#ImpeachmentHearings Livetweet for today. The Chairs are seated and Nunes has put up big posters about the whistleblower. The witnesses walk in.
Vindman is gazing about the room intensely, even looking up at the ceiling, I assume this is what soldiers do when they scope out the security situation in a new place. He is in dress uniform with many medals.
Jennifer Williams stands somberly next to Vindman, they wait for photographers to finish so they can be sworn in.
Schiff begins: This is the third hearing, there is a quorum present. Going over the rules. Now beginning his statement. We heard last week of Trump's scheme to condition aid on a deliverable Trump thought would help him.
Schiff says there are two investigations Trump wanted, one into the Bidens, one into Crowdstrike. He put his own interests above ours, and undermined our interests, especially about anti-corruption.
Introducing Vindman, his family fled the Soviet Union when he was a toddler, and he is long-serving and highly decorated. Introducing Williams, she is a foreign service officer detailed to the VP.
Giuliani had to cancel his trip to Ukraine when it became public, and he blamed Zelensky. Three days later, Trump canceled the VP's trip, which Zelensky had been excited about.
Vindman witnessed the events, the request for investigations, the hold on the aid, and took his concerns to superiors. Schiff goes over the phone calls
Schiff reiterates, none of the things Trump did were in US interests, they were in his own personal interests, and everyone knew about all this because the pressure went on for weeks. Everyone knew the favor was really a demand, because of the power difference between countries.
Both the witnesses had concerns, especially about Zelensky saying the word "Burisma" unprompted, which meant he must have been prepped to know which investigations Trump wanted.
Schiff brings up Trump's attacks on the witnesses and thanks them for appearing and hopes no one on the committee will become part of these attacks.
Nunes begins his remarks. He addresses the viewers at home, saying there's a disconnect between reporting and what we see. The press says testimony was damning but, Nunes says, this is preposterous.
Nunes ranting about the press calling Trump and everyone around him "Russian agents," now reading example headlines about Trump's Russian ties, and calling them all false.
(Not sure how it helps Nunes' case to point out the many, many stories about Trump's Russian ties, but ok.)
Nunes now calls the entire media the "puppets" of Democrats. He has three questions he says the media is smothering. 1. did Democrats coordinate with the whistleblower? 2. What is the whistleblower's bias? 3. How do they explain inaccuracies?
4. What contacts has the whistleblower had with media? 5. Was the whistleblower prohiibted by law from blowing the whistle. This was five questions, not three, but ok. Oh, now Nunes says all that was just the first question.
Question 2: Did the Ukrainians meddle in 2016? Nunes says the media is smearing a journalist, Solomon, his editors saying that they would review his work about this. Nunes urges everyone to read it anyway. Enters it in the record.
Nunes continues complaining that people who say Ukraine were the real meddlers are called conspiracy theorists.
Nunes Question 3: Whatabout Hunter Biden? Goes over the conspiracy theory.
LMAO Nunes says Democrats "replaced" the quid pro quo claim with one about bribery because he does not know what corrupt quid pro quo means and that it has always meant bribery.
Nunes claims half the country voted for Trump and that the people are with him, and they're all no longer reading regular journalism and everyone loves him. And he concludes.
Schiff introduces the witnesses, going over their expertise and honors.
The witnesses are sworn in.
Williams begins her opening statement. She has been an FSO for 14 years, serving 3 admins. Condoleezza Rice is her hero. It was her greatest honor to be asked to serve the VP. She has advised him about Ukraine.
Williams recounts the VP's call to congratulate Zelensky and the meeting that had been offered. There were scheduling concerns and only preliminary preparations made. Then she was told Trump decided Pence would not go, no explanation given.
On July 3 she learned of the OMB hold on military aid. She was told they were reviewing if the funding was in line with admin priorities. She attended a meeting where State & Defense urged the hold be lifted and OMB said Mulvaney had ordered it.
She listened to the July 25 call in question. In closed session she testified it was unusual because it involved discussions of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. She made a note of this to the VP but does not know if he reviewed it.
She attended the Sept 1 meeting at which Zelensky asked Pence about articles saying the aid was on hold. Pence said he'd look into it. They didn't talk about the investigations on that date. She concludes.
Vindman begins. He has served more than two decades, including combat operations. Since 2008 he has specialized in this region. He served the Joint Chiefs of Staff as an expert on Russian aggression before serving on the NSC.
(Interesting contrast of Vindman's sober recounting of many, many efforts to combat Russian aggression, with Nunes earlier mocking the idea that Russia influences Trump.)
Vindman points out that Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform. Vindman says the April call was positive. Trump signed a congratulatory letter and offered a second invitation to Zelensky. But then, there was a meeting with Bolton, Sondland, Hill, and Ukraine.
This is the meeting that was cut short. Sondland repeated that the investigations were important. Vindman and Hill told Sondland his comments were improper and agreed to report this to Eisenberg.
Vindman listened to the July 25 call. He was concerned. What he heard was inappropriate. It is improper for a US President to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. It would advance Russia's strategic objectives.
Vindman wants to make clear that he acted out of duty and went through the proper channels. He never thought that he would be sitting here testifying about his actions, his only thought was to act properly. He returned to work after filing his concerns.
Vindman adds that vile character attacks on witnesses are reprehensible. The services are composed of diverse people and they do not serve any party, they serve the nation.
Vindman describes how his father left everything he'd ever known so his three sons could have better and safer lives in the USA, and that instilled in them a sense of duty and service. They all still serve, his brother is here today.
Vindman says that in Russia, expressing concerns about a superior would have serious repercussions, and testifying about them would surely cost his life, so he is grateful to live here, where he can live free of fear.
Vindman concludes. Questioning begins with the 45 minute blocs. Schiff reminds people of the specific rule that says it can only be used by chairs or staff, not other members.
Schiff asks Williams about a Sept 18 call. Her lawyer intervenes to say that call is classified, so the committee should refer to her prior testimony about it. He has advised her not to answer questions about that call in an unclassified setting.
Schiff says his question is only about whether the call is relevant to their inquiry and if she would submit classified answers in a classified setting. She would be happy to do so.
Schiff asks Vindman about talking points for Trump's first, April call with Zelensky, the points the NSC had cleared for Trump to talk about. Did Trump ever mention corruption in the April call? Vindman says to the best of his recollection, no.
Schiff asks Williams about why the VP canceled his attendance in Ukraine. She was told it was Trump's order. The inauguration date had not been set at that point. She does not know what caused Trump to make that choice.
Vindman talks about advice that they gave to Zelensky, to be particularly cautious with regards to Ukraine, and Russia's desire to provoke Ukraine, and to stay out of US politics.
Schiff asks if either witness was told a reason for why the aid was withheld. Williams says only that it was being reviewed for consistency with admin policies. Vindman agrees that's the language he heard too.
Vindman says Sondland said in order to get a meeting, Ukrainians would have to provide the specific deliverables of the investigations. Bolton abruptly ended the meeting when Sondland said that. Vindman reported this.
Vindman says the connection to the president wasn't clear at the point that Sondman told the Ukrainians that, but Mulvaney was definitely involved.
Schiff asks Vindman's reaction to hearing this. He pauses to gather his thoughts and says he knew he had to report it. It was inappropriate. It was improper for the president to demand an investigation into a political opponent. It would undermine our national security.
Vindman says Trump made a "demand" and Schiff asks him to explain how he knows the "favor" was really a demand. Vindman says the power disparity is why he had that impression.
Schiff asks Williams what she meant by there must have been "other reasons" for the hold on military aid. She says when she said that it wasn't clear whether Trump was involved, but it was the first she had heard of the specific requests.
Schiff asks if they remember Zelensky saying the word "Burisma" and they do. He asks if they know why that word was left out of the transcript. Williams says she does not. Vindman says it's not a significant omission.
Vindman thought the transcribers just didn't catch the word Burisma, so he added it back in to the transcript.
Vindman says Zelensky must have either read about Burisma in the news, or been otherwise prepped, to have know about that specific company.
Goldman begins questioning, asks Vindman about talking points created for the call. Vindman says some of those things are sensitive, but mostly based on official US policy. Goldman asks about the process to define official US policy.
Vindman says defining US policy was part of his job. Trump's comments were not consistent with the talking points provided, though Vindman points out presidents don't have to use them.
Goldman reads out Trump's "a favor though" statement. Was that based on official US policy talking points? Vindman says no. Was it part of official US policy? No, it was not.
Was Vindman aware of the theory that Ukraine interfered in 2016? He was. Was he aware of any evidence for it? No. Was he aware Putin pushed this theory? Vindman is aware of that. It is the consensus that the Russians interfered in 2016.
Goldman reads Trump's request for investigating the Bidens. Was that included in the talking points? Vindman says no. Such a request is not consistent with US policy as he understood it. He is not aware of any evidence against VP Biden. Williams is not either.
Williams has listened in to roughly a dozen calls at this level. This one struck her as different. The references to specific individuals struck her as political in nature because the subject was a political opponent to Trump. She can't speak to Trump's motivation.
Vindman's understanding is that the request to investigate was inappropriate and improper. Goldman asks if he heard from any Ukrainians about pressure they felt on this? Not that he can recall. He did not discuss it with US embassy staff either.
Vindman's recollection is that the Ukrainians became aware of the hod in August and began to ask him if he had information about that. He doesn't recall what he said, but something along the lines that he was not aware of it.
Goldman asks why Vindman was concerned about Ukraine losing bipartisan American support. Vindman says the signal of support for Ukraine sovereignty, losing that could encourage Russian aggression.
Goldman asks what languages Vindman speaks. He says he speaks Russian, Ukrainian, and a little bit of English. Everyone laughs.
Goldman asks about the section of the transcript that says "this company" instead of "Burisma." Vindman affirms that this made it sound like Zelensky was prepped for this call.
Goldman brings up some texts between Volker and Yermak right before the phone call. Vindman says this is consistent with what he meant by Zelensky being prepared for the call.
Goldman brings up Zelensky connecting the visit and the investigations in two sentences in the transcript. Vindman says that seems to be a reasonable conclusion and it seems related to the text messages.
Vindman says a show of support for the new president Zelensky, he would want to have this meeting to establish his bona fides. It would provide him additional legitimacy at home.
Vindman and Williams confirm this is not normal US policy. Vindman calls it an "alternative narrative, false narrative" and was aware it was gaining traction. Vindman was invited to follow up with concerns with Eisenberg.
Vindman clarifies that by "alternative narrative" he means the investigations requested in the call. His understanding is that this transcript was viewed as sensitive and to preserve its integrity it should be segregated.
Vindman is not sure what "preserve the integrity of the transcript" meant but it sounded legal and he didn't think it was nefarious. He didn't necessarily think it nefarious when his correction was not included.
Vindman made another correction besides adding back the word "Burisma." On page 4, top paragraph, "you can look into it..." it should have said "there are recordings" instead of the ellipsis.
After Vindman conveyed his concerns, and an on the fly decision was made to segregate the transcript on the classified system. Vindman says it was intentional, putting it on the special system, to limit leaks and access.
Goldman asks why the readout for the April call mentions corruption when the call didn't actually cover that. Vindman says the readouts are also messaging platforms, and even if Trump didn't mention it it's still included as a talking point.
Goldman asks Vindman whether Trump ever mentioned rooting out corruption in his calls, is it true he did not do that? Vindman says that is correct.
Goldman asks Williams about the VP's canceled visit. She did not know what had changed from April to May.
Goldman asks Vindman if he knows about some things that happened between April and May. Starting with Yovanovitch's removal. Was Vindman aware of a Trump-Putin phone call? He was. And Giuliani's trip? He was aware.
Goldman goes back over the meeting Bolton cut short because Sondland had asked for the investigations in it. There was a photo op and then a short post-meeting debrief. The concerns were also discussed there.
Sondland repeated that the investigations were needed, and Vindman repeated that was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security policy. Vindman doesn't recall if Volker was there when he said that.
Vindman says Ukrainians witnessed some of this discord, but they were asked to step out so he does not recall which parts they heard.
Vindman took his concerns to NSC lawyers. Eisenberg took notes and said he would look into it. Vindman reported this because it was inappropriate and he and Dr. Hill both agreed it needed to be reported.
This meeting Bolton cut short was the first time Vindman was aware of the Ukrainians being directly told they had to do the investigations to get the meeting.
Williams asks what the first thing Zelensky asked Pence about at their meeting. Williams says the security aid being on hold was the first thing he asked about.
*Goldman asked Williams that sorry.
Williams says Zelensky told Pence it's not just the assistance, it's the symbolism of the support, and any sign that US support was wavering would be construed by Russia as an opportunity to strengthen their own hand.
Williams says Zelensky and Pence also talked about other European countries supporting Ukraine more. Pence told Zelensky he'd convey all this to Trump. Pence did speak to Trump that evening but Williams was not privy to it.
Williams and Vindman never learned a reason why the hold was lifted. Were they aware the committees began investigations two days before it was lifted? Vindman was aware of this.
Vindman became aware of the whistleblower from media, he had only been aware that committees were looking into the hold.
Vindman reiterates that US policy was to support Ukraine, and that concludes Goldman's questioning. Nunes is up.
Nunes asks Williams if Ukraine is in her portfolio. It is. Was she aware in Sept 2015 of the call to investigate Burisma? Not at the time, but she is aware now. Was she aware of anti-Trump efforts by Ukrainians and Chalupa? No.
Williams did not work on Ukraine policy at the time Kent had concerns, so she has only become aware of that recently. Nunes asks if she's aware of the corruption at Burisma, she was not until she saw other witnesses talk about it.
Nunes asks Williams if she was aware Biden met Ukrainians after the prosecutor was fired. No. Was she aware that Hunter Biden's name was invoked as a reason to intervene? No. Was she aware Biden called Ukraine after Burisma's owner's home was raided? Not at the time no.
Nunes will now ask Vindman all the same questions. He answers: Not aware at the time, became aware during this inquiry. Not aware of any of these "interference efforts" by Chalupa. Not aware of anything but what's in depositions.
Vindman says the question of what kind of payments Mr. Biden might have received are just not something he's aware of. He's not aware of the meetings Nunes claims Biden had. He's not aware of any of these facts.
Vindman was aware VP Biden was very engaged on Ukraine and had numerous engagements.
Nunes says there was a Russia hoax, FISA abuse, and now this inquiry is a charade. He is not accusing either of them of leaking, but they are the first firsthand call witnesses to testify, so he has some things to get out of the way.
Nunes asks Williams if she discussed any of this with the press. She says no. He goes over individual newspapers, she still says no. He asks if she knows anyone who did. She does not.
Nunes asks Vindman the same questions about leaking to the press. Vindman too has never discussed this with the press and does not know anyone who did. The NSC press shop handles the press, he does not.
Vindman seems confused by Nunes' question about whether he knows anyone who has talked to the press about this, because, he knows the press office and they are supposed to talk to the press.
Nunes asks Williams if she has ever leaked, or if she has ever accessed someone else's NSC computer. She does not have an NSC computer but has never done that.
Vindman spoke to two individuals not in the White House, cleared US gov officials with appropriate need to know, about the readout of the call. They were with State, they were George Kent and an individual from the intelligence community.
Nunes asks which agency the individual was from. Schiff intervenes to say we need to protect the whistleblower and to make sure there is no effort to out the whistleblower, and if the witness thinks an answer would out them, they don't have to answer.
Nunes asks if Vindman knows who the whistleblower is. He says he does not but his counsel has told him not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. Nunes says this is the intelligence committee so it's appropriate. Nunes says his lawyer says no.
Nunes presses Vindman. Vindman's lawyer intervenes to say that they are following the chair's ruling so there's no need for Vindman to assert fifth amendment rights.
Vindman's lawyer tells Nunes to work it out with the chair if he wants Vindman to talk about the whistleblower. Nunes says this is an inquisition and he yields to staff lawyer Pruneface Castor.
Castor says isn't it true that the transcript was very accurate with just a few edits Vindman wanted? Vindman says he knows Zelensky said "Burisma" because it was in his notes. Williams says it was in her notes as well. But her notes were about a different section.
Castor says Trump's words are ambiguous and could be characterized as hedging. He mentions several examples. Could certain people read that as ambiguous? Vindman says yes.
Castor says Vindman previously testified people could interpret it different ways. Vindman agrees. Castor asks if the transcript process was appropriate. Vindman says it was in a different system but eventually came around for corrections.
Vindman says the concerns about leaks seemed valid and he wasn't particularly critical of the storage server. He had access to the codeword server and was not denied access to the transcript.
Castor asks Williams if the transcript is accurate other than her one edit. She says substantively yes. Her supervisor was listening in on the same call, so she didn't discuss it further with him or anyone else in the VP's office or flag it to anyone.
Williams was involved in the VP's briefing materials for his Warsaw meeting, but the call transcript was not involved in those briefing materials.
Castor asks how come no one in the VP's staff alerted him? She says he had access to the transcript and more immediate issue was the hold.
Castor asks Vindman if there are concerns about Ukraine's corruption problem. Vindman agrees that's something the US is concerned about. He agrees, corruption is "endemic" in Ukraine.
Castor asks if Vindman is aware of Trumps "skepticism" about foreign aid generally. He is. On burden sharing, Vindman knows exactly how much the EU contributes.
Vindman says there is a pattern of questionable dealings and corruption. Castor asks about Zlochevsky and details of Burisma corruption. Vindman says he trusts Kent's expertise about this. Castor describe's Kent's testimony, Vindman says this was before his time.
Castor asks Vindman what he knows about Hunter Biden's work experience. Vindman does not know. Castor asks if Biden was qualified, and didn't Vindman testify that he wasn't qualified? Vindman says he does not know but it does not seem he was qualified.
Castor asks about the VP attending the Ukrainian inaugural, and whether Trump was out of the country at the time, and there's a concern the VP and POTUS shouldn't be out of the country at the same time. Williams said they wouldn't know the date from Ukraine until May.
Williams advised the Ukrainians of the dates when the VP would be available, only 3 days. Castor asks about preparation by the Secret Service. Williams says it was being looked into and they were deciding when it was appropriate to send them out. They never did go.
Castor points out that the Ukrainian parliament announced the inauguration with only 4 days notice. She says that was short notice, but the trip planning had already stopped by then. She was told to stop it by the assistant to the chief of staff.
Williams asked why the trip was canceled, and was told the president decided it. She was not told why. She confirms that the VP went to Canada instead. Castor asks if it's conceivable Trump thought that meeting was more important. She can't say.
Williams was aware there were competing trips but was told the Ukraine trip would take priority. Castor asks ultimately does she know the reason why the trip was canceled? She can't speak to his motivations.
Castor turns to Vindman, the meeting in the Ambassador's office that was cut short. Vindman names the attendees from both sides.
Vindman noted the meeting ended abruptly but didn't know exactly why. Sondland didn't use the word "Biden" as far as Vindman recalls. Was the mood positive? Vindman says Bolton was qualified and understood the strategic advantage of having a photo.
Castor asks about the Giuliani narrative. Had Vindman heard first-hand accounts from people on the inside, or just followed press accounts? Vindman read the press, and his colleagues in the interagency had concerns about this and conversations.
Castor repeats that the photo was "very nice" as if that means the people were all happy with each other. Vindman repeats that Burisma, Bidens, and the 2016 elections were all mentioned at the post-meeting wardroom meeting.
Castor says Vindman had once testified that 2016 was NOT part of that. Vindman says he refreshed his memory and it was. All three items were included.
Castor asks if Vindman was excluded from trips. He says he was asked to return from leave to help prepare for a trip, and then was told he would not be going on that trip after being called back to prepare for it, because there "wasn't enough room."
Castor asks if Morrison ever expressed concerns to Vindman that he wasn't following the chain of command? He did not. Did he or Dr. Hill express concerns that Vindman was out of his lane? They did not.
Castor asks if Vindman found it concerning to be excluded from calls. He says he thought he could contribute to helping the ambassador.
Castor asks if the Ukrainians ever asked Vindman if he would take a position as Ukraine defense minister. He was asked & declined 3 times. Was it a great honor to be asked? Yes, and he knows US officers who help developing countries after retirement.
Castor asks if Vindman left the door open. Vindman says it's comical to ask if he was considering becoming Ukraine minister of defense. He's only a lieutenant colonel and it's funny to be offered a position like that.
Vindman explains who else heard him decline these offers.
Vindman says he did report it to the chain of command but did not consider it a serious offer, he was just following procedure.
Castor asks whether these requests by the Ukrainians creates a conflict of interest. Vindman says it's more important what the US chain of command thinks.
Vindman says his chain of command would have brought it to his attention if they thought he had a conflict.
Castor asks when Vindman became aware of the second channel. He didn't really learn about it until the July 10th meeting, though he heard some things at a slightly earlier meeting in June.
Castor asks if Volker and Sondland were just trying to do their best? Vindman says he thinks they are, and were trying to bring Giuliani into the tent of official policy. He never talked to Giuliani and only knows him as America's Mayor.
Vindman has never had any contact with Trump. This concludes Castor's questioning. There will be a short break before 5 minute rounds begin.
Recess ends, Schiff begins by asking about Nunes' questions on the conspiracy theory. Is it fair to say they have no firsthand knowledge about anything Nunes asked about? It is correct.
Schiff asks Williams if it's correct that Pence was told not to go before the date of the inauguration had been set? Williams says yes, that's true.
Schiff asks Williams if she was aware that Giuliani had to abort a trip he was going to make? Yes. She was aware of the reporting about that, and it was prior to the cancellation of Pence's trip.
Shiff asks if there was ambiguity about the word "Biden." Vindman says there was not. Investigating the Bidens was one of the demands, and there was no ambiguity in his mind about that.
Vindman is aware that Giuliani was pushing the same investigations that Trump was asking for.
Schiff asks Willliams about the Sept meeting where the Ukrainians brought up their concerns about the hold on aid. The Bidens and Burisma did not come up. It was a large meeting with several dozen people, Pence didn't bring it up there, or anywhere else.
Schiff asks if Williams is aware that immediately after that, Sondland made it clear that Ukraine had to do the investigations. She wasn't aware of it at the time and can't speak to it.
Schiff makes a parallel, that the meeting Vindman witnessed also had a large meeting and then a smaller after-meeting. Bolton thought Dr. Hill should talk to the lawyers about what had happened. Vindman on his own thought the same.
Schiff asks if what Bolton meant by a drug deal was conditioning things on these investigations, Vindman says yes. This came up in the July 25th call too. The same issue that prompted Hill and Vindman to go to lawyers.
Nunes now has 7 minutes, because Schiff took 7 minutes. Nunes asks Vindman if he's ever accessed a computer at NSC without their knowledge? He says never without their authorization. Clarifies knowledge or authorization.
Jim Jordan is up asking about Morrison deposition. Morrison had concerns about Vindman's judgment. Claims Hill had raised concerns about Vindman's judgment. Morrison says people were concerned Vindman was a leaker.
Jordan asks Vindman why Morrison would say that about him. Vindman quotes his last evaluation, where Hill praises him as brilliant, the best, excellent judgment. That was July 13. He can't say why Mr. Morrison would question him. He wasn't there very long.
Jordan directly asks if Vindman would ever leak information. Vindman says he would never do that. Jordan says it's interesting that there are only 3 individuals on that call who they've deposed. Only Vindman declines to answer who he spoke to about it.
Vindman says half a dozen or more people had the call readout. He only read out, outside the NSC, two individuals. Kent, and one other. Jordan asks if he's willing to name that individual. Lawyers intervene.
Schiff reminds Jordan the committee will not be for outing the whistleblower. Jordan asks how this is outing them? Schiff says this is Jordan's time and his questions should be addressed to the witness, not outing the whistleblower.
Jordan says Morrison says there was nothing improper on the call, the real concern was leaks and Washington's polarized culture. Jordan rants about Morrison being right. Calls it a coup.
Jordan claims the transcript shows no linkage, the people on the call both say no pressure. Finally, a question to Williams. How many people did she talk to about the July 25 call? She did not speak to anyone. Jordan is done.
Himes asks to have Vindman's performance review to be entered in the record. Schiff asks Vindman's permission, he says there is PII in it, and with those redacted he would be ok with it. Himes withdraws his request.
Himes has Williams go over her record of service. Shows the Trump tweet attacking her, and reminds the hearing that Yovanovitch was also targeted. Asks Williams if she's a never trumper doing a presidential attack? She would not describe herself that way.
Williams says the tweet surprised her, she did not expect to be called out by name. Himes says it's witness intimidation. Himes asks Vindman what the combat infantry badge is and how one gets it. It is from combat under fire.
Himes asks Vindman to describe how he got the Purple Heart. Outside Fallujah they were conducting a recon patrol and his vehicle was struck by an IED that penetrated armor. He was injured.
Himes asks Vindman if he's a Never Trumper? Vindman says he considers himself Never Partisan. He has no bias here. Himes brings up the smears against him, because his family emigrated here. He is angry with the questioning smearing Vindman's loyalty.
Himes wants people to understand the GOP smearing Vindman's loyalty is the kind of thing that people stoop to when they're trying to defend the indefensible, smearing someone with those devices on his uniform.
Ratcliffe brings up the use of the word "bribery." It struck him as odd because this was all about "quid pro quo" before. He seem to have zero awareness of the absurdity of contrasting those two things, which are synonyms.
Ratcliffe has word-searched all the transcript and the word "bribery" or "bribe" has never come up. The witnesses confirm they have never used those words.
Ratcliffe dramatically presents a big stack of transcripts and says he searched them all and this word is not in there so how can the speaker use it, huh?
Ratcliffe says the only time the word was used was in context....of BIDEN! And why are the crimes always changing between quid pro quo, bribery, extortion? Again, no awareness those are 3 ways to describe the same act.
Sewell is up and asks about Vindman's policy portfolio and whether it requires him to maintain a relationship with Ukrainian officials. It does. His job was to coordinate US policy vis a vis Ukraine.
Ukrainians asked Vindman how to respond to Giuliani's advances. Vindman understood the advances to be the requests for the investigations into Burisma and Biden, and influence on the Ukraine government.
Sewell asks whose authority Giuliani was acting on? Vindman does not know. Sewell asks if the Ukrainians understood the meaning of the advances to be investigating Biden and debunking the 2016 conspiracy theories. Vindman says yes if debunking means casting doubt on Russia 2016.
Sewell asks Williams whether she thought the investigations were appropriate. She wasn't in a position to judge.
Sewell quotes Giuliani saying Trump is who he reports to and whose authority he's acting on. Is it fair to say Ukraine officials were concerned? Vindman says yes. They understood the political nature of what was being asked of them.
Vindman confirms he counseled the Ukrainians not to get involved in US politics. It was what he knew for a fact to be US policy. Sewell asks why it's important foreign nations don't interfere in the US? Vindman brings up 2016 Russian attacks and their impact, sanctions.
Sewell asks if it's normal for a non government citizen to get involved like Giuliani? Vindman doesn't know if it's normal but it wasn't helpful.
Turner goes over the fact that both witnesses advise on Ukraine, whether Vindman is the principal adviser to the ambassador and president. He says it was in his evaluation that way, but he doesn't call himself that now, only adviser to the ambassador.
Turner goes over the EU's interactions with the Ukraine, that the EU has embassies there, asks which ambassadors have a role there. Williams says the NATO, EU and Ukraine ambassadors all do.
Turner grills Vindman over whether he's met Trump. Vindman has not. Turner asks if Pompeo reports to Vindman? Vindman laughs and says no. Turner posits other absurd people who do not report to Vindman.
Vindman starts to explain who reports to him, Turner interrupts to ask if anyone needs his approval for Ukraine policy. Turner turns to Williams, asks if she knows if anyone lied to the committee. She has not read the transcripts and does not know. Vindman doesn't know either.
Schiff explains the definition of bribery, that it's a trade of an official act for a thing of value. They don't ask the witnesses if this crime was committed because they are fact witnesses. It is the House's job to decide if a crime occurred.
Carson asks about a July 10 meeting, when Sondland told them to deliver specific investigations. Did Vindman later learn why Bolton cut it short? He did. Was there a wardroom meeting after? Yes.
Carson asks if NSC lawyers told Vindman to report concerns. He confirms they did. After this meeting, Sondland left no ambiguity. And he was asking this in coordination with Mulvaney.
Vindman has never witnessed a request for an investigation of a political opponent before. He stated to Sondland that it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with natsec policy. He said the same thing to the NSC lawyers. He wasn't aware that Hill had a conversation with Bolton
Vindman is now aware that Bolton had that convo with Hill. Carson goes over the content of that. Carson says that's appalling and yields.
Schiff makes a note that when the matter turns to Judiciary, then the president can request witnesses and such.
Stewart goes over who were Vindman's superiors, and that he didn't go to Morrison, he went to counsel, was that chain of command? Vindman says he attempted to report it to Morrison, but he did not avail himself.
Stewart goes over prior testimony from Morrison, that Vindman went to Eisenberg instead of Morrison, and yet his direct report was to Morrison. Stewart asks if Vindman thinks he's the only one in the universe who can advise POTUS on Ukraine. Vindman says typically it's Bolton.
(Not sure if that was deadpan snark or genuine confusion about what Stewart is even asking.)
Stewart goes on about why Morrison wasn't who Vindman went to about his concerns, without giving Vindman a chance to actually answer why that had happened.
Stewart asks if Vindman insisted the word "demand" be put in the transcript? Vindman did not. Stewart says and yet he called it a demand today. He yields.
Speier asks if it's going outside the chain of command to talk to the lawyer? Vindman says no the lawyer is senior. Speier points out the witnesses are firsthand, were on the call. They confirm they were.
Speier asks if Vindman wants to expand on why attacks on officials are reprehensible. He says they stand on their own. Speier asks if they've noticed any changes since coming forward. Williams has not. Vindman has been excluded from meetings. He can't say if they're reprisals.
Vindman confirms he prepares talking points for calls that are reviewed by more senior people. The talking points did not contain anything about these investigations. He has never seen anything saying those are part of the official US policy.
Did official policy include asking Ukraine to open investigations into Biden or 2016? Vindman says nothing he's ever seen would suggest that. There are proper procedures to open a criminal investigation. It's not something an NSC director would do, they're prohibited.
Williams hasn't seen any references to these investigations in official policy materials either.
Stewart notes that Vindman is wearing his dress uniform, notes that Vindman asked Nunes to call him Lt Col instead of "Mister," and asks if he always insists on civilians calling him by his rank. Vindman talks about attacks he's gotten.
Stewart goes back to the language of "a favor" and that Vindman had said in military culture a request is an order. Stewart points out that neither Trump nor Zelensky were military members. So therefore is it fair to interpret it that way? Vindman sticks by his judgment.
Stewart says that's nonsense, military culture has favors, requests, and orders, and only Vindman interpreted it that way. Vindman says the context, including past calls, the president's attorney, and the press reporting, made it clear. Stewart says it does not.
Stewart quotes Vindman saying he thought this was wrong but didn't know if it was a crime. His concerns were moral, ethical, and policy concerns, not criminal concerns. Stewart says there are dozens of corrupt nations, yet Biden demanded only one prosecutor removed.
Stewart asks Vindman if Biden's actions in the video asking for the prosecutor to be removed was wrong. Vindman asks for clarification and doesn't know much more than anyone else about the video, he can't make a judgment off that.
Quigley goes over the favor being from the most powerful army in the world. Asks Williams whether she attended more meetings about the aid being withheld. She did, in July, in at least two maybe 3 meetings.
In the meetings, Williams says the OMB representative said it was withheld by the WH chief of staff. The reason given was that there was an ongoing review about whether it was still in line with admin priorities.
Quigley asks Williams if anyone discussed the legality of withholding the aid. State and Defense were looking at how to handle earmarked funding that continued to be withheld.
Williams did not know of anyone who supported withholding the assistance. Vindman learned on or about July 3 about inquiries into security funding. Around then OMB put a hold on congressional notification. Prior to that there were general inquiries, nothing specific, no holds.
Vindman was not aware of anyone in natsec who supported withholding the aid. No one from any department. The legality of the hold was raised on several occasions.
The legality of the hold was analyzed for a week and an opinion was rendered that it was legal to put the hold.
Stefanik says frenzied hysteria in the media doesn't change that the investigation never happened and Ukraine got the aid. She wants to talk about investigating corruption in Ukraine, and who has the decision making authority on that.
Both witnesses agree Zelensky was elected on anti-corruption. Both agree anti-corruption is a key aspect of US policy. Vindman is aware that there was a Burisma investigation.
Stefanik says her constituents have many concerns about Hunter Biden, and yet Schiff refuses to allow the committee to call Hunter Biden. Does Vindman agree it was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest? Both agree it has that potential.
Stefanic goes over more general anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. She wants the public to know about anti-corruption requirements. Moving on to javelins. They are very good tools. They were provided under Trump and not Obama. Vindman confirms.
Stefanik says she is very familiar with policy, and presidents set policy, not the staff. Vindman confirms. Stefanik was struck by Vindman says he was the authority for Ukraine for the NSC and White House. He reports to Morrison, correct? He says he advises up through the chain.
Swalwell follows up on Stefanik's questions, saying again it's for the viewers. Didn't DOD certify that the anti-corruption requirements had been met? Vindman confirms.
Swalwell goes over who had listened to the call or had the transcript. Goes over the use of the bribery word, and whether either witness is a lawyer. They are not, but Vindman's twin is.
Swalwell offers a hypothetical. Say someone was shot, and told the police who shot them and where. And the police say shucks, you didn't say "attempted murder" so we have to let the shooter go. Vindman says that doesn't sound right.
Swalwell going over the timeline of the calls, the VP's role, that he sometimes follows up after Trump calls. In this case he stuck to Trump's talking points.
Sept 1, Pence and Zelensky meet, but Pence did not bring up the Bidens. Is it reasonable that one explanation is that Pence was not willing to bring it up because he thought it was wrong? Williams is not in a position to know.
Neither Williams nor Vindman asked the Ukrainians to pursue the investigations.
Hurd asks if Williams heard any conversations about using the investigations for political gain, how they would be used for that? She did not.
Hurd asks Vindman if he prepared talking points for his supervisors, including Morrison. Vindman says not typically, also Morrison is not in the role anymore. Usually talking points are for higher ups than his direct report. They do not always use them.
Vindman acknowledges that it's not unusual for Trump to ignore talking points prepared for him. Vindman says it's accurate that there were no changes in the facts on the ground when the hold was lifted. Hurd goes over the timing of Zelensky & his parliament's seating.
Hurd talks about how the Ukrainians changed their constitution to remove immunity for legislators. Vindman was aware of that. Hurd asks isn't that a significant change? Vindman admits it is. Also, the new anti-corruption court was created, was that significant? It was.
Hurd asks how many times Vindman has met Zelensky. Never in a one-on-one, others were always there. Yet Vindman still advised him to watch out for the Russians? Yes. Was that pre-approved? Vindman doesn't recall.
Castro thanks the witnesses, says his twin made him grow a beard. Everyone laughs. Goes over the transcript of the call, the debunked conspiracy theory that even Trump's own DHS head called it "completely debunked".
Vindman is not aware of any evidence to support it. Furthermore, it is a Russian conspiracy theory. Vindman confirms Russia interfered. Castro finds it strange Trump would believe a conspiracy theory that helps Russia and hurts our national security.
Castro asks if the president was asking for a thoughtful anti-corruption program? Vindman says no. Castro asks isn't this the kind of thing we discourage in other countries? That is correct.
Castro asks if Vindman is aware of any evidence that Biden interfered to protect a family member. Vindman is not. Castro says these things are antithetical to who we are as a nation.
Castro asks what the danger is of a POTUS asking for political investigations. Vindman says the Ukraine judiciary's imperfect, and reliance on US support could cause them to tip the scales of justice, if they thought they needed to do that.
Ratcliffe asks Williams about what she thought was unusual on Trump's call, raising the issue of a "domestic political issue." Isn't raising an issue different to making a demand? She says yes. Did she hear a demand? She says refer to the transcript itself.
Ratcliffe says Vindman and Williams heard the same call, but only Vindman felt it was improper and reported it. Williams says she did report it, to her superiors.
Ratcliffe says the witnesses don't agree with each other on what happened on the call and therefore this evidence isn't compelling.
Jordan asks why Vindman didn't go to Morrison. Vindman says per the instructions from the July 10 incident he went to Eisenberg.
Vindman says Eisenberg told him not to tell anyone else. Jordan asks why he didn't go to Morrison anyway. Jordan says he talked to someone else, the whistleblower.
Jordan says Vindman told his brother and the whistleblower, but not his boss. Vindman says that's incorrect. The time expires. Vindman is allowed to finish: that sequence Jordan describes is not how it played out. He told them before Eisenberg asked him not to tell anyone.
Heck goes over Eisenberg instructing Vindman to come back with any concerns. Vindman confirms. Heck asks what Eisenberg's reaction was. Vindman says he said he'd look into it.
Vindman says he considered Eisenberg to have given him an instruction to come back to him. Clarifying the timing, Vindman spoke to several people before Eisenberg circled around to tell him not to tell anyone else.
Heck goes over whether Vindman considered leaving the service after being wounded. Vindman did not. He continued to serve in combat for the remaining months of the tour.
Heck brings up Trump pardoning war criminals against military advice. And now he's engaged in an effort to demean Vindman's service. Less than 20 minutes ago the White House officially quoted out-of-context comments about Vindman's judgment.
Heck says "thank you" doesn't cut it for Vindman's service, but he means it from the bottom of his heart, and says it on behalf of many Americans.
Jordan is off on a rant about Pelosi calling Trump an impostor. He says Democrats don't trust the American people and want to undo what the people decided in 2016, out to get him. More about the whistleblower.
Jordan calls this a coup, citing what he claims is the "whistleblower's lawyer." (They've been known to quote other lawyers at the same firm, misattributing the things.)
Jordan ranting more about Comey and Mueller, says they got nothing, so now we got this. Bunker of the basement, not allowed to expose the whistleblower. Says the whistleblower waited 18 days to file a complaint and accuses Schiff of coordinating with him during that time.
Jordan says the inquiry is sad, scary, and wrong, and the American people see through it and are on Trump's side. Runs through Stefanik's points a second time.
Jordan yields without a question. Welch is up, says the point of the hearing is whether what Trump did is improper. He heard Jordan's criticisms but no answer as to whether it was proper.
Welch goes over the background. We had two Ukraine policies, the longstanding bipartisan support policy to fight corruption and resist Russia. Vindman agrees.
Welch asks whether it's their understanding that Yanukovych stole millions when he fled. Vindman says yes. Welch points out it was a vast amount for a small country. Asks whether Ukrainians rose up. Vindman confirms.
Welch goes over the Revolution of Dignity, and Vindman points out over 100 people died. Welch says 106, including people shot by snipers. Yanukovych put snipers on roofs to slaughter young people. Vindman confirms.
Welch thanks the GOP for their prior support for helping Ukraine. The GOP, Sondland, Trump policy was not about that, it was about his opponent. Welch addresses Trump directly: you want to investigate? Go ahead, just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help your campaign.
Welch says we need to return to the Ukraine policy both Pelosi and McCarthy support, resisting Russian aggression.
Maloney says one advantage of being "at the kids table" on the dais is you get to hear others question first. He heard the GOP question Vindman's loyalty, use the old "dual loyalty" smear we've heard in history. Allegations with no proof.
Maloney brings up the GOP asking why he'd wear his dress uniform today. Maloney says anyone with those commendations gets to wear their uniform. Maloney asks Williams to confirm she heard the call, and it was unusual and inappropriate. She does.
Maloney asks Vindman to confirm he heard the call firsthand, he does. Vindman heard Trump bring up the investigation into the Bidens. His first thought was he couldn't believe what he was hearing, an element of shock, his worst fear for how Ukraine policy could play out.
Vindman reported what he heard on the call because it was his duty.
Maloney has Vindman re-read a portion of his opening statement in which he addressed his father, saying "do not worry" because he, Vindman, would be safe telling the truth.
Vindman says he doesn't fear the reprisals his father would have feared in another country, because this is America. The room applauds.
Demings speaks about talking to veterans, no words are sufficient to fully express our gratitude.
Demings asks why a strong and independent Ukraine is critical and vital to US interests. Vindman says Ukraine is a front line state, on the front line of Europe. Ukrainians consider themselves as a barrier between Russian aggression and Europe. They need US support for that role.
Demings points out this is not theoretical, Ukraine and Russia are in a hot war right now. Vindman says it's stable but still a hot war. Vindman agrees even the appearance of a shaky US-Ukraine bond could embolden Russia.
Demings brings up Putin joking about interfering in our elections. She says he's emboldened to do that by Trump trying to blame Ukraine instead of Russia for 2016 interference. She says Democrats trust the American people, and the people trust them to defend the US.
Krishnamoorthi is concerned about the smears against Vindman, that they're in part because Vindman is an immigrant. Goes over Fox statements about that, how his own family also immigrated when he was young.
Krishnamoorthi has Vindman go over his childhood memories about becoming American, the love of America, and says it's his story too. Vindman's father achieved the American Dream, and Krishnamoorthi says Vindman's family represent the best of America.
Krishnamoorthi chokes up a little, talking about how proud he is to be an American, and Vindman agrees he is proud too.
Krishnamoorthi goes back over the Solomon article and the false allegations from Lutsenko in it. Vindman confirms Lutsenko is not a credible source.
Krishnamoorthi going back over the power disparity, the pressure, that it was a demand. Vindman says the Ukrainians needed the meeting, needed the security assistance. He believes pressure was brought to bear on them.
Krishnamoorthi brings up Taylor's testimony about whether a military commander could use authority for personal profit Vindman agrees with Taylor about that, it would be court martial offense.
Questioning has concluded, Nunes begins his closing statement. He claims this is all poisoning the American people and damaging national institutions.
Schiff thanks the witnesses. He joins the colleagues in thanking Vindman for his service. Schiff asks if Vindman was aware Morisson went to Eisenberg as well? He is. Morisson too went to NSC counsel instead of his direct report.
Schiff reads a statement about Vindman from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commending Vindman as an officer. Schiff says the problem with the GOP claims is there's no evidence Trump wanted to fight corruption, he asked Ukraine to do something corrupt.
Schiff asks why Trump never mentioned corruption on the first call even though it was in his talking points? This is rhetorical. But the things Giuliani was pushing, those came up.
Schiff points out Trump doesn't bring up the anti-corruption court or the legislature, only the Bidens and Putin's debunked conspiracy theory. "So much for fighting corruption." Trump gave the opposite message to our official policy.
Schiff says the GOP laments that they got caught and had to release the money without getting the investigations. That the GOP claims a failed effort to extort is ok. It is no less odious because it was discovered and stopped.
Schiff thanks the witnesses for doing their duty to the country, not the person of the president. Schiff brings up the overheard restaurant phone call, where Sondland assured him they were going to do it.
Schiff goes over what Sondland told the staffer about Trump not giving "an expletive" about Ukraine. Ukraine's fight is our fight too, at least that used to be the bipartisan basis. Trump may not care about it, but congress does, Schiff says. The hearing adjourns.
This concludes the live tweet thread.
