know that this impeachment inquiry is about the President of the United States don't you Lieutenant Colonel Vindman?
VINDMAN: I do representative.
TURNER: Excellent. Now you've said that you're responsible for coordinating U.S -- Ukranian policy?
VINDMAN: Correct.
TURNER: Does the Secretary of State Pompeo report to you?
VINDMAN: He does not.
TURNER: Ambassador Volker?
VINDMAN: He does not, we coordinate.
TURNER: Ambassador of Ukraine, E.U., NATO, Assistant Secretary for Europe, anyone at DOD report to you with respect to your responsibilities of -- of coordinating U.S. policy with Ukraine?
VINDMAN: Congressman, at my level I convene what's called a Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee. That's Deputy Assistant Secretary. I coordinate with -- I chair those meetings and...
TURNER: Does anybody need your approval in your role on Ukraine policy to formulate Ukraine policy? Do they seek your approval?
VINDMAN: According to the NSPM-4, the policy signed by the president...
TURNER: So he gets to do it.
VINDMAN: Policy should be coordinated...
TURNER: He gets to do it.
VINDMAN: ...by NSC, correct. We help advise.
TURNER: Ms. Williams, do you have any information that any person who has testified as part of this impeachment inquiry either in secret or in public has either perjured themselves or lied to this committee?
WILLIAMS: I have not read the other testimonies and I...
TURNER: So you do not -- do you have any evidence though that they have perjured themselves or lied?
WILLIAMS: No because I have not read them.
TURNER: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, do you have any evidence that anyone who has testified before this committee in the impeachment inquiry has perjured themselves or lied this committee?
VINDMAN: Not that I am aware of.
TURNER: I yield back.
SCHIFF: Mr. Carson.
CARSON: Thank you Chairman Schiff. I yield to the Chairman.
[12:10:00]
SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to just make one point clear for folks that are watching the hearing today. Bribery does involve a quid pro quo. Bribery involves the conditioning of an official act for something of value. An official act may be a White House meeting. An official act may be $400 million in military aid and something of value to a president might include investigations of their political rival.
The reason we don't ask witnesses that are fact witnesses to make the judgment about whether a crime of bribery has been committed or whether more significantly the -what the founders had in mind when they itemized bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors is your fact witnesses, it will be our job to decide whether the impeachable act of bribery has occurred. That's why we don't ask you those questions. For one thing, you're also not aware of all the other facts that have been adduced during the investigation. With that I yield back to Mr. Carson.
CARSON: Thank you Chairman. Thank you both for your service. Colonial Vindman, you were in a July 10 White House meeting in Ambassador Bolton's office. Isn't that right, sir?
VINDMAN: I'm sorry. Could you say that again?
CARSON: You were in a July 10 White House meeting with Ambassador Bolton?
VINDMAN: Correct.
CARSON: In that meeting the Ukrainians asked about when they would get their Oval Office meeting and Ambassador Sondland replied that they need to quote, speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure a meeting with the president, end quote. Is that correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: Colonel Vindman, did you later learn why Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short?
VINDMAN: I did.
CARSON: After Ambassador Bolton ended that meeting, sir, some of the group that attended a follow on meeting in a different room in the White House called the Ward(ph) Room. Is that correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: And Ambassador Solomon was there with the senior Ukrainian officials. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: Did NSC lawyers tell you to come directly to them sir, if you had any other concerns after July 10th? VINDMAN: They said -- said that -- I believe the words were something to the effect of, if you have any other concerns, feel free to come back.
CARSON: In -- in this follow-on meeting, sir, Ambassador Sondland left, in your words, "no ambiguity" about what specific investigations he was requesting. Ambassador Sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden's son, isn't that correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: And he stated that he was asking these requests in coordination with Chief of Staff, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is what I heard him say.
CARSON: Colonel, in your career, had you ever before witnessed an American official request that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen who is related to the president's political opponent?
VINDMAN: I have not.
CARSON: And Colonel, you immediately raised concerns about this, correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: What exactly happened?
VINDMAN: After I reported it to the -- I'm sorry. Oh, you -- I'm -- I'm sorry. Could you say that again? I apologize.
CARSON: You raised concerns about this, correct, sir?
VINDMAN: Correct.
CARSON: What happened?
VINDMAN: To the -- to Ambassador Sondland, if I understood you correctly, I stated that it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security policy.
CARSON: Did you also raise concern that -- that day with White House lawyers?
VINDMAN: I did.
CARSON: What did you tell them?
VINDMAN: I reported the same thing that I -- I reported the content of the conversation with Ambassador Sondland. At that point, I wasn't aware that Dr. Hill had a -- had a conversation with Ambassador Bolton, so I just related what I had -- what -- what I experienced to -- to the attorney, lead legal counsel. CARSON: As we are now aware, sir, Ambassador Bolton expressed his concerns and instructed Dr. Fiona Hill, your supervisor, to also meet with the same White House lawyers to tell them what happened. Colonel Vindman, I agree that there is no question that Ambassador Sondland was proposing a transaction to Ukrainian officials trading White House meetings for specific investigations with the full awareness of the president's chief of staff, White House attorneys and his national security advisor. In my view, sir, that's appalling.
Thank you both for your service. I yield back to the chairman.
SCHIFF: Thank the gentleman.
I would just point out, as well, that when the matter does move to the Judiciary Committee, and no decision has been made about the ultimate resolution, the White House, through its counsel, will have the opportunity to submit -- make a submission to the Judiciary Committee.
I now turn to Dr. Wenstrup.
WENSTRUP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, thank you very much for being here. As an Army colonel who served a year in Iraq, I appreciate your service and the sacrifice that you made during that time, and I know the environment.
[12:15:00]
And I understand and appreciate the importance of chain of command. In your deposition, you emphasize the importance of chain in command. You were a direct report to Dr. Fiona Hill, and then Mr. Tim Morrison, and they were your seniors, correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
WENSTRUP: When you had concerns about the 7/25 call between the two presidents, you didn't go to Mr. Morrison about that, did you?
VINDMAN: I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the lead legal counsel.
WENSTRUP: So that doesn't seem like change (sic) of command. So in the...
VINDMAN: But that's not...
WENSTRUP: So in the -- in the deposition with Mr. Morrison on page 58 to 60...
(UNKNOWN): I'm sorry. Could he answer the question, please?
SCHIFF: Congressman, excuse me.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chair...
SCHIFF: Please allow Colonel Vindman to answer. VINDMAN: Yeah. So I reported it to John Eisenberg. I attempted to report it to Mr. Morrison. I...
WENSTRUP: OK, thank you.
VINDMAN: He didn't -- he didn't avail himself, and at that point, I was told not to -- to (inaudible)
WENSTRUP: Well, he did avail himself, and I'll get into that.
SCHIFF: Will you please allow the witness to -- to finish? Colonel, are you finished with your answer?
VINDMAN: Yes. Thank you.
SCHIFF: Thank you.
WENSTRUP: OK. In your -- in the Morrison deposition on page 58 to 60, the question was, "Do you know if anyone else on the call went Eisenberg to express concerns?" And your answer -- and the answer was, "I learned, based on today's proceedings, based on open-source reporting, which I have no firsthand knowledge, that other personnel did raise concerns." Question: "Who?" "Based on open source without firsthand knowledge, Alex Vindman, on my -- on -- Alex Vindman, on my staff." The question then, "And he reports to you, correct? Answer: "He does."
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's direct report was Mr. Morrison, and it didn't happen. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, in your deposition, page 96, the question was, "OK, after the call on 7/25, do you have any discussions with Mr. Morrison about your concerns?" Answer: "After the call, I -- well, per the -- per the exercise and the chain of command and expressing (ph), I immediately went to the senior NSC legal counsel and shared those concerns." That would be Mr. Eisenberg, correct?
VINDMAN: I'm sorry. My -- my lawyers was talking. Could you say that again, please, Doctor?
WENSTRUP: You went to Mr. Eisenberg. You've already said that...
VINDMAN: Yes.
WENSTRUP: ... so we can go on. And you are not a JAG officer. You're not a lawyer, and on page 153 of -- of your testimony deposition, in reference to that meeting with Mr. Eisenberg you said, "I was not making a legal judgment. All I was doing is sharing my concerns with my chain of command," yet we've established that your direct report is to Mr. Morrison. So let's establish your role and your title.
In your deposition, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, page 200, 201 in a colloquy with Mr. Stewart, you said, "I would say first of all, I'm the director for Ukraine. I'm responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable and -- and I'm -- for the -- the National Security Council and -- and the White House." Are you the only one of -- of the entire universe of our government or otherwise that can advise the president on Ukraine? Couldn't someone like Ms. Williams also advise on Ukraine? It's in her portfolio.
VINDMAN: That's not typically what would happen. It would be -- frankly, it would be Ambassador Bolton that (inaudible)
WENSTRUP: So other -- so other people can advise on Ukraine besides you.
Going on in your testimony you said, "I understand all the nuances, the contexts and so forth surrounding these issues. I, on my judgment, went. I expressed concerns within the chain of command, which I think to me as a military officer is completely appropriate, and I exercised that chain of command."
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, in your deposition, page 259, you said, "I forwarded my concerns through the chain of command, and the seniors then decide the action to take." Mr. Morrison's your senior. He didn't know about it. How can he decide an action to take? But that's what you said.
In Mr. Morrison's deposition, page 60, the question is, "At what point did you learn that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman went to Eisenberg." You said -- he said, "About the 25th phone call?" He said, "Yes. In the course of reviewing for this proceeding, reviewing the open record."
So the question -- next question: "So Eisenberg never came to you and relate to you the conversation?" He said, "No." He said, "And Ellis (ph) never did, either?" "Not to the best of my recollection."
So Mr. Morrison was skipped in your chain of command about your other concerns. So Mr. Morrison said he's the final clearing authority. He said he saw your edits. "Do you remember if all of the edits were incorporated?" And he said, "Yes. I accepted all of them." That's on page 61, 62.
So he believes all your edits were accepted. Let me ask you, were -- in your edits did you insist that the word demand be put into the transcription between the conversation of the two presidents?
VINDMAN: I did not.
WENSTRUP: But you did say that in your opening statement today.
Thank you, and I yield back.
SCHIFF: Ms. Speier?
SPEIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for your testimony and your service.
[12:20:00]
Colonel Vindman, wasn't it the case that Mr. Eisenberg, the attorney, had said to you after the July 5th meeting, that you should come to him if you have any other concerns?
VINDMAN: After the July 10th meeting, yes, ma'am, that is correct. SPEIER: And it is not going outside the chain of command to speak to the lawyer within the institution, is that correct?
VINDMAN: No, he is the senior between the two, certainly.
SPEIER: All right. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been complaining about other witnesses having only secondhand information. But in both your cases, you have firsthand information because you were on the July 25th phone call. Is that correct?
WILLIAMS: That's correct.
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SPEIER: Now, Colonel, you in your comments today said, "I want to state that the vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible." Would you like to expand on that at all?
VINDMAN: Ma'am, I think they stand on their own. I don't think it's necessary to expand on it.
SPEIER: So in both your situations, since you have given depositions, since those depositions have been made public, have you seen your experience in your respective jobs changed or have you been treated any differently?
WILLIAMS: I have not, no.
VINDMAN: Since the report on the July 25th, as I stated, I did notice I was being excluded from several meetings that would have been appropriate for my position.
SPEIER: So in some respects, then, there have been reprisals?
VINDMAN: I'm not sure if I can make that judgment. I could say that it was out of the course of normal affairs to not have me participate in some of these events.
SPEIER: Thank you.
In preparation for the July 25th phone call, it's standard for the National Security Council to provide talking points. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: Correct.
SPEIER: Because the words of the president carry incredible weight, is that not correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SPEIER: So it's important to ensure that everyone has carefully considered the implications of what the president might say to a foreign leader?
VINDMAN: That is correct. SPEIER: Colonel Vindman, you are the National Security Council's director for Ukraine. Did you participate in preparing the talking points for the president's call?
VINDMAN: I did. I prepared them.
SPEIER: So you prepared them, they were then reviewed and edited by multiple senior officers at the NSC and the White House, is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SPEIER: Did the talking points for the president contain any discussion of investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens or Burisma?
VINDMAN: They did not.
SPEIER: Are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens or Burisma are part of the official policy of the United States?
VINDMAN: No, I am not.
SPEIER: Some of President Trump's allies have suggested that the president requested these investigations for official policy reasons as part of some plan to root out corruption in Ukraine. In your experience, did the official policies of the United States include asking Ukraine to specifically open investigations into the Bidens and interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election?
VINDMAN: Nothing that we prepared or had discussed up until that point included any of these elements.
SPEIER: Would it ever be U.S. policy in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation?
VINDMAN: There are proper procedures in which to do that. Certainly the president is well within his right to do that. It is not something the NSC, certainly a director at the NSC, would do. As a matter of fact, we are prohibited from being involved in any transaction between the Department of Justice and a foreign -- and a foreign power to ensure that there is no perception of manipulation from the White House. So it is not something that we participate in.
SPEIER: Ms. Williams, in your experience, did the official policies of the United States include asking Ukraine to open investigations into the Bidens?
WILLIAMS: I had not seen any reference to those particular cases in our policy formulation process.
SPEIER: All right. Let me just say to you, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, that in listening to your opening statement, I had chills up and down my spine. And 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.
SCHIFF: Mr. Stewart?
STEWART: Thank you.
Ms. Williams, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, thanks (ph) to both of you for being here today.
[12:25:00]
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I see you're wearing your dress uniform. Knowing that's not the uniform of the day, that you normally wear a suit to the White House, I think it's a great reminder of your military service.
I too come from a military family. These are my father's Air Force wings. He was a pilot in World War II. Five of his sons served in the military. So as one military family to another, thank you and your brothers for your service, your example here.
I'd very quickly -- I'm curious, when Ranking Member Nunes referred to you as Mr. Vindman, you quickly corrected him and wanted to be called Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Do you always insist on civilians calling you by your rank?
VINDMAN: Mr. Stewart, Representative Stewart, I'm in uniform, wearing my military rank. I just thought it was appropriate to stick with that...
STEWART: Well...
VINDMAN: ... because -- I'm sorry, Mr. Stewart...
STEWART: ... I'm sure (ph) -- I'm assure you he meant no...
VINDMAN: ... I apologize. Because...
STEWART: ... disrespect.
VINDMAN: ... I don't believe he did. But the attacks that I've had in the press, in -- in Twitter, have kind of eliminated the fact that -- either marginalizing me as a military officer, or...
STEWART: Listen, I just...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... I'm just -- I'm just telling you that the ranking member meant no disrespect to you.
VINDMAN: I believe that.
STEWART: I'd like to go back to your previous testimony earlier today. Much has been talked about, as we've discussed, between the -- President Trump and President Zelensky and the world "favor," and this being interpreted as a basis for impeachment.
And your interpretation of the word "favor" -- and I'll paraphrase you, and you -- feel free to correct me -- you said, "In the military culture," which you and I are both familiar with, "when a superior officer asks for a favor of a subordinate, they will interpret that as a demand." Is that a fair synopsis of what you previously stated?
VINDMAN: Representative, when a superior makes a request, that's an order.
STEWART: OK. In short, then, you think your interpretation of a favor as a demand is based on your military experience and the military culture?
VINDMAN: I think that is correct.
STEWART: I think that is correct. Is President Trump a member of the military?
VINDMAN: He is not.
STEWART: Has he ever served in the military?
VINDMAN: Not that I'm aware of.
STEWART: Is President Zelensky a member of the military?
VINDMAN: I don't (ph)...
STEWART: The answer is no.
VINDMAN: ... believe so, I don't know.
STEWART: He's not. Would it be fair, then, to take a person who has never served in the military and to take your re-evaluation of their words based on your military experience and your military culture, and to attack that culture and that meaning of those words to someone who has never served?
VINDMAN: Representative, I made that judgment. I stick by that judgment.
STEWART: OK. Well, I've got to tell you, I think it's nonsense. Look, I was in the military. I could distinguish between a favor and an order and a demand, and so could my subordinates. And I think President Zelensky did as well. He never initiated an investigation. In fact, he's been very clear. He said, I never felt any pressure at all.
So you interpreted the word "favor," but the two people who were speaking to each other did not interpret that as a demand. It was your interpretation. Is that fair?
VINDMAN: The context of this call, consistent with the July 10th -- July 10th meeting with the reporting that was going on, including the president's personal attorney, made it clear that this was not simply a request.
STEWART: Well, that's not true at all.
VINDMAN: It made it...
STEWART: It's not clear at all. You say it makes it clear. It's not clear at all. And the two individuals who were talking to each other didn't interpret it that way.
I'd like to go on to discuss your reaction to the phone call and, again, your previous testimony. And for brevity, and for clarity, I'm going to refer to your previous testimony, page 155. Your attorney is welcome to follow along.
Quoting you, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, "I did not know whether this was a crime or anything of that nature. I thought it was wrong."
And I'd like to key on the word "wrong" here, because we're going to come back to that. "In my mind, did I consider this factor that could have been other implications? Yes. But it wasn't the basis of, I don't know, lodging a criminal complaint or anything like that."
Then you go on to talk about policy concerns and moral and ethical judgments. So your concerns regarding this phone call were not legal. They were based on moral, ethical and policy differences.
Let me ask you then -- and what you thought were wrong, to use your word. You said this "was wrong" -- not illegal but wrong.
There are, as I've stated previous, sitting here a couple days ago, there are dozens of corrupt nations in the world, hundreds of corrupt government officials. Exactly one time did a vice president go to a nation and demand the specific firing of one individual and give a six-hour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold $1 billion in aid if not. It was the one individual who was investigating a company that was paying his son. So I'll ask you, was that also wrong?
VINDMAN: I -- that is not what I understand -- I, frankly, don't have any firsthand knowledge of that...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: You have not seen a video?
VINDMAN: I've -- I've seen the video. I've seen bits of it.
STEWART: That's all I described is the video. Everything I just said to you was in the video. Was that wrong as well?
[12:30:00]
VINDMAN: Congressman, this is something I actually participated in, I witnessed; that, I don't know...
STEWART: Well, I think the American people can make a judgment...
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: ... that, too.
SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Colonel Vindman, if you'd like to answer the question, you're more than welcome to.
VINDMAN: I frankly don't know any -- that much more about that particular incident. I saw the snippet of the video, but I don't know if I could make a judgment off that.
SCHIFF: Thank you.
Mr. Quigley?
QUIGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colonel, it's one thing to ask somebody a favor like, "Hey, go pick up my dry cleaning," and it's another when the commander in chief of the most powerful Army in the world asks an ally who's in a vulnerable position to do him a favor, is it not?
VINDMAN: Yes.
QUIGLEY: Let me go back to that military assistance, if I could. Ms. Williams, again, when do you first learn that security assistance was being held up, the nearly $400 million that was referenced?
WILLIAMS: July 3rd.
QUIGLEY: And were you aware of any additional, or did you attend any additional meetings in which that military assistance being withheld was discussed?
WILLIAMS: I did. I attended meetings on July 23rd and July 26th where the security assistance hold was discussed. I believe it may have also been discussed on July 31st.
QUIGLEY: And at that point did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold?
WILLIAMS: In those meetings the OMB representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the White House chief of staff.
QUIGLEY: And did they give reasons beyond that it was being withheld by the White House chief of staff?
WILLIAMS: Not specifically. The reason given was that there was an ongoing review whether the -- the funding was still in line with administration priorities.
QUIGLEY: Did anyone in any of those meetings or in any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid? WILLIAMS: There were discussions, I believe in the July 31 meeting and possibly prior as well in terms of defense and state department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation in which earmarked funding from Congress that was designated for Ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approach the end of the fiscal year.
QUIGLEY: And from what you witnessed, did anybody in the national security community support withholding the assistance?
WILLIAMS: No.
QUIGLEY: Colonel, again just for the record, when did you first learn the security assistance was being withheld?
VINDMAN: On or about July 3rd.
QUIGLEY: And what exactly had you learned from the State Department I believe that prompted you to draft the notice on July 3rd.
VINDMAN: So are on or about July 3rd I became aware of inquiries into security assistance funding in general. There are two typical pots -- State Department and DOD, and I believe it was around that date that OMB put a hold on congressional notification.
QUIGLEY: Had you had any earlier indications that this might be the case?
VINDMAN: Prior to that there were -- there were some general inquiries on how the funds were being spent, things like nature; nothing specific, but hold certainly.
QUIGLEY: Were you aware of anyone in the national security community who supported withholding the aid?
VINDMAN: No.
QUIGLEY: No one from the national security?
VINDMAN: None.
QUIGLEY: No one from the State Department?
VINDMAN: Correct.
QUIGLEY: No one from the Department of Defense?
VINDMAN: Correct.
QUIGLEY: Did anyone to your understanding raise the legality of withholding this assistance?
VINDMAN: It was raised on several occasions.
QUIGLEY: And -- and who raised those concerns? VINDMAN: So following the July 18th sub-PCC, which is again what I coordinate or what I convene at my level. There was a July 23rd PCC that would have been conducted by Mr. Morrison. There were questions raised as to the legality of the hold. Over the subsequent week the issue was analyzed and during the July 26th deputies -- so the deputies from all the departments and agencies there was an opinion rendered that it was legal to put the hold.
QUIGLEY: It was -- excuse me?
VINDMAN: There was an opinion legal -- an opinion rendered that it was OK to -- that the hold was legal.
QUIGLEY: On a purely legal point of view.
VINDMAN: Correct.
QUIGLEY: Very good. I yield back to the Chairman.
[12:35:00]
SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ms. Stefanik.
STEFANIK: Ms. Williams, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, thank you for being here and thank you both for your service. As millions of Americans are watching throughout the hysteria and frenzied media coverage, two key facts have not changed that are critical to these impeachment proceedings. One, Ukraine in fact received the aid and two, there was no investigation into the Bidens. My question to both of you today will focus on the following, systemic corruption in Ukraine, two highlighting for the public that by law aid to Ukraine requires anti corruption efforts and three, who in our government has the decision-making authority when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters.
So on corruption in Ukraine, as Ambassador Yovanovitch testified, one of the key reasons why President Zelensky was overwhelmingly elected by the Ukrainian people was that they were finally standing up to rampant corruption in their country. Would you both agree with the ambassador's assessment?
VINDMAN: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams, corruption was such a critical issue from your perspective that when you prepared the vice president for his congratulatory call with President Zelensky, you testified that the points you wanted to communicate on the call where the following quote, look forward to seeing President Zelensky really implement the agenda on which he had run related anticorruption reforms. That is correct?
WILLIAMS: That is, yes.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, would you agree that this focus on anticorruption is a critical aspect of our policy towards Ukraine?
VINDMAN: I would.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Vindman, you are aware that in 2014 during the Obama Administration, the first anticorruption investigation partnered between the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine was into the owner of the company, Burisma?
VINDMAN: I'm aware of it now.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you were aware that Burisma had questionable business dealings. That's part of its track record?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: You also testified that regarding Burisma, money laundering, tax evasion comports with your understanding of how business is done in Ukraine. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: I'm not aware of specific incidents but my understanding is that it would not be out of the realm of the possible for Burisma.
STEFANIK: Well, that's page 207 from your testimony but I'll move on. You are aware that Hunter Biden did sit on the board of Burisma at this time?
VINDMAN: I am.
STEFANIK: Well I know -- I know that my constituents in New York 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma. The Obama Administration, state Department was also concerned and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests. Every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered yes. Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest?
VINDMAN: Certainly the potential, yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: Now shifting to the legal requirements that our aid to Ukraine is conditioned on anticorruption. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you understood that Congress had passed under the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And you also testified that it is required by the National Defense Authorization Act?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: So for the public listening, we are not just talking about President Trump focusing on anticorruption in Ukraine, but it is so critical so important that hard-earned taxpayer dollars when given to foreign nations that by law overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anticorruption in Ukraine in order to get U.S. taxpayer-funded aid. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you spoke extensively about the importance of defense of legal aid to Ukraine, specifically Javelins. This is in your deposition.
VINDMAN: Correct.
STEFANIK: And you testified that the Javelin in particular, because of its effectiveness in terms of influencing the Russian decision calculus for aggression, it is one of the most important tools we had -we have when it comes to providing defense of lethal aid.
VINDMAN: The system itself and the signaling of U.S. support, yes.
STEFANIK: And it is a fact that that aid was provided under President Trump and not President Obama.
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And my last question Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I know you serve in the NSC in the White House. I served in the West Wing of the White House for President Bush on the Domestic Policy Council and in the Chief of Staff's office so I'm very familiar with the policy process. I also know that as a staff member, the person who sets the policy in the United States is the president, not the staff and you testified that the president sets the policy correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And I respect your deep expertise, your tremendous service to our country. We can never repay those that have worn the military uniform and served our nation but I was struck when you testified in your deposition. I would say first of all, I am the Director for Ukraine. I am responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House. I just want a clarification. You report to Tim Morrison, correct?
VINDMAN: In my advisor...
STEFANIK: Your direct report is Tim Morrison, correct?
VINDMAN: In my advisor -- just to clarify, only in my advisory capacity, I advise up through the chain of command. That's what I do.
STEFANIK: And the chain of command is Tim Morrison to Ambassador John Bolton, the national security advisor to the president of the United States.
[12:40:00]
VINDMAN: Correct.
STEFANIK: And do you agree that the president sets the policy as commander-in-chief, as you testified previously?
VINDMAN: Absolutely.
STEFANIK: Thank you. My time's expired.
SCHIFF: Mr. Swalwell?
SWALWELL: Thank you both.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I think follow-up question that my colleague from New York did not ask you, but is relevant for everyone at home -- isn't it true that the Department of Defense had certified that the anticorruption requirements of Ukraine had been met when the hold was put on by the president?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
SWALWELL: Now, Mr. Jordan suggested that the president did something none of us expected by releasing that call transcript. You listened to the call, is that right, Lieutenant Colonel?
VINDMAN: That is.
SWALWELL: Ms. Williams, you also listened to the call, is that right?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
SWALWELL: Fair to say, Ms. Williams, a lot of other people at the White House listened to the call or read the transcript?
WILLIAMS: I can't characterize how many. I believe there were four -- four, five or six of us in the -- the listing room at the time.
SWALWELL: And the transcript was distributed to others, is that right?
WILLIAMS: I wasn't part of that process, but that's my understanding.
SWALWELL: So the president is asking for us and his defenders to give him a gold star because a number of people listened to the call or saw the call transcript, and then he released it. The difference, of course, between this and, say, his one on meet -- one-on-one meeting in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin was there, it was a one-on-one meeting, and he took the notes from the interpreter so none of us could see it, the point being the president had no choice but to release a call that everyone had seen.
Now, you've been asked to also characterize what exactly legally all of this means, and Mr. Ratcliffe pointed out that no one had used the term bribery in our depositions. And Ms. Williams, you're not a lawyer, are you?
WILLIAMS: I'm not, no.
SWALWELL: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, are you a lawyer?
VINDMAN: Lawyer's back there.
SWALWELL: The lawyer's your brother, right?
VINDMAN: Yeah.
SWALWELL: Born 20 seconds after you, is that what you said?
VINDMAN: Nine minutes.
SWALWELL: Nine minutes after you. That's -- you're the older brother.
VINDMAN: Yeah. Lifetime of wisdom there.
SWALWELL: Now, I want to give you a -- a hypothetical here. Suppose you have a shooting victim and the police respond after the victim is doing a little bit better and they ask the victim, "Well, tell us what happened." And the victim says, "Well, someone came up to my car, shot into the car, hit me in the shoulder, hit me in the back, hit me in the neck. Miraculously, I survived, but I can identify, you know, who the person is that pulled the trigger." And the police say, "OK, you were shot. You know who it is. But shucks, you didn't tell us that this was an attempted murder, so we're going to have to let the person go." Is that how it works in our justice system, that unless victims or witnesses identify the legal theories of a case, we just let people off the hook? Is that how it works, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman?
VINDMAN: I'm not an attorney, but it doesn't seem so.
SWALWELL: I don't think your brother would think so either.
Ms. Williams, Vice President Pence was described to our committee by Mr. Morrison has a, quote, "voracious reader of his intelligence read book (ph)." And after the April 21 call with President Zelensky, you put a transcript of that call in the vice president's read book (ph), is that right?
WILLIAMS: That's correct.
SWALWELL: And then the vice president called President Zelensky two days later, is that right?
WILLIAMS: That's correct.
SWALWELL: And you told us in the deposition that he stuck pretty faithfully to what President Trump had said in that April 21 call, is that right?
WILLIAMS: I believe his remarks were consistent, but he also spoke on other issues, as well, including anticorruption.
SWALWELL: And you would describe the -- the vice president as somebody who would make follow-up calls to world leaders after the president had done so, is that right?
WILLIAMS: He has on occasion. It's not a normal practice. It depends on the situation.
SWALWELL: And in that case, he stuck to President Trump's talking points.
WILLIAMS: I would say that I provided talking points for the April 23rd call for the vice president, which included discussion of the -- President Zelensky's inauguration, which President Trump had also discussed with President Zelensky. But I would say the vice president discussed other issues with President Zelensky, as well.
SWALWELL: And as was stated earlier, the president sets the foreign policy for the United States, is that right?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
SWALWELL: And you told us that after the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky that you put the call transcript in Vice President Pence's intelligence briefing book, is that right?
WILLIAMS: I ensured it was there. My colleagues prepare the book, but yes.
SWALWELL: So let's flash forward to September 1. Vice President Pence meets with President Zelensky, is that right?
WILLIAMS: That's correct.
SWALWELL: You're there.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
SWALWELL: And President Zelensky, with Vice President Pence, they talk about a lot of things, but you will agree that Vice President Pence did not bring up the Bidens, is that correct?
WILLIAMS: That's correct. He did not.
SWALWELL: He did not bring up investigations.
WILLIAMS: No.
SWALWELL: Is one reasonable explanation that although Vice President Pence will do a lot of things for President Trump, that he was not willing to bring up investigations in Bidens because he thought it was wrong?
[12:45:00]
WILLIAMS: I'm not in a position to speculate. We had not discussed those particular investigations in any of the preparatory sessions with the vice president and I'm not...
SWALWELL: But you didn't bring it up with the Ukrainians after the July 25 call, right?
WILLIAMS: He did not in that meeting, no.
SWALWELL: And you did not either.
WILLIAMS: No.
SWALWELL: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you ever ask the Ukrainians to do what President Trump was asking them to do after the July 25 phone call?
VINDMAN: I did not. I didn't render any opinion on what was asked in the 25...
SWALWELL: Thank you. Yield back.
SCHIFF: Mr. Hurd?
HURD: Ms. Williams, I want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service. We share a personal hero in Dr. Rice, so great minds think alike.
Did you participate in or overhear any conversations about how potential information collected from the Ukrainians on the Bidens would be used for political gain?
WILLIAMS: No, I did not participate or overhear any conversation along those lines.
HURD: Thank you.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I think all of us would agree that your father made the right move to come here, and we're glad that -- that he did. You've talked about how part of your responsibilities is developing talking points for your principles, is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
HURD: President -- I'm assuming you also do that for your direct supervisor currently right now, Mr. Morrison, is that correct?
VINDMAN: Mr. Morrison has left the position some time ago already, at least three weeks ago.
HURD: So -- so -- but you do the -- you've prepared talking points for your supervisors, is that correct?
VINDMAN: Typically, frankly, the -- at -- at that level they don't really take talking points, especially if they have expertise. Your talking points are more intended for national security advisor, although Ambassador Bolton didn't real -- really require them because of his deep expertise.
HURD: (inaudible)
VINDMAN: It's the next level up. The president...
HURD: But traditionally, I'm just trying to establish... VINDMAN: I know.
HURD: ... that this position is somebody...
VINDMAN: Is accurate, right? (ph)
HURD: ... who creates talking points for a number of people. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
HURD: Do they always use them?
VINDMAN: No.
HURD: Is -- is President Trump known to stick to a script?
VINDMAN: I -- I don't believe so.
HURD: So is it odd that he didn't use your talking points?
VINDMAN: No, it is not.
HURD: In your deposition -- if your lawyer wants to follow on, it's page 306 -- you were asked about events during the temporary hold on U.S. assistance to -- to Ukraine. This is that 55-day period or so. And you testified that the U.S. administration did not receive any new assurances from Ukraine about anticorruption efforts and that the facts on the ground did not change before the hold was lifted. Is that -- is accurate in recounting your testimony?
VINDMAN: That is accurate.
HURD: When was President Zelensky sworn in?
VINDMAN: He was sworn in on -- excuse me -- May 20th, 2019.
HURD: And then he had a new parliament, too, elected after he was, is that correct?
VINDMAN: He did.
HURD: And when was that parliament seated?
VINDMAN: That was -- that was, I'm sorry, July 21st, 2019.
HURD: They -- they -- that was when they won, right? They -- they weren't seated until August.
HURD: Your boss' boss, Ambassador Bolton, traveled to Ukraine in late August, right? August 27h, 28th, is that correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
HURD: Did he take you with you? Did he...
VINDMAN: I...
HURD: ... take you with him?
VINDMAN: He didn't, he didn't.
HURD: We know from other witnesses that when Ambassador Bolton was there, he met with President Zelensky and his staff, and they talked about how they were visually exhausted because one of the things that President Zelensky did during that time period was change the Ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies, right? They're some of their parliamentarians. Because that had been the source of raw corruption for -- for a number of years. Is that accurate?
VINDMAN: That is accurate.
HURD: Were you -- were you aware of this important change to Ukrainian law?
VINDMAN: Of course. Yeah.
HURD: And you don't believe that's a significant anti-corruption effort?
VINDMAN: No, it is -- it is significant.
HURD: It's pretty significant, correct?
Also, Ambassador Taylor testified that President Zelensky, with this new parliament, opened Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court, right? This had been an initiative that many folks and the U. (ph) -- and our State Department had been -- had been pushing to happen, and that was established in that time frame. Were you aware of this?
VINDMAN: Yes.
HURD: Do you think this is a significant anti-corruption...
VINDMAN: I do.
HURD: When you talked about -- you -- how many times have you met President Zelensky?
VINDMAN: I think it was just the one time from the presidential delegation. Multiple engagements, but just the one trip.
HURD: And that's a one-on-one meeting?
VINDMAN: That was in a bilateral -- larger bilateral format. Then there was -- there were a couple of smaller venue -- they're all in -- there was never a one-on-one. But there were a couple of -- again -- again, touch points. So the bilateral meeting, handshake, meet and greet...
[12:50:00]
HURD: Gotcha.
VINDMAN: ... he had a short...
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: So there was a lot of people in the room...
VINDMAN: Yeah
HURD: ... when you met...
VINDMAN: Yes. Yes, Congressman.
HURD: But you still advised the Ukrainian president to watch out for the Russians?
VINDMAN: Yes.
HURD: And that was -- that was -- and that -- and everybody else in the room, I'm assuming, the national security advisor was there, I believe, in this case, you had other members of the administration? Was that -- were your points pre-approved, did they know you were going to bring up those points?
VINDMAN: I -- we did have a huddle beforehand. And it's possible I flagged him, but I don't -- I don't recall specifically. It's possible that they -- I didn't.
HURD: And you counseled the Ukrainian president to stay out of U.S. politics?
VINDMAN: Correct.
HURD: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time I do not have.
SCHIFF: Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Castro?
CASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Williams, thank you for your service to the country.
Colonel Vindman, thank you for your service. And it's great to talk to a fellow identical twin. I hope that your brother's nicer to you than mine is to me...
(LAUGHTER)
... doesn't make you grow a beard.
(LAUGHTER)
You both listened in real time to the July 25th call. In particular, you would have heard President Trump ask the president of Ukraine, quote, "I'd like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. they say CrowdStrike," and (ph), quote, "the server, they say Ukraine has it."
This is a debunked conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. President Trump's own former Homeland Security advisor, Thomas P. Bossert, called the president's assertion that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 elections, quote, "not only a conspiracy theory," but, quote, "completely debunked," unquote.
Colonel Vindman, are you aware of any evidence to support the theory that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 election?
VINDMAN: Congressman, I am not. And furthermore, I would say that this is a Russian narrative that President Putin has promoted.
CASTRO: And are you aware of any part of the U.S. government, its foreign policy, or intelligence apparatus that supports that theory?
VINDMAN: No, I am not aware of.
CASTRO: And you are aware that other parts of the U.S. government, our intelligence community for example, has said definitively that it was the Russians who interfered in the 2016 elections?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CASTRO: Well, it seems incredibly odd, though, unfortunately, but no inconsistent to me that President Trump would be giving credence to a conspiracy theory about Ukraine that helps Russia, really, in at least two ways.
First, it ignores and frankly undermines the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community and seeks to weaken a state dependent on the United States' support to fight Russian aggression. It also, for the United States, hurts our national security and emboldens Russia.
And I want to look at what President Trump was doing on his call instead of pushing back against Russian hostility. He was pressuring Ukraine to do his political work. President Trump stated on that July 25th call, quote, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution. And a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me."
Colonel Vindman, when you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful and well-calibrated anti-corruption program consistent with U.S. policy?
VINDMAN: I do not.
CASTRO: In fact, it sounds like President Trump was encouraging the Ukrainian president to engage in precisely the same type of behavior for President Trump's own political benefit that we discourage foreign leaders from undertaking in their own countries. And discouraging other countries from undertaking politically motivated investigation is in fact a major part of official U.S. anti-corruption policy, is that correct? VINDMAN: That is correct.
CASTRO: And are you in fact aware of any evidence that Vice President Biden improperly interfered in investigation of his family members?
VINDMAN: I am not.
CASTRO: These false narratives, it should be said, are damaging our country. They poison our politics and distract from the truth. And pressing another country to engage in corruption is antithetical to who we are as a nation.
You also mentioned that this request -- well, you felt this request was wrong. And you've also said that corruption in Ukraine is endemic to Ukraine, just as it is in other places around the world.
What is the -- can you speak to, what is the danger of a -- a president of the United States, whether it's Donald Trump or any future president, asking another nation where there's rampant corruption to investigate a political rival or just any other American citizen? What would be the danger to that American?
[12:55:00]
VINDMAN: Congressman, the Ukraine -- the Ukrainian judiciary is imperfect at the moment. And the -- the reliance on U.S. support could conceivably cause them to tip the scales of justice in favor of finding a -- the U.S. citizen guilty, if they thought they needed to do that international (ph)...
(CROSSTALK)
CASTRO: So they could trump up charges if they wanted to, in a corrupt system like that?
VINDMAN: They could. And Ukraine is making progress. Certainly more broadly in Russia, that is likely to happen, where the state will be involved in -- in judicial outcomes and drive them.
CASTRO: Thank you.
I yield back, Chairman.
SCHIFF: Mr. Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Williams, you testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on July 25 was that the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue. Correct?
WILLIAMS: Correct.
RATCLIFFE: But raising an issue, even one that you thought was unusual is different than making a demand. Would you agree? WILLIAMS: Yes.
RATCLIFFE: And as I read your deposition, it didn't sound like, from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations. Is that fair?
WILLIAMS: I don't believe I'm in a position to characterize it further than the president did in terms of asking for a favor.
RATCLIFFE: You didn't hear a demand?
WILLIAMS: Again, I would just refer back to the transcript itself.
RATCLIFFE: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you've testified and explained to us why in your mind it was a demand. And you've given us reasons, a disparity of power between the two presidents.
And because you did feel that way, you also felt that you had a duty to report what you thought was improper. Is that correct?
VINDMAN: That's correct.
RATCLIFFE: OK. So two different people, two impartial observers; one felt the need to report the call because there was a demand that was improper and one that didn't report it to anyone. You didn't report it to anyone. Right, Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: I insured that the information was available to my superiors.
RATCLIFFE: So while all this might seem as clear as mud, I think your honest and candid assessments of what you heard on the call tells us what we need to know. We have two independent folks, non partisans, and I'm not hearing a consensus between the two of you about what exactly you both heard on the call that you heard at the exact same time.
And if you can't reach an agreement with regard to what happened on the call, how can any of us? An impeachment inquiry is supposed to be clear. It's supposed to be obvious. It's supposed to be over whelming and compelling.
And if two people on the call disagree honestly about whether or not there was a demand and whether or not anything should be reported on a call that is not a clear and compelling basis to undo 63 million votes and remove a president from office. I yield my remaining time to Mr. Jordan.
JORDAN: I thank the gentleman for yielding. Colonel Vindman, why didn't you go -- after the call, why didn't you go to Mr. Morrison?
VINDMAN: I went immediately per the -- per the instructions from the July 10 incident. I met -- went immediately to Mr. Eisenberg. After that -- once I made that -- my -- expressed my concerns; it was an extremely busy week. We had a PCC just finish. We had the call and then we had a deputies meeting, which consumed all my time. I was working extremely long days. I attempted to try to communicate -- I managed to speak to two folks in the inner agency. I attempted to try to talk to Mr. Morrison. That didn't happen before I received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further.
JORDAN: So the lawyer -- you not only didn't go to your boss, you said you tried but you didn't go to your boss. You went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss?
VINDMAN: No, he didn't tell me until -- what ended up unfolding is I had the conversation with the attorney. I did my coordination -- my core function, which is coordination. I spoke to the appropriate people within the inner agency and circling (ph) back around; Mr. Eisenberg came back to me and told me not to talk to anybody else.
JORDAN: I'm going to read from the transcript here. Why didn't you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison. You're responsible -- this is page 102 (ph), because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him.
Then I ask you did -- did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr. Morrison. And you said actually he did -
[13:00:00]
