>>> STAR WITNESS. LET’S PLAY HARDBALL.
GOOD EVENING.
GOOD EVENING. I’M CHRIS MATTHEWS IN
WASHINGTON.
WASHINGTON. POWERFUL NEW TESTIMONY FROM AN
ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL WHO
LISTENED LIVE TO THAT NOTORIOUS
JULY 25th CONVERSATION BETWEEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IT DELIVERS A STRIKING BLOW TO
THE PRESIDENT TODAY.
SHATTERING ONE OF HIS MAIN LINES
OF DEFENSE.
OF DEFENSE. IN A SWORN DEPOSITION HOUSE
INVESTIGATORS HEARD FROM
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER
VINDMAN, A DIRECTED IRAQ WAR
VETERAN WHO’S CURRENTLY THE TOP
UKRAINE EXPERT ON THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNSEL.
SECURITY COUNSEL. VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S DEMAND -- THAT’S HIS
WORD DEMAND DATES OF POLITICAL
DIRT FROM UKRAINE WAS SO
DAMAGING TO NATIONAL SECURITY
THAT HE HAD THE DUTY TO RELAY
HIS OBJECTIONS UP THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND.
COMMAND. MOST IMPORTANTLY HE’S THE FIRST
WITNESS TO HAVE LISTENED IN ON
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CALL WITH
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS
IT HAPPENED AND HE REACTED IN
REALTIME TO WHAT HE HEARD.
ACCORDING TO HIS PREPARED
REMARKS TODAY VINDMAN TOLD
CONGRESS THAT I DID NOT THINK IT
WAS PROPER TO DEMAND THAT A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN.
U.S. CITIZEN. AND HE EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS TO
THE NSC’S LEAD COUNSEL.
IN OTHER WORDS VINDMAN SHARED
THE CONCERNS THAT WERE FIRST
EXPRESSED BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
AND AS A FIRST-HAND EAR WITNESS,
IF YOU WILL, TO TRUMP’S CALL
WITH ZELENSKY HIS TESTIMONY
DEMOLISHES THE REPUBLICAN
ASSERTION THAT IT WAS THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER’S COMPLAINT THAT
SOMEHOW THE BASIS FOR THIS WHOLE
UNRELIABLE INFORMATION.
UNRELIABLE INFORMATION. >> THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SAID
TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT THE CALL,
BUT HE THEN -- I THEN FOUND OUT
HE WAS SECONDHAND IN OTHER WORDS
HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS ON THE
CALL.
CALL. >> THE FIRST WHISTLE-BLOWER IT
WAS HEARSAY.
WAS HEARSAY. SECONDHAND KNOWLEDGE.
SECONDHAND KNOWLEDGE. >> WE HAVE A THIRD PARTY WHO
WASN’T IN THE ROOM.
>> THIS PHONY WHISTLE-BLOWER IS
GIVING HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
>> IT’S ALL HEARSAY.
YOU CAN’T GET A PARKING TICKET
CONVICTION BASED ON HEARSAY.
>> A REPORT FROM A SECOND PERSON
WHO THINKS THEY HEAR SOMETHING,
AND THAT’S THE MOST YOU’VE GOT?
>> THAT’S THE MAIN LINE OF THE
DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT SAYING
IT WAS SECONDHAND.
IN HIS DEPOSITION TODAY COLONEL
VINDMAN ALSO DESCRIBED AN
EARLIER NSC MEETING WITH A
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, A MEETING ATTENDED BY
GORDON SONDLAND AMONG OTHERS WHO
WERE CARRYING OUT TRUMP’S AGENDA
IN UKRAINE.
IN UKRAINE. VINDMAN SAID SOMEONE STARTED
SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE DELIVERING
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER
TO SECURE A MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP. AT WHICH POINT AMBASSADOR BOLTON
CUT THE MEETING SHORT.
AFTERWARDS SOMEONE EMPHASIZED
THE IMPORTANCE THAT UKRAINE
DELIVER THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO
THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS
AND BURISMA, I STATED TO ENTERED
SONDLAND HIS STATEMENTS WERE
INAPPROPRIATE.
INAPPROPRIATE. THE STATEMENTS TO INVESTIGATE
BIDEN AND HIS SON HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
MEANWHILE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TODAY
RELEASED A RESOLUTION THAT
BRINGS THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
TO A NEW PUBLIC PHASE, THE FULL
HOUSE IS EXPECTED TO VOTE ON
THAT MEASURE THIS THURSDAY, TWO
DAYS FROM NOW.
I’M JOINED NOW BY A DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSMAN CHRISTMAS MORGTY OF
ILLINOIS, JOYCE VANCE A FORMER
U.S. ATTORNEY WHO’S PROSECUTED
CORRUPTION CASES -- LET ME START
WITH THE CONGRESSMAN.
A STAR WITNESS TODAY, A WITNESS
TO THE CONVERSATION.
WHAT MORE DO WE NEED?
>> WELL, YOU’RE RIGHT.
HE’S A VERY COMPELLING WITNESS.
HE’S CREDIBLE.
HE’S CREDIBLE. HE’S A PURPLE HEART AWARDEE.
AND HE’S DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO
SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY, AND HEZ
RISKING HIS CAREER BY COMING
BEFORE US TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE
WRONGDOING THAT HE WITNESSED.
AND AS YOU SAW IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT HE IS VERY SPECIFIC,
AND I FOUND HIM TO BE AS I SAID
VERY CREDIBLE TODAY.
ANOTHER IN A STRING OF CAREER
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE COMING
FORWARD WHO ARE APOLITICAL WITH
EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING.
>> HOW DOES HE CONFIRM THE
WRONGDOING ASPECT?
WRONGDOING ASPECT? HOW DOES HE CONFIRM THE
WRONGNESS OF TRUMP’S SHAKING
DOWN A FOREIGN LEADER FOR DIRT
ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> WELL, AS YOU SAID EARLIER HE
WAS ACTUALLY A WITNESS TO THE
PHONE CALL.
PHONE CALL. HE WAS ACTUALLY A PARTICIPANT ON
THE PHONE CALL.
BUT HE WAS ALSO A PARTICIPANT IN
CONVERSATIONS SURROUNDING THE
PHONE CALL.
PHONE CALL. AND SO YOU POINTED OUT IN HIS
OPENING STATEMENT HE TALKED
ABOUT A JULY 10th MEETING AT THE
WHITE HOUSE WHERE MR. VOLKER,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, RICK PERRY,
AS WELL AS JOHN BOLTON, FIONA
HILL AND OTHERS WERE PRESENT
WITH THE UKRAINIANS, WHERE
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID
ACCORDING TO HIS OPENING
STATEMENT THAT IN ORDER TO GET A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING YOU HAVE TO
DELIVER CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS.
AND THESE ARE BOGUS
INVESTIGATIONS, BUT THEY’RE
INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT THE
PRESIDENT POLITICALLY HERE IN
THE UNITED STATES FOR HIS
RE-ELECTION.
RE-ELECTION. THAT’S WRONG.
THAT’S WRONG. >> WELL, THE LAST POINT MAYBE
THE BIGGEST ONE IS HE USED THE
WORD DEMAND.
WORD DEMAND. HE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT IN
THE PHONE CALL OF JULY 25th WITH
ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE, HE HEARD THE PRESIDENT
DEMAND -- THAT WAS HIS VERB --
DEMAND DIRT ON JOE BIDEN.
HOW DO YOU TAKE THAT?
I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’RE ALLOWED
TO DIVULGE THAT OUR NOT BUT IT
MAY HAVE BEEN IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT.
STATEMENT. >> IT WAS IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT.
STATEMENT. FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON’T NEED A
QUID PRO QUO FOR THAT ALONE TO
BE ILLEGAL.
BE ILLEGAL. PRESSURING OR EVEN REQUESTING
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO
PARTICIPATE OR TO HELP IN
DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION EFFORT IS
ILLEGAL.
ILLEGAL. THAT BEING SAID HE DID USE WORDS
IN THE CALL TRANSCRIPT THAT
WOULD ALSO SUGGEST A QUID PRO
QUO.
QUO. AND OF COURSE THAT’S ILLEGAL AS
WELL.
WELL. SO MR. VINDMAN, COLONEL VINDMAN
WAS A FIRST PARTY PARTICIPANT TO
THE CALL AND COULD SPEAK
DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID AND
WHAT WERE THE ATMOSPHERICS FOR
THE CALL.
THE CALL. >> KATRINA, I WANT YOU TO COME
IN HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE
ATMOSPHERICS.
ATMOSPHERICS. HERE’S AN OFFICER OF THE U.S.
MILITARY ASSIGNED TO THE NSC
STAFF, HE’S LISTENING TO THE
PHONE CALL AND HEARS SOMETHING
HE THINKS IS REALLY WRONG BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
ALL THE WAY TO THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND, AND HE CALLS UP THE
COUNSEL TO THE NSC AND SAYS THIS
IS WRONG.
IS WRONG. WHAT’S THAT LIKE TO DO THAT?
>> WELL, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
THINGS THAT COME TO MIND.
FIRST, THAT IS NOT AN EASY THING
TO DO.
TO DO. IT IS NOT AN EASY THING TO GO TO
THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR AND REPORT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. ONE OF THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT I
HAVE IS WHAT DID THE COUNSEL DO?
HERE YOU HAVE LAWYERS -- I’M A
LAWYER, AND WE’RE NOTORIOUS FOR
TAKING METICULOUS NOTES, FOR
DOCUMENTING EVERYTHING WE DO
CERTAINLY IN A SITUATION LIKE
THIS.
THIS. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE
IS WHAT DOCUMENTATION DID HE
MAKE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT HE
RECEIVED, WHICH AGAIN WASN’T
JUST ONE COMPLAINT, THERE WERE
TWO.
TWO. THERE WAS A COMPLAINT AFTER THAT
INITIAL --
INITIAL -- >> AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER,
WHOEVER THAT IS, ALSO GOT THAT
WORD.
WORD. >> THAT’S RIGHT.
AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT FIONA HILL
RAISED CONCERNS.
RAISED CONCERNS. SO WHAT DID THE NSC COUNSEL
EISENBURG, AND TO EXTENT HE
DOESN’T HAVE RECORDS, WHY NOT?
>> I LOVE TELEVISION BECAUSE WE
COULD SHOW ALL THOSE TOADIES OUT
THERE STARTING AND ENDING WITH
LINDSEY GRAHAM ALL SAYING YOU
DON’T HAVE AN EYEWITNESS, AND
THEN WE HAVE AN EYEWITNESS TO
ALL THAT STUFF.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY’RE BASING
ALL THEIR GAME ON YOU CAN’T
TRUST THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BECAUSE
IT MIGHT BE A EMPTY TRUMPER OR
SOMETHING AND NOW WE’VE GOT A
WITNESS TO THE CONVERSATION WHO
COMPLAINED IN REALTIME.
DOESN’T IT KNOCK ALL THAT STUFF
OFF THE TABLE AS RELEVANT?
>> IT CERTAINLY LOOKS THAT WAY.
YOU HAVE NOW THIS LIEUTENANT
COLONEL WHO DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS
GETTING A PURPLE HEART BECAUSE
HE WAS SERVING HIS COUNTRY AND
ATTACKED AND WOUNDED.
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS
SERVING YOUR COUNTRY.
HE’S COMING TO THE UNITED STATES
TO SAY, LOOK, I HAD A REAL
PROBLEM WITH THIS AND I WENT TO
THIS PERSON TWICE AND I HEARD
THIS CALL AND IMMEDIATELY
THOUGHT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE DO,
THIS IS NOT IN THE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE ARE
REPUBLICANS REALLY THROWING A
LOT OF THINGS AT THE WALL AND
HOPING SOMETHING WILL STICK.
YOU THEN BEFORE THAT HAD THEM
SAYING THE PRESIDENT NEVER
PRESSURED UKRAINE, THE CALL CAME
OUT.
OUT. THEN THEY SAID MAYBE UKRAINE
DIDN’T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT WE
WERE DOING WHEN WE WERE HOLDING
UP THAT MONEY.
SO I THINK WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE
DOING NOW IS REALLY SAYING, WHAT
ELSE CAN WE DO TO TRY TO SHOW
THE PRESIDENT THAT WE’RE LOYAL
TO HIM?
TO HIM? BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING,
LOOK, REPUBLICANS YOU NEED TO BE
STRONGER.
STRONGER. BUT THIS IS IN SOME WAYS REALLY
FALLING APART BECAUSE WE’RE
SEEING WITNESS AFTER WITNESS NOW
COME FORWARD AND REALLY MAKE THE
CLAIM THIS WAS WRONG.
>> JOYCE, AS A U.S. ATTORNEY
YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THE OPIATES
CASE, A DRUG CASE.
THIS IS DEAL OPERATING OUTSIDE
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
BASICALLY BY THE THREE AMIGOS,
VOLKER AND PERRY AND THIS GUY
SONDLAND WHO’S A PAID -- WELL,
HE PAID FOR HIS AMBASSADORSHIP
TO THE EU.
HE WAS ONE OF THOSE GUYS.
AND NOW WE FIND OUT THEY HAD
THESE MEETINGS BEFOREHAND.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT SQUEEZING OR
SHAKING DOWN THIS UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. WE’VE GOT NOW A VOICE BASICALLY
RECORDING OF IT BY THIS
LIEUTENANT COLONEL WHO’S
LISTENING IN ON IT AND HE CAN
VERIFY THE CONVERSATION.
IN FACT REALTIME EVIDENCE HE
COMPLAINED ABOUT IT WENT TO THE
HIGHER UPS AND THE ATTORNEY TO
COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.
WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED IN A COURT
OF LAW TO SAY DONALD TRUMP IS
IMPEACHABLE?
IMPEACHABLE? >> I THINK WHEN LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDLAND TESTIFIES
PUBLICLY, WHEN THE COUNTRY CAN
HEAR FROM VINDMAN, IT WILL BE
ONE OF THOSE COMPELLING MOMENTS
WHERE THE COUNTRY WILL COME TO A
STOP AND PEOPLE WILL BE WATCHING
HIS TESTIMONY FROM TVs ALL OVER
THE COUNTRY.
THE COUNTRY. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS DEMOCRATS
HAVE FACED UP UNTIL NOW IS THAT
A LARGE PART OF THE COUNTRY HAS
SIMPLY IGNORED THE NARRATIVE.
IT HASN’T TOUCHED CLOSE ENOUGH
TO HOME.
TO HOME. BUT HEARING THIS DECORATED
MILITARY VETERAN TELL HIS STORY,
A REALLY ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE
MEMBER TELL HIS STORY WILL BE
COMPELLING.
COMPELLING. HE WILL BE CREDIBLE.
HE IS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS.
YOU ASKED WHAT MORE DO
INVESTIGATORS NEED TO BRING THIS
CASE HOME AND POINT OUT THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
ONE THING I WOULD CAUTION
AGAINST IS CUTTING OFF
INVESTIGATION TOO EARLY.
IT’S ALWAYS A DELICATE BALANCE,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? THERE’S ALWAYS A RUSH TO THE
FINISH LINE.
FINISH LINE. BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE
THOROUGH.
THOROUGH. YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE CRIMINAL
OR IN THIS CASE ABUSIVE CONDUCT
THAT YOU TOOK PLACE.
YOU DON’T WANT TO MISS KEY
WITNESSES AND YOU WANT TO BE
FAIR TO THE PERSON YOU’RE
INVESTIGATING AND ENSURE YOU GET
THEIR FULL STORY.
SO THIS ISN’T SOMETHING THAT CAN
COME TO A CONCLUSION IN 30 DAYS.
I THINK IT INEVITABLY HAS TO GO
AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, BUT
AT THIS POINT WE KNOW THE
STORY --
STORY -- >> WHOA.
>> WHOA. YOU THINK THEY WILL NOT VOTE ON
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT UNTIL
AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
YEAR?
YEAR? >> NO, I SUSPECT THAT THEY’LL
VOTE ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR,
CHRIS.
CHRIS. I DON’T THINK THAT WE’LL SEE A
TRIAL IN THE SENATE BEFORE THE