NUMBER ONE OF THESE? I SAID TALK TO THE LAWYERS.
CAN YOU GET TO THE LAWYER’S
OFFICE?
OFFICE? TALK TO THE LAWYERS.
TODAY WAS THE FIRST OF THE TWO A
DAY HEARINGS IN THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
PROCEEDINGS. I WILL JUST SAY AS A PERSONAL
OBSERVATION ALTHOUGH NOBODY
CARES WHAT I I THINK ABOUT THIS,
I WILL OBSERVE PERSONALLY THAT
TWO HEARINGS IN ONE DAY IS ONE
TOO MANY HEARINGS IN ONE DAY.
IT’S REALLY HARD TO ABSORB
INFORMATION AFTER THE FIRST
INTENSE SIX HOURS.
GOING FOR ANOTHER INTENSE FIVE
OR SIX OR SEVEN HOURS AFTER THAT
FIRST ONE, IT’S LIKE ADDING FIVE
MORE COURSES TO WHAT WAS ALREADY
A GIGANTIC FIVE-COURSE MEAL.
NO ONE’S GOING TO EAT THE WHOLE
THING.
THING. AND IF THEY DO, THEY’LL REGRET
IT.
IT. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY’RE GOING TO
STICK TO THESE TWO OR MORE
THINGS BUT IT’S A BAD IDEA.
JUST DO ONE IDEA.
IT’S ALL RIGHT.
THANKSGIVING IS COMING.
WE CAN WORK THROUGH THE HOLIDAY.
TO BE FAIR FOR THE REPUBLICANS
WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR BEST
IN THE HEARINGS TO MOUNT A
DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT AGAINST
THIS IMPEACHMENT, I AM SURE THAT
THE REPUBLICANS DIDN’T MIND THE
TWO A DAY THING TODAY.
I’M SURE THEY WERE VERY EXCITED
ABOUT GETTING THEIR WITNESSES
OUT THERE, THESE WITNESSES THEY
HAD INSISTED ON HEARING FROM.
BUT TODAY PROVED MORE THAN
ANYTHING THAT IT DOESN’T REALLY
MATTER WHAT YOU’RE HOPING TO GET
OUT OF THESE WITNESSES.
EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN CALLED IN
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THUS
FAR IS EITHER A REPUBLICAN
APPOINTEE OR A NON-PARTISAN
CAREER PERSON.
CAREER PERSON. OR SOME COMBINATION THEREOF.
IT DOESN’T MATTER.
IT’S NOT MAKING A DIFFERENCE
BECAUSE THEY’RE ALL FACT
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. AND THEY’RE ALL DESCRIBING WHAT
THEY SAW OF THE FACTS OF THE
PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR.
PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR. AND SO, YEAH, THEY’RE ALL
FLESHING OUT DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE STORY, BUT IT’S ONE SINGULAR
STORY ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID AND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT.
>> I FOUND THE JULY 25th PHONE
CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST
TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I
HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED
DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO
BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HEARD THE
CALL WITH YOUR OWN EARS, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT HEARSAY,
YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT SPEAK?
YOU HEARD HIS VOICE ON THE CALL?
>> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. >> AND YOUR CONCLUSION WHAT HE
SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE
BIDENS WAS IN YOUR WORDS UNUSUAL
AND INAPPROPRIATE I BELIEVE.
>> THAT IS MY TESTIMONY.
>> AND YOU WERE TREATED TO A
MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE
YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
CONDITIONING THE WHITE HOUSE
MING ON THAT, INVESTIGATIONS
THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE UNDULY
POLITICAL, I BELIEVE THAT’S HOW
YOU DESCRIBED THEM AND YOU WENT
TO THE NSC COUNCIL AND REPORTED
THEM RIGHT?
THEM RIGHT? >> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. >> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT FROM
SOMEBODY ELSE, NOT HEARSAY,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? >> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. >> YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT’S
VOICE ON THE CALL.
>> I DID.
>> I DID. >> AND YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THAT
SUBJECT AGAIN AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND HAD RAISED BEFORE ABOUT
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, RIGHT?
>> I DID.
>> I DID. >> AND I WANT TO ASK YOU WHEN
YOU HEARD HIM SAY THAT WHAT WAS
THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT WENT
THROUGH YOUR MIND?
>> FRANKLY, I COULDN’T BELIEVE
WHAT I WAS HEARING.
THERE WAS PROBABLY AN ELEMENT OF
SHOCK THAT MAYBE IN CERTAIN
REGARDS MY WORST FEAR OF HOW OUR
UKRAINIAN POLICY COULD PLAY OUT
WAS PLAYING OUT AND HOW THIS WAS
LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL
SKURTD
SKURTD SECURITY.
SECURITY. >> AND YOU WEPT IMMEDIATELY AND
REPORTED IT, DIDN’T YOU?
>> I DID.
>> I DID. >> WHY?
>> WHY? >> BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE
ALLEGATION TUESDAY SUPPORT THIS
NOTION THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
DID SOMETHING WRONG OR AGAINST
U.S. POLICY WITH REGARD TO
UKRAINE?
UKRAINE? >> I AM NOT.
>> MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU
FAMILIAR WITH ANY CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THELRY
AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
>> NO, I’M NOT.
>> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE
ASKED BY THE MINORITY COUNSEL
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS IN
THE JULY 25th CALL, AND WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS WERE
AMBIGUOUS.
AMBIGUOUS. WAS THERE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT’S USE OF THE WORD,
BIDEN?
BIDEN? >> THERE WAS NOT.
I WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTED TO COMMIT TO
INVESTIGATE TO INVESTIGATING THE
BIDENS, IS IT NOT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THAT IS ONE OF IT FAVORS THAT
YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE PROPERLY
CHARACTERIZED AS A DEMAND?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> JUST TO SUMMARIZE IN THIS
JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP
DEMANDED A FAVOR OF PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT
INVESTIGATIONS THAT BOTH OF YOU
ACKNOWLEDGED WERE FOR PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT
THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
AND IN RETURN FOR HIS PROMISE OF
A MUCH DESIRED WHITE HOUSE
MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
COLONEL VINDMAN IS THAT AN
ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE EXCERPTS
WE JUST LOOKED AT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> MS. WILLIAMS?
>> YES.
>> YES. >> JUST TO SUMMARIZE, YES.
YES.
YES. TURNS OUT IT DOESN’T MATTER IF
THEY ARE THE WITNESSES WHO THE
REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY WANT OR
THE WITNESSES WHO THE DEMOCRATS
WANT, ALL THESE WITNESSES,
THEY’RE ALL NON-PARTISAN
MILITARY OFFICERS OR CAREER
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OR
CAREER NATIONAL SECURITY
PROFESSIONALS OR EVEN, YES,
REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES, TRUMP
APPOINTEES.
APPOINTEES. BUT REGARDLESS, THEY’RE ALL
TELLING THE SAME STORY.
THEY ARE ALL FACT WITNESSES TO
THE SAME BEHAVIOR BY THE
PRESIDENT FOR WHEN THE PRESIDENT
IS BEING IMPEACHED.
AND WE’RE GOING TO TALK MORE IN
JUST A FEW MINUTES ABOUT THE
REMARKABLE TESTIMONY OF
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER
VINDMAN TODAY AND THE ATTACKS ON
HIM FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
WHICH WERE SORT OF
MIND-BOGGLING.
MIND-BOGGLING. I FEEL THAT’S ALMOST A SEPARATE
MATTER FROM THE CORE FACTUAL
ISSUES OF THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS KIND OF AMAZING.
WHAT HE SAID ON CAMERA TO HIS
DAD, DAD, DON’T WORRY, DAD, YOU
MADE THE RIGHT DECISION BY
EMIGRATING TO US TO THIS COUNTRY
AND RAISING US HERE AS
AMERICANS, THEY WON’T HURT ME
FOR TELLING THE TRUTH HERE, I’LL
BE FINE, IT WAS JUST GUTTING.
I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO
SEE THE HEARINGS LIVE.