tv Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hearing on Evidence in Impeachment... CSPAN December 10, 2019 1:21am-4:58am EST
[inaudible conversations] as me were engaging in questioning the witnesses under the five minute rule. >> i have unanimous consent request. >> we enter into the record that pfizer application of the fbi crossfire. >>. >> me will take that under advisement hopefully we will grant that later so i thank
you very much mister chairman that the ranking member mister collins relative to the telephone company subpoenas to include certain information in the majority report from the intelligence community. there are two issues involved in one is not involved in word it is fully authorized under the law and procedures but where i do have a problem is ace fact that somebody made a decision to attach the metadata to the subpoena of phone numbers of journalists and members of congress that
is the beginning of the absolutely outrageous with the freedom act of 2013. >> had chairman schiff decided to man up rather than hiding behind mister goldman and his team of investigators we could've gotten to the bottom of this to make sure that this never happens again. i do not want to see members of congress with their subpoena power without any type of cause and then to go the next step to publish the
results in a report that is an abuse of power here we see a clear abuse of power on the part of the people that gives the president ofeo united states they should be ashamed of themselves. >> first getting into politics as a teenager i met mccarthy twice. you made joe mccarthy look like the piper with what you have done with the electronic surveillance. that something has to be put a stopve to now.
it has to be fessed up to now whether you mister goldman that authorized that obligation or chairman schiff. i would love to put chairman schiff under oath so he could be required to answer the same way you have mister golden and then to curtail the patriot act which i authored with the freedom act which i also and that the surveillance state can get out of control. this is a major step to get out of control in the hands of the congress and the majority party that wants to influence political decisions relative to politicians and in this case president trump that they
don't like and they haven't liked him from the beginning of his term. they try to talk about impeachment since the beginning of his term. they thought the mueller report would be the smoking gun. ended up being a fiasco now they are working on this the violation of common sense the precedent that they have started to look at the way the chairman has conductedonns this hearing today and in the previous hearings not even to make a point of order that they cannot see what you put on the screen goes against the entire fabric of american democracy. shame on those who have done it and if we want to get back to something objective maybe it's time to push the reset button i yield back. >> can i respond quickly.
>> mister chairman i yield back. i did not ask him a question. >> yields back. >> let's get to the facts again. during the phone conversation julyiz 25th the president was narrowly focusing on his own political survival using public office for private and political gain the truth matters that we heard counsel for the republican say the president is concerned about foreignth aid. you can kiss it goodbye assuming that is referring to anticorruption. look at the facts of the r julyh call i read it just recently it sharply illustrates the president's willingness to abuse the power of his office for his own personal benefit. the memorandum of that call is on the screen in front of you
and it shows president trump says, by the way right after president zelensky talked about the defense report and the javelin i would like you to do us a favor. this is the all presidents words what was that favor? >> to investigate a conspiracy theory related to ukraine interference in the 2016 election. >> receiving evidence for multiple witnesses that president trump would provide specific talking points in preparation for the july 25th call here is for protecting the american people is that correct?op >> as part of the official us policy of national security efforts. >> those talking points were
helping the president communicate official policy is that right? >> that is correct it's a routine process the national security council does but the president can use them or not use them they are not required to use them but what is so startling here that not only he veeredem off that went to his own personal interest. >> it's fair to say from a given call clarksburg witnesses testify the talking points from the call included recommendation to continue to promote anticorruption which was a focus of american policy in europe so to be clear those talking points created was to discuss specific matters that protect the american people. is that accurate? >> yes but the president
director for europe testified about what was not in the talking points. >> where these references to the server in 2016 election and to vice president biden and his son included in the talking points? >> they were not. >> are you aware of any witnesses that have testified objective us official policy. >> it was not before or after. >> anything that might have occurred that was found with respect to the former vice president? > every witness said there is no factual basis. >> so official talking points were not used. >> correct. >> and that would be confirmed that. >> do you hear the president requesting an anticorruption program consistent with ust
policy? >> we recommended the president very clearly supports what president zelensky had what they had run on its election. >> that did not come up in the call. >> no sir i did the evidence prove using the public trust to accomplish these goals to hurt his opponent. >> as of the evidence showed. >> america's values of democracy and the vital pillars ofe truth and trust a former judge said in 1998 the truth matters it is clear the president really did not care about fighting corruption in ukraine but his own personal interest to be consideredtt that arputs perspective to ambassador
sondland that they did not care if ukraine actually investigated or if they just announced that it is certainly well known it is our duty under the constitution to pursue the truth that is ournt heduty we are now proceeding to do our duty to find the truth. thank you mister chairman. >> the gentle lady yieldsfi bac. >> this is the second hearing on impeachment this committee has held in the last week. i would submit you are investigating the wrong guy. look at the facts mister castor ukraine has been at the center of attention with the impeachment hearing historically is one of the world's most corrupt nations. >> that's correct. >> under legislation that congress passed the national defense authorization act it is the president's
responsibility and his duty to see us tax dollars do not go to ukraine unless they were making progress to reduce corruption. is that correct. >> that's right. >> is a true joe biden's son hunter had placed himself right in the middle of that corruption? >> yes he did burisma is one of the most corrupt companies in ukraine. on contrary to what house democrats and the media would have you believe the concerns about hunter biden's involvement with ukrainian corruption is not a vast right-wing conspiracy but in fact the concern about hunter biden was first raised by the obama administration. >> that's right and also the washington post and a lot of publications and the state department. >> the obama's administration's concerns did not end there the former ambassador to ukraine said she was coached by the obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related
to hunter biden that might arise during her senate confirmation process because the state department was so concerned they gave her a mock q&a on this question. nearly every single witness who testified at thee intelligence inquiry agreed hunter biden created at the very least a conflict of interest is that correct. >> correct the deputy assistant secretary testified there was an investigation into burisma and they were trying to track down 23 million working with the unitedto kingdom and ukraine was working on tracking the money down and there was an active investigation going on the
bribe was paid and allowed them to get off scott free right around that time is when burisma went about sprucing up their board shall we say and yet all that evidence the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairmanships and now here are determined to sweep that under the rugom and ignore it not let us call witnesses on instead rush to impeach the president to satisfy the radical left wing base and what a disservice to theth country you have the vice president joe biden in charge of overseeing the ukrainian policy, and his son receiving 50 grand a month with no expertise of energy or ukraine but the democrats will not let us present witnesses so let's do the next best thing let's watch a couple of videos. >> you didn't have any extensive knowledge of natural gas or ukraine itself.
>> no. >> why are you on that board? >> i think it is impossible for me to be on any board without being the vice president. >> if your last name was not biden would you be asked? >> probably not i don't du kno. >> joe biden got a little testy last week calling him a liar challenging him to push up contest falsely stating once again nobody said there was anything wrong with his sons deal inel ukraine. that's a lot of malarkey a lot of people have been saying it for quite a while and they are right. what's worse is first the intelligence committee and now this committee are conducting impeachment investigations against president trump based
on weak or thin evidence to ignore evidence of a high level us official who did engage in a quid pro quo and confessed to that in this video. >> you're not getting a libillion dollars and the prosecutors not fired you're not getting the money. well son of a pitch. [laughter] >> you're after the wrong guy mister chairman. >> i would like to bring us back to this president not the next on the july 25 call the president's abuse of office for his benefit and no one else's as my colleague confirmed the president's request for these investigations was not an objective of us foreign policyy. >> that's right any evidence
the nsc wanted the investigation into the bidens or burisma or any ukrainian interference? >> state department? >> no. >> dod? >> no evidence. >> did any witness tell you they wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens of the 2016 election? >> no. >> they did not want it either they made it very clear they didn't want to be a part of domestic policies the only person that is the beneficiary as president trump. that's why everyone on the july 25 called knew it was wron wrong. the investigative committee heard testimony from three witnesses who participated inca that call in that call even in real time the witnesses testified they were concerned by the call. >> yes. >> and lieutenant colonel
immediately reported the call to legal counsel. >> that's right. >> why did they do so? >> they did it for separate reasons lieutenant kurt mole on - - kernel than men said it was improper miss morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if it was released because of the substance and the political nature. >> they reported the call as the internal legal channels. the lieutenant colonel's testimonyy my correct his concern was based on the fact the president was asking afford power to investigate a us citizen. >> yes he was not really want to express that concern to make he also reported this because he thought it was part of his duty he felt something wasoo wrong.
>> yes the lieutenant colonel is purple heart award winner metal winner from iraq and has been in the department of defense 20 years and has a great sense of duty to this country and felt compelled to follow that sense of duty and report it. >> and it was also testified it was unusual and inappropriate. >> that's right so when the vice president got involved the european union imf germany and france and said do something about corruption that was okay because they were doing something for the common good of a bunch of people distinguished from something here doing it for their personal good. >> right there is a distinction between an official act for a purpose or personal purpose if i could just respond to something mister castorfi said.
when he said there were problems because there was a bribe to the head of burisma to get under the prosecution that is exactly the type of conduct that vice president biden wanted to shut down in ukraine. that is exactly that non- anticorruption policies the vice president was objecting to using the official policy with that's one of the reasons but that is the type he and others. >> we have to understand doing something for national good common good and international good and your own good we have to get that across and those witnesses were clear they thought it was wrong to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival. >> to investigate the vice president of the united states someone who is a us official we should be asking foreign governments to do that.
i would also say that's true it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a us citizen and a political opponent. >> it was an appropriate we said that in real time. >> our holding up a security assistance to go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia no good policy reasons no national security reason. >> and we will check that conduct we are in the people's house. >> i have some questions for the witness he had subscribed it it is interesting to hear mister goldman refused to answer a question about the
investigationgo yet the very reason he wants to see the president for the first time and didn't answer questions. so it would be time to have position but that's only if we apply his own standards if it weren't for double standards some of them were not have standards at all. but also from the beginning we would hear lawyers present evidence. now what normally happens i have been in some kangaroo hearings i have been mistreated in hearings before but i have never seen anything like this and have the lawyers come in what we are supposed
to know about those witnesses and the testimony this is outrageous in 41 years mister sensenbrenner has never seen anything like what we have going on here to oust a sitting president. and it's also outrageous to hear people say and then could do anything they wanted whether or not they fired mueller of course he could. he could fire him or not fire him to appoint a special prosecutor i think he should have but that is his prerogative to do anything about that if you take it out of context. let me tell you a king is
someone who says over 20 times i can do that congress has to change a lot of immigration. i have a pen and a phone i will do whatever i want and he does. and he makes new law with a pen and a phone that is more like a monarchy not somebody saying they can fire a special prosecutor. and the constitution itself says you have to have two witnesses that's not hearsay nothing that would be admissible with a deep support but to the direct evidence witnesses to be positively identified themselves and actually be witnessess to treason they come in here toss treason out in a report like it's no big deal.
and then we have the lawyers testify it is so absurd. and we're told he will be a witness that's why he doesn't have to follow the rules of decorum and i have never seen this, he can come up and growth as opponents the adversary witness i feel to be fair mister test should girl mister burke. but this isn't about fair. the kangaroo system and those that think i've done something special and you have set the bar so low it is irreparable. and then to mention the next president all we have to do is
eliminate donald trump's name into but joe biden's name on their and admitted to the crime that is being wasted on the president improperly. i'm scared for my country. and to get out where we have rules and have nothing of the kind it is outrageous we are the presidentve with a kangaroo court like this and i yield back. >> let me clarify treason is not in our report. >> i yield back. >> it is mentioned in the report we got thank you very much i yield back. >> just to get us back to the undisputed facts of the
president's abuse of power, mister goldman prosecuting drug conspiracy cases with the drug kingpins and tried to distance themselves from the conspiracy to blame the conferences for the crime. >> all the time. it has different layers in the top layer makes the bottom layer do the work so they are removed from the actual conduct. >> and what ambassador bolton referred to as a drug deal. >> with the intelligence committee with respect to ukraine rudy giuliani was on behalf of president trump. >> yes he said that president trump said that to a number of other individuals and t10
ambassador voelker. >> and rudy giuliani spoke with a new york times reporter about his trip to ukraine and on that trip he planned to meet with president zelensky and urge him to pursuele investigations to that debunked theory that ukraine and not russia interfered with the 2016 election. >> and mister giuliani said it's not about officialt' us policy and the information he sought would be very helpful to his client for president trump. >> is not official foreign policy but with a personal
interest. >> no doubt investigations of the bidens and the meddling were in fact were not about us policy with the reelection. >> even ukrainians realize that. on july 25th president trump place that phone call to president zelensky. >> and then the president told zelinski i will have mister giuliani give you a call. >> on october 2nd and octobe october 3rd that they were intent on making these investigations happen. >> we have been investigating
corruption and the 2016 election and it's a very simple answer. 's the evidence shows the president and his agent. >> and long after our investigation. >> it is a common plan. >> it shows a common goal. >> it was to get help through the elections act that's what all the election on - - witnesses said. >> thank you mister goldman. the ambassador called it ar drug deal and as a kingpin the president try to force a foreign government to interfere in the upcoming
presidential election. it is undisputed and overwhelming that rudy giuliani acted as part of a conspiracy to obtain help for president trump in 2020 election. this was not just a hurtful drug deal but the attempt to undermine the very fabric of our democracy and the framers feared how an influence can turn a president to adopt impeachment as a backstop to protect ourey democracy. and to use that remedy and i yield back. >> with the august 12 whistleblower complaint on page one he says over the past four months more than half a
dozen us officials who are officials quex. don't know. >> we never got to talk to the whistleblowers we have to figure out before the basis of theed complaint adam schiff got to adam schiff knows who he is and with those six people and 17 depositions the lawyer doing the work. >> and there is one witness who is that? >> ambassador sondland.
he said an 11 times more than the lieutenant colonel who was on the call and that first star witness of the intelligence committee they relied on ambassador sondland. >> as because the best they got. >> he had to file the clarification who sat in the same chair and instead of less president zelensky announces the bidens and burisma there be no call in a meeting for security assistance money going to ukraine that is what ambassador sondland said was there an announcement by president zelensky about the bidens over burisma?bout the >> no.
>>. >> and also from the united states. and then that's it they built the case around. >> they built that around a lot of hearsay is called hearsay surprisingly enough with ambassador sondland you built a case around hearsay and this is an example around ambassador sondland because he filed the addendum and this in bullet point number two, and his clarification mister morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mister, morrison on a septembet
with the meeting with president zelensky. that is his clarification. that i told him and that i told him that i told him with a meeting with president zelensky. so-and-so tell somebody when someone so when somebody else so forget the fact there is no quid pro quo. >> and then to do nothing to get the aid release. >> and to build the case with
that testimony. >> mister goldman. >>. >> today published phone records that i did the democrats publish phone records. >> yes. >> did the democrats also happen to be your bosses political opponent they run this kind of investigation to ignore theon facts not letting the whistleblower come in more than half a dozen original sources in the first place to file an addendum with that clarification but one thing they did do in their report they publish phone records for the personal lawyer and the phone t records of the chairman of intelligence committee
political opponent to that is what they did and that is their effort 11 months before the election. >> your time is expired. >> it is the abuse of power. >> i ask unanimous consent standing on impeachment talks about treason and bribery. >> thank you. getting back to the facts of the president's abuse of power with the white house as leverage with the political e president trump offered president zelensky a meeting in the white house but
first with a conspiracy theory about meddling in the election you testified the committee found evidence to exchange official actions for personal benefit. a delegation of officials in that briefing president trump directed government officials to work with his personal lawyer. and then they made the choice to work with g giuliani or abandon the goal of a white house meeting. which wasted the make quex. h> they decided to work with mister giuliani. and then america stood with
ukraine and visited president zelensky into the white house. >>. >> but he expected that meeting. >> that someone testified if there is a prerequisite that the nsc staffer testified someone told the ukrainians in the july 10th meeting that investigation of the bidens was a deliverable and necessary.
administration officials that zelensky was, quote, prepared to receive potus's call and would offer assurances about the investigations, isn't that right? >> yes. >> and on that same day, state department official volker had breakfast with rudy giuliani and he reported to sondland by text message. most important is for zelensky to say he will help investigation, right? >> yes. and address any specific personnel issues. >> right. and later that day, after giuliani spoke with yermak, evidence suggests that giuliani gave a green light to that july 25th call. then on the morning of the call, volker texted zelensky aide yermak and that text to his aide said, and i quote, heard from
white house, assuming president "z" convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a visit, a date for visit to washington. and the transcript released by president trump shows trump requested investigating and zelensky agrees, isn't that correct? >> yes. and that text message was actually a direction, a message relayed from president trump himself. >> and then after the july 25th call, members of the administration continued to follow-up with the ukrainian counterparts to prepare for the announcement of investigations. they contacted sondland noting that potus really wants the deliverable. now it's just one of many messages during a flurry of follow-up activity, there were meetings and calls and texts on july 26th and july 27th and august 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, august tenth, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, mr. goldman on
august 16th, seven toonth, and august nine teeth, isn't that correct? >> yes, including to secretary pompeo as well. >> these are government officials who work for us. instead, they were working hard to help the president advance his personal political interests, isn't that what you found, mr. goldman? >> that's right. >> this isn't a close call. we had a ukrainian president at war with russia desperate for a white house meeting. the president promised a white house meeting. but then he blocked the oval office. he blocked it and said i need a favor. not a favor to help america, a favor to help me get re-elected. our framers feared one day we would face a moment like this. they gave us an impeachment -- they gave us impeachment as i safety valve not to punish the president, but to defend our elections and our constitution and that's what we must do. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. buck. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. cass cast irrelevanor, i wa direction your attention to page 3. president trump states i would like you do us a favor, though, because our country been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find bought happened with this whole swaution with ukraine. i would like to have the attorney general call you and your people and i would like you to get to the bottom of it. the majority report on page 13 says, the u.s. intelligence community had unanimously determined that russia, not ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of president trump. mr. castor, there appears to be a conflict there. president trump is asking the ukraine to investigate something the majority has decided that it's an illegitimate request because there was no
interference in an election by the ukraine. is that how you read this? >> yes. >> and the press release from the majority on their report says, as part of this scheme, president trump acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust personally and directly requested that the president of ukraine that the government of ukraine publicly announce investigations into subsection two a baseless theory promoted by russia alleging that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 u.s. election. is that true? >> yes. >> and, mr. castor, i want to ask you something. have you seen this article from "politico" dated january 11th, 2017? >> yes, i have. >> and the title of that article is ukrainian efforts to the saba tajh trump backfire. is that correct? >> yes. >> i want to read you the second paragraph. ukrainian government officials tried to help hillary clinton
and undermine trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. they also disseminated documents impla indicating top trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election. and they helped clinton's allies research damaging information on trump and his advisers. a "politico" investigation found. isn't it true that president trump had a legitimate reason to request help from the ukraine about the 2016 election? and i'm not suggesting for a minute that russia didn't interfere, of course they interfered. but the ukraine officials tried to influence the election? >> yes. >> let's move on to ambassador sondland. i only have ten fingers and ten toes so i can't count above 20, mr. castor. but do you know how many times ambassador sondland said that he did not know, did not recall, had no recollection, had limited memory or failed to remember something in his october 17th
testimony? you know how many times? 325. does that surprise you? 325. >> big number. >> and then files a clarifying statement and he clarifies a few things, i guess. but did you have any -- do you have any contact with ambassador sondland between the time of his deposition and the time of his clarifying statement? >> no. >> did the majority. >> i have no idea. >> you have no idea. so they may have had influence on his testimony? >> i -- >> and that would be evidence of bias, that would be evidence of credibility, that would be evidence that we should take into account before. but we'll never know, will we? because the majority counsel has a right to assert a privilege, as to information that's relevant to this committee's decision. the majority counsel has a right to assert a privilege in any communications he has with the chairman adam schiff, doesn't
he? >> yeah. >> as does minority counsel. that's a privilege that we reserved near congress, isn't it. >> yeah. >> and the same thing is true of foya, the freedom of information act does not apply to memos that majority counsel writes, isn't that true? >> correct. >> so we've -- we've demanded of that the executive branch, but we have allowed ourselves not to be part of foia, correct? >> correct. >> okay. so the majority has a privilege. the president also has a privilege, it's called executive privilege. he can meet with the secretary of state and that's a privileged conversation. he can meet with the secretary of defense, that's a plachblingd conversation. he can meet with the secretary of energy, that's a privileged conversation. now, when the majority has subpoenaed those witnesses and the president has refused to produce those witnessors relevant documents or what they consider relevant documents, they are charging him with an article of impeachment for obstruction. in fact, their report says president obstructed the impeachment inquiry by
instructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas. why? >> gentleman's time has expired. ms. bass. >> mr. goldman, i want to pick up on the president using the powers of his office. in this case at a meeting at the white house to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rival. now that you've had time to step back from the investigation, is there any doubt that the president did, in fact, use a white house visit to pressure president zelensky to announce investigations of his political rival to benefit his re-election campaign? >> i will answer that question in a minute, but i would like just to comment to mr. buck that the majority staff and no one had any contact with ambassador sondland after his deposition. but the answer to your question is, yes, ms. bass. >> my colleague, mr. deutsche, mostly focused on the period prior to the july 25th call. i'd like to focus on the period after. following the call, did president zelensky come to the white house for a meeting? >> no, he's never come to the
white house. and several witnesses, multiple witnesses said that there's a huge distinction between a white house meeting and a meeting on the sidelines of the u.n. general assembly where they did meet on september 25th. >> so has a white house meeting been scheduled? >> no. >> so did the president and his associates essentially continue to withhold the white house meeting and, if so, why did they do that? >> well, the evidence found that the white house meeting was conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. and so once in mid-august when the ukrainians, mr. yermak and president zelensky, decided that they were not going to issue that statement that rudy giuliani wanted to include burisma and the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. it soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. >> well, following the 25th call, the july 25th call,
ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky, wasn't that right? >> yes. and the report state that they worked closely and then there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they were working closely. >> do you know what that statement was supposed to say, according to mr. giuliani and the u.s. officials? >> well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma, which equaled the biden investigation and the 2016 ukraine interference. >> but was there a concern about doing the investigations or what? were they just supposed to make a statement about it, what? >> ambassador and is leerily testifi sondland clearly evidence that all he heard them say was they only needed the public announcement of the investigations. >> so did the committee find without that public statement that there would be no white house meeting?
>> yes. >> so i was struck by how clear the evidence seems dob to be ons point and i'd like to play another example. >> was there a quid pro quo? >> as i testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. >> mr. goldman, did the investigative committees find that mr. giuliani played a role on the white house visit being conditioned on investigations. >> it showed that he not only played a role, but he was the president's agent. he was acting on behalf of the president, expressing the president's wishes, desires and -- >> so what -- what evidence did the committee find that corroborated the quote, everyone was in the loop? >> well, ambassador sondland produced for his public testimony, i think it's very important in light of the testimony from mr. castor a
minute ago with mr. buck as to how many times that mr. sondland did not remember in his deposition. we agree, it was egregious. but the advantage of doing closed depositions is that mr. sondland could not match up his testimony. so as other witnesses came in, then he realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff. so did he admit to -- to an email that included pompeo, mulvaney -- >> dwient to make a point before my time goes out. we have to think about what's going on today. president zelensky is meeting with putin today. and because of president trump's actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with the leader of the nation that invaded his country. if our military assistance had been provided as congress ordered it and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. if you want the support -- what is we are to realize is that the
message that sends to our allies and to our standing in the world, if you want the support of the united states, be prepared to help with president trump's re-election. president trump's abuse of power has injured our nation. >> thank the chairman. the 299-page democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson on pages 26, 33, 138, 140, and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019, transcribed interview of the inspector general michael atkinson, correct? >> yes. >> on pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the inspector general's testimony confirms the following: that the whistle-blower made statements to the inspector general under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. that the whistle-blower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct.
the whistle-blower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the inspector general's investigative team. because of the whistle-blower's statements in writing and verbally to the inspector general that were neither true, correct, or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that sworn testimony reveal that the inspector general was not able to answer any questions, none, from me about the whistle-blower's contact or communication with chairman schiff's staff of which mr. goldman is a member. mr. castor, do you remember anywhere in this 299-page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistle-blower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing and then did so again verbally? >> i don't remember that. >> after the inspector general testified on october 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistle-blower and
chairman schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistle-blower contacted the inspector general to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct, and accurate. mr. castor, is that communication from the whistle-blower -- from the whistle-blower to the inspector general to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299-page report? >> no. >> on october 2nd, chairman schiff's spokesman patrick bowlland acknowledge back uply that the outlines of the whistle-blower's accusations against the president had been disclosed to the house intelligence staff and shared with chairman schiff. mr. castor, is that disclosure and mr. bollen's admission
anywhere in this report? >> i don't remember seeing it. >> it's not. i think all members of congress should be held accountable in this impeachment process. so that end if i have made any false statements to the whistle-blower or the inspector general, thin should be held accountable. the way to do that would be to release the inspector general's testimony or even just pages 53 to 73. i would add that there's nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistle-blower's identity, nor would it reveal any information that in any way relates to, much less jeopardizes national security. look, maybe there's a believable explanation for why the whistle-blower made statements that weren't true or accurate about his contact or her contact with chairman schiff in writing and then again verbally. maybe there's a good explanation for why the words congress or congressional committee was confuse organize not cle
confusing or not clear to the whistle-blower. maybe there's a good explanation for why he misled the inspector general in writing on august 12th by stating i reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly when the whistle-blower had, in fact, already contacted chairman schiff's committee two weeks before he or she wrote that. maybe there's a believable reason why chairman schiff was not initially truthful about his staff's communications with the whistle-blower. maybe there's a good reason that explains all of these statements in writing and verbally that just weren't true and correct. maybe there is. but there is no good reason for voting to impeach and remove from office an american president without allowing a single question to be asked of a single witness to get an explanation for why the inspector general was not told the truth about contacts between the whistle-blower and chairman schiff. the bottom line is, we should all be held accountable and next november every member of the house will be asked this question. did you vote to impeach the president without allowing any
investigation into why the whistle-blower that started it all did so by making statements in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true? democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered, but the voters will. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. richmond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. goldman, i want to start off with facts and that you all uncovered through the course of your investigation. and i want to pick up where my colleagues mr. deutsche and ms. bass left off. they walked us through how the president used the white house visit to apply pressure on ukraine to do his personal bidding. i want to talk about how the president did the same thing with almost 400 million taxpayer dollars to pressure ukraine do his personal bidding. so i'd like to start with turning back to the july 25th call. it's a fact that in the
president's own words and the transcript submitted by him reveals that after you crane asked for military aid, trump says, i would like you to do us a favor, though. >> after president zelensky thanks president trump for the military sentence, then president trump asks for a favor. and of course by this point president trump had already placed the hold on the security assistance. >> now, my republican colleagues have suggested that the ukrainians did not even know about the military aid being withheld. is that true? >> no. there was significant evidence that even as early as july 25th at the time of this call that ukrainian officials had suspected that the aid was being withheld and there was a "new york times" article last week that wasn't included in our report, but from the former foreign -- deputy foreign minister who said that they -- that ukraine -- the president zelensky's office received a
diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of july 25th saying that the aid had been held. >> correct. and what i also show you on the screen is that it was on july 25th also, the same day of the call, that the state department emailed the department of defense noting that the ukrainian embassy was asking about the withheld military aid. >> yes, that's what i was referring to. >> i'd like, then, to -- let's go back. there was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that mr. sandy from omb said that the reason for the security assistance hold was related to the president's concerns about burden sharing with europe. is that consistent with the evidence that you all uncovered? >> so it's a good question because mr. sandy did say that. but notably, mr. sandy said that he only heard that in early september. that that reason was never provided to him or anybody else before early september for the
first two months of the hold. and, of course, it was given at that point as this -- the gig was up, so to speak. >> so that was after everything came out to light? >> it was -- he wasn't sure of the timing, but he was ultimately told that the reason for the hold after of it was lifted was for that reason. but that's, you know, i think an after the fact excuse based on our evidence. because no other witnesses were ever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record evidence uncovered by the committee from the house budget and appropriations committees that documents omb placing a hold on the ukrainian security assistance on july 25th. >> without objection. >> so let's review. on july 18th, omb announced to all relevant agencies that the military aid would be withheld from ukraine. on a call with ukraine on july
25th, president trump says, do us a favor, though, and asked you ukraine to investigate his political rival. also on july 25th, in the hours following that call both the ukrainians and the americans took actions specifically related to that military aid. the ukrainians began asking about the status of their military aid. and omb took its first official action to withhold that aid. mr. goldman, i'm placing on the screen in front of you an email from ambassador sondland to members of the white house administration in which ambassador sondland says, i would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks are in place, zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the united states hopefully that will break the logjam. did the investigative committees uncovered any evidence on what
ambassador sondland meant when he suggested that president zelensky would have to move forward publicly on, quote, issues of importance to the president to receive military aid? >> ambassador sondland said those were the two investigations that president trump mentioned on the july 25th call which secretary pompeo who received that email listened in to. >> so the president was concerned about the two investigations. and that was the predicate for releasing military aid to our ally? >> at the time of that email, yes. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> little earlier, mr. armstrong had asked unanimous consent request to assert into the record the ig report released today about fisa. and i had said we would take it under advisement. we have reviewed it and without objection it will be entered into the record. ms. roby. >> i'm actually stunned by the process or lack thereof that is take place in this institution. i have many democratic friends
that i know to be thoughtful, deliberative members of congress. even though we may disagree vehemently on policy. but these proceedings being led by the majority, like i said, it's stunning. i cannot for the life of me figure out why the majority would approach this in such a way that will forever cast doubt on why and how they chose to effect history with the impeachment of a president of the united states. and now, to what has taken place here today, this is just bizarre as a member of congress serving on the house judiciary committee, i'm asking questions to staff as witnesses before us in an impeachment evidentiary hearing? i mean, no disrespect to staff, we have the most dedicated, hardworking staff and without these individuals we most certainly couldn't do our jobs effectively. but we have not and we will not hear from any fact witnesses.
whether you identify as a republican, a democrat, or an independent, would you agree or disagree with the president, whether you like or dislike a president, the american people should be cheated -- should feel cheated by the way this is all taking place. this process is more than incomplete, and the american people deserve better. today, history is being made and i, too, believe it is a dangerous precedent for the future of our republic. it is worth a deeper explanation of the issue of a minority hearing. the minority members of this committee have frequently asked the chairman for a minority-day hearing and all members on this side have signed on to a letter to the chairman asking for a minority-day hearing. i'd like to quote house rule 11 clause 2. whenever a hearing is condoungtd a measure or a matter, the
minority members of the committee shall be entitled upon the request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. the wording here is that the minority shall be entitled, not if the chairman deems the minority worthy. but shall be entitled. mr. castor, with all of your experience in investigations here in the congress, is it your belief based on that experience that ignoring the minority's stated rights for a hearing under the rules of the house severely undermines the future of this institution? >> yes. >> i'd like to quote what we heard from the democratic staff, mr. burke in his opening comments if the is the hope that in these discussions we can put
aside political rank or disagreements and have a fair discussion. that is far from what has happened here today or the days leading up to this. the american people deserve better than this. and i yield the remainder of my time to mr. collins. >> thank you. mr. castor, we've heard a lot, it's always a good time i think to go back and remind people that there are four things that really haven't changed would the you like tory mind remind us o everything that's been discussed. >> there's four things that will never change. stript complete and accurate, it shows no quid pro quo, no conditionality, that's number one. number two, there was no pressure. zelensky and trump have said that repeat plitd president zelensky said that at united nations at september 25th. he said it in subsequent news article on october 6th, october 10th, and december 1st. number 3, the ukrainians and zplens did not know about the pause in aid, at the very least
at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced, the aid was released, and the white house, you know, afforded a meeting and president trump met with zelensky in new york. >> do you find it amazing that the majority is one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they're making the elected leader of the ukraine out to be a liar? >> um. >> because if he says there's no pressure, he's done it on many, many occasions since then, then undoug dou undoubtedly they believe him not to be truthful, don't you find that striking? >> it's unfortunate. >> it's sad we're calling an elected leader who is working on corruption and other things like that, we're calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the democrats theory of a partisan impeachment. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. mr. jeffries. >> let's focus on the aid to ukraine. mr. goldman, congress allocated on the bipartisan basis
$391 million in tide ukraine, correct? >> yes, it and it was signed by president trump into law. >> does the record establish that the military aid to ukraine is in the national security interests of the united states? >> absolutely. >> the investigation concluded that president trump compromised u.s. national security by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support, is that true? >> yes. >> president trump and his defenders claim that he withheld military aid out of alleged concern with corruption in ukraine. let's explore this phony justification. donald trump first spoke to the president of ukraine on an april 21st call, correct? >> that's right. >> president trump never use. the word corruption on that april 21st call, true? >> that is troupe. and the readout from the white house after the call did say that president trump talked about corruption. >> that readout was inaccurate. in a may 23rd letter, trump's
department of defense concluded that ukraine met the anticorruption benchmarks required to receive military aid from the united states, true? >> yes. if i could take a second to talk about that because it's important and it goes back to what mr. collins was talking about with vice president biden. there's absolutely conditionality on aid routinely but it's done through official policy. and these anticorruption benchmarks that you're referencing here was a condition of ukraine getting the aid. but in may, the department of defense in conjunction with the other interagencies certified that ukraine was making the necessary progress on anticorruption efforts to merit the aid. >> and yet the aid was not released, correct? >> the aid was subsequently held. it was supposed to be released, dod announced the release, and then president trump held the aid without explanation. >> mr. goldman, based on the evidence and testimony that you
have reviewed, is there any reason to believe that the president cared about corruption in ukraine? >> no. the evidence really supports the fact that president trump views corruption in ukraine to be synonymous with the two investigations that he wants. >> what the president did care about was a political favor from the ukrainian government, and that is why he withheld the military aid, true? >> he told ambassador sondland himself that that is the only thing that he cares about. >> now, several witnesses testified as to the real motivation connected to the withheld military aid, including ambassador bill taylor. here is what he said in his testimony. >> to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense if the was -- it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do.
it was illogical, it could not be explained, it was crazy. >> illogical, unexplainable, crazy. mr. goldman, according to the testimony from ambassador taylor are the only explanation for the withheld aid that made sense is that the president was seeking help with the political campaign, correct? >> that is the only logical explanation as multiple wi witnesses said. >> and ambassador sondland who gave a million dollars to the president's inauguration, he testified that he came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations, correct? >> yes. and that was subsequently confirmed in a conversation with president trump himself. >> lieutenant colonel vindman is a decorated iraq war veteran, purple heart recipient, and member of the white house national security council. and he testified that it is
improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent, correct? >> yeah, that was pretty much unanimous view of all 17 witnesses that came in to testify before the intelligence committee. >> the evidence shows that president trump withheld military aid from ukraine as part of a scheme to extract a political favor and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, true? >> yes. and that -- the scheme part is very important because the minority wants to focus on these four very narrow facts that ignore the vast majority of the evidence. and so the fact that you use scheme is critical to the whole -- the whole case here. >> the president abused his power, the president must be held accountable, no one is above the law. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
mr. gaetz. >> the last public opinion poll i saw showed congress had an approval rating of 9%. by contrast, ka doff if i had an approval rating of 13% and his own people dragged him into the zreets and killed him. this impeachment process dem month stratss the worst in us and it is depriving us the opportunity to raise our gaze and meet the needs of the american people. unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country many people would think it's being done for political reasons. nancy pelosi, may 2018. and here we are, in the most partisan presidential impeachment in american history. matter of fact, when we opened the inquiry, no republicans vote with the democrats, and you had democrats voting with us in the only bipartisan vote to shut down this impeachment. that brings to us your role, mr. goldman. are you here as a partisan advocate for the democrat position or are you here as a nonpartisan investigator of the facts? >> i'm here to present the report that we did on our
investigation which was totally and completely reliant on the actual evidence that we uncovered, the witness testimony, and the documents. >> are you a partisan? >> i'm not a partisan. >> mr. castor, how long have you worked for the house? >> since 2005. >> and same question, mr. goldman. >> for the house? since earlier this year. >> mr. castor, do you make political donations? >> i don't remember any. >> mr. goldman, same question, do you make political donations. >> i do, sir. i think it's very important -- >> matter of fact, you've given ten of thousands of dollars to democrats, right? >> think it's important to support office -- >> i just want know the number. >> you don't care about it. >> the basis, i just want the number. it's tens -- >> i don't know how much money. >> do you know how much money mr. burke has given democrats? >> i don't know. >> would it surprise you if it's more than a hundred thousand? >> i'm here to buck this report. i'm happy to talk to you about this report.
>> you gave tens of thousands, mr. burke gave more than a hundred thousand. do you think if you gave more money you'd be able to answer questions like mr. burke did? i guess it's something you're still pondering. mr. castor, have you ever tweeted anything at the president? >> no. >> mr. goldman, same question. >> i have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before i came to this job when i was working in the media, yes. >> matter of fact, this is one of those tweets, right? and you said, nothing in the dossier is proven false, but the dossier said there was a russian consulate in miami, when there isn't. the dossier said that michael cohen had a meeting in prague when he didn't. the dassier said that michael cohen's wife was russian, she's, in fact, ukrainian. and so, as we sit here today, where you i guess got a tweet mentioning a p tape presenting yourself not as a partisan, hired by the democrats to
pursuit president, do you regret this tweet? >> sir, i would be happy to put my -- this investigation up with any of the nonpartisan investigations -- >> i just want to know if you regret the tweet. >> during my ten years as a prosecutor. >> do you regret it? >> i hope you read the evidence and judge for your self whether it's partisan or not. >> i guess you don't want to answer the question. mr. chairman, earlier in this hearing you said in your opening statement that there is nothing more urgent than impeachment right now. this is the most urgent thing we could possibly do. you know what? if you're a senior right now and you can't afford your prescription drugs, that's more urgent than this. if you're a manufacturer wanting to dominate the western hemisphere with the passage of the usmca, that is more urgent. if you're a farmer who wants to open markets so that your family can survive and thrive, that's a lot more urgent than this partisan process. if you're a desperate family member watching someone succumb to addiction, solving the opioid problem, probably more urgent than this partisan impeachment.
if you're a member of the next generation, dealing with the challenges of extinction and climate change, a budget that's out of control, driving up the credit card of young people in this country and what they'll have to pay back as a consequence of our poor decisions, likely more urgent. but house democrats have failed at all of these things. matter of fact, i'd say the only thing under the cras christmas tree for most americans would be a lump of coal, but think they're against coal too. only thing under the christmas tree for americans would be impeachment. and investigations. i've heard over and over democrats say that this is all about the president's personal interest and that he abandoned the national interest. and it begs an analysis of how the naition is doing. in november, 266,000 jobs created. 80,000 over the average. half a million more manufacturing jobs in the trump presidency. 700,000 construction jobs. we are doing better than ever before. the american people are thriving. why won't you help us move along the critical issues that are far
more important than your partisan impeachment? >> gentleman's time has expired. >> let me bebegin by dispelling the claim ma mr. gaetz just made in the has been one of the most pro dukttive congress's in history. we've passed 400 pieces of legislation that respond to the urgent priorities of the american people, driving down health care costs, raising wage sports american wokker are responding to gun violence, providing equal pay for equal work, respond together climate crisis, 275 of those bills are fully bipartisan. and 80% of those bills are sitting on the senate majority leader's desk awaiting action. so we will continue to deliver on the important priorities of the american people. but we are also elected to hold this president accountable. and we took an oath of office that said to protect and defend the constitution. and that's what we're engaged in today. and so i want to return, mr. goldman, to the military aid. did the investigating committees receive evidence about why the united states military aid to ukraine was necessary? what was it advance something
there's a lot of americans who are watching don't know a lot about ukraine, don't know about the geopolitical significance. why does it matter? >> the witnesses were quite clear about this and they say it mattered for multiple reasons. the first is, that russia invaded ukraine to take over part of their -- of their country and that this was the first military incursion in europe since world war ii. and this is russia who's an adversary actually trying to encroach on another democracy. so just from a broad democratic viewpoint, it was essential not only to ukraine's national security, but to america's national security to make sure that democracy remains worldwide. >> and when that part of the call on july between the 5th congress had approved the aid, correct? >> congress had approved the aid and then the president held the aid. >> and the defense pent e departme department aannounced the
support of the aid. >> that's right. >> and they had taken substantial steps to combat corruption, correct? >> correct. >> and that normally leads to the release of the aid. >> announce the release of aid, yes. >> and the committee questioned witnesses from the defense department, state department, omb, white house and national security council about the president's decision to withhold aid, correct? >> correct. >> and i'd like to play a clip of some of that evidence. >> from what you witnesses, did anybody in the national security community support withholding the assistance? >> no. >> i never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid. >> and the entire interagency supported the continuation of this security assistance, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> i and others sat in astonishment. ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of u.s. support. >> am i correct that the witnesses that appeared before your committee confirmed that there was no credible
explanation for withholding the military aid and that it was, in fact, against our national security interests do so? >> everyone agreed it was against our national security interests to do so. the only explanation that any witness provided was mr. sandy who said he had heard from rob blair, i believe, the assistant to mick mulvaney that the reason was because of other country's donations or contributions to ukraine. but that was only in september and, of course, there were no further commit flents any other country. >> and as we heard from bill taylor who say graduate of west point and decorated combat veteran who served in vietnam, ukraine then and now is in an active war with the russians. russia stole part of their country in crimea and has killed more than 10,000 ukrainians and weakening ukraine would only benefit russia. here's what ambassador taylor said. >> after our meeting with president zelensky, ambassador volker and i traveled to the frontline in northern dom bass to receive a briefing from the
forces on line of contact. arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters the commander thanked us for the security assistance. but i was aware that this assistance was on hold. which made me uncomfortable. ambassador volker and i could see the armed and hostile russian-led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact. russian-led forces continue to kill ukrainians in the war one or two a week. more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the u.s. assistance. >> against the consensus of his own agencies and national security experts, the president used congressionally appropriated funds to advance his own political interests at the expense of our national security. this action is a threat to the integrity of our elections and the sanctity of our democracy. president trump must not get away with this. no one in this country, no one, including the president of the united states, is above the law. and with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
this has been a truly extraordinary and historically unprecedented hearing. it has, frankly, been an outrageous violation of due process. a series of violations of due process, in fact. let me review the past 71/2 hours. i asked the chairman if mr. burke was appearing as a staff member or as a witness. but the chairman gave strangely conflicting answers to that important question. when i objected under house rule 17 that mr. burke was repeatedly and brazenly steam rolling over houseday core rum rules and using language that impund the moat tifds of the president of the united states and suggested he is disloyal to his country, chairman nadler insisted those words could not be taken down as stricken from the record saying, quote, the rules don't apply herehere because mr. burke is merely appearing as a staffer. but later, chairman nadler stated the opposite and declared ma mr. burke was appearing to present the democratic members report as their representative which would mean that the member rules should apply. then mr. burke was allowed to switch places and turn from
witness to questioner. that's extraordinarily bizarre ever, of course, but it's entirely kiptd been this impeachment circus. as everybody knows, intel chairman adam schiff was allowed in the opening act of this circus to serve as the judge, jury, prosecutor, witness coach and case strategy chief all in one. so much for due process. under the democrats haphazardly drawn special parameters for these special hearings, house resolution 660, mr. burke was allowed to join the members of congress on this dais and ask 45 minutes of his questions of mr. castor. when he was argumentative, assumed critical facts not in evidence, engage in speculation and committed countless other violations of regular house rules and the federal rules of civil procedure, i objected. was then ruled out of order by chairman nadler who informed all of us that while house resolution 660 specifically provides for objections, it lists none of them and the democrats have ignored every request of ours to obtain a list of what rules and objections
would be enforced and applicable today. again, so much for due process and fairness. a month ago, listen, a month ago the republican members of this committee formally requested all documents related to the impeachment investigation, but chairman nadler and schiff withheld everything until you know when? saturday afternoon. that's right. less than 48 hours before this hearing they dumped approximately 8,000 pages of documentation ounce while we were back home in our directs. they districts. they made it impossible for us to review all material in any meaningful way. what's worse is the documents they decided to dump on us are not all of the underlying records we need to review but a partial, redacted and biased subset of information that they think will advance their false narrative and as has been mentioned here, we're being allowed no minority day hearing had which is required by regular house rules. i'd love to cross-examine mr. burke him sex, but chairman nadler special and still mysterious rules for this hearing won't allow it.
i notice he's disappeared from the hearing room. i would love to ask him under oath about his own biases. because you know he hammered here over and over today the importance of fairness and objectivity and accuracy and he insisted that everything here has to be unbiased. but if he was under oath here, he would be forced to admit that fec records show that he has personally donated approximately $99,000 to the democratic candidates over years including sizeable donations for hillary clinton for president and also donated to past trump opponents including elizabeth warren, cory booker, and kirsten gillibrand. mr. burke appeared here as a fact witness and finder of fact, but in our system a finder of fact is supposed to be fair and impartial. he's supposed to be an umpire. the problem wall of this and the problem that everybody at home can see with their own eyes is that the umpires in this high-stakes game are parading around the field in the majority teams jerseys. the report of evidence released by republican committee staff on december 2nd carefully documents that in the hearings that led touss this point today chairman schiff directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer republican questions.
he rejected witnesses identified raps who have about have injected some semblance of fairness and objectivity and denied republican subpoenas for testimony and documents violating the democrats' own rules to vote down those subpoenas with no notice to republicans. chairman schiff also publicly fabricated evidence about president trump's july 25th phone call and he misled the american public about his interactions with the anonymous bh whistle-blower to select information to paint misleading narratives. the whistle-blower reportedly acknowledged having a personal relationship with vice president biden and his motives, biases and credibility are essential to this case but we can't question it. this is not due process there is not the rule of law and this is not how to impeach an american president and this is not how we're supposed to run a country. it can't be. 17 out of 24 of our colleagues over there already voted to proceed with impeachments before we started all this. they've already made up their minds. they were -- they were prejudiced before we walked in. but the american people are not. fairness still matters, truth matters, and the people can see clearly that this is a sham.
i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. swalwell. >> mr. goldman, would you welcome the problem of having 8,000 documents given to you from the white house? >> it would be a wonderful problem to have. >> how many have they given you? >> zero. >> mr. castor, you said earlier that they got the aid, they got the aid, no harm, no foul, they got the aid. but you would agree that although mr. sandy said that the presidential concern was european contributions, nothing changed from when that concern was expressed to when they actually got the aid, right? you agree on that? europe didn't kick in a bunch of new money? >> no, but they did a study. >> oh, a study. but they didn't kick in new money, you agree on that. >> ambassador taylor discussed that they -- >> okay. >> researched. >> you talked about the anticorruption president that we have in donald trump, the person who had a fraud settlement relating to trump university, the person who just recently with his own charity had a settlement related to fraud. let's talk about that anticorruption president of
ours. take a wild guess, mr. castor, how many times has president trump met with vladimir putin or talked to him? >> i don't know the number. it's -- >> it's 16. >> okay. how many times has president trump met at the white house with president zelensky? >> um. >> it's zero. and who is president trump meeting with at the white house tomorrow? do you know? >> i'm not -- i'm not -- >> it's russian foreign minister lavrov. >> okay. >> now, mr. goldman, withholding aid from ukraine, obviously, hurts ukraine. it hurts the united states. does it help any country? >> the witnesses said that that would help russia. >> did you also hear testimony that these acts by the president, while being wrong and an abuse of power, also harmed u.s. national security? >> yes. >> did youna hear anything abou how it would harm our credibility, i would turn you to a conversation volker had on september 14th of this year
where ambassador volker semipressing upon that official that president zelensky should not investigate his own political opponents? what was thrown back in the face of ambassador volker? >> after video volker suggested to mr. yermak again who's here, that they should not investigate the prior president of ukraine, mr. yermak said back to him, oh, like we -- you're encouraging us to investigate the bidens and clintons? >> during watergate, the famous phrase from senator howard baker was asked, what did the president know and when did he know it? there's a reason that no one here has repeated those questions during these hearings. we know what the president did. and we know when he knew it. mr. goldman, who sent rudy giuliani to ukraine to smear joe biden? >> president trump. >> who fired the anticorruption ambassador in ukraine, marie yovanovitch?
>> president trump. >> who told ambassador sondland and ambassador volker to work with rudy giuliani on ukraine? >> president trump. >> who told vice president pence to not go to zelensky's inauguration? >> president trump. >> who ordered his own chief of staff, mick mulvaney, to withhold critical military assistance for ukraine? >> president trump. >> who refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office? >> president trump. >> who ignored on july 25 his own national security council's anticorruption talking points? >> president trump. >> who asked president zelensky for a favor? >> president trump. >> who personally asked president zelensky to investigate his political rival joe biden? >> president trump. >> who stood on the white house lawn and confirmed that he wanted ukraine to investigate vice president biden? >> president trump. >> who stood on that same lawn and said that china should also
investigate vice president biden? >> president trump. >> as to anything that we do not know in this investigation, who has blocked us from knowing it? >> president trump and the white house. >> so as it relates to president trump, is he an incidental player or a central player in this scheme? >> president trump is the central player in this scheme. >> there's a reason that no one has said what did the president know and when did he know it. from the evidence that you have presented, mr. goldman, and the intelligence committee's findings, we know one thing and one thing is clear, as it related to this scheme, the president of the united states, donald j. trump, knew everything. and i yield back. >>. >> reporter: yields back. mr. biggs. >> mr. castor, what's direct evidence? >> when a witness personally on serves a fact and testifies to it. >> and what's hearsay evidence? >> well, out of court statement
offered for the truth of the matter asserted is something that you learn in law school. >> and the federal rules of evidence adopt building most states, hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under defined exceptions, is that right. >> that's right. there's about 23. >> and i believe your present when everyone testified including mr. sond sondland, right? >> yes. >> and that's a yes? >> yes. >> much of them report the impeachment is based on a -- is that a fair characterization? >> a lot of it is, yes. >> how many times did mr. sondland omission in the intel community report? >> i did a report and the name sondland shows up 611 times. >> just to refresh your mind. sondland himself told the world that basically nobody else on the planet told him that donald trump was trying to tie aid to investigations. in fact, he also said everything that he had been testifying to is simply his presumptions, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and so when we consider what a presumption is, it's not direct, it's not circumstantial, it's not even hearsay, in fact, we typically when we're trying
the case we consider it as speculation, is that right? >> that's right. >> do courts allow speculation in? >> no. >> why not? >> because it's not reliable. >> it's inheritently unreliable it you name any democratic witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 that we heard from? >> we had some direct evidence on certain things. we had some direct evidence on the may 23rd meeting. and sondland gave some direct evidence. but a lot of what we obtained has been circumstantial. >> how about with regard to personal knowledge of the quid pro quo allegation? >> well, we have not gotten to the bottom of that from a direct evidence standpoint. >> how about tying aid to investigations? >> that's correct too. >> how about political motives in asking for investigations? >> the facts surrounding that are ambiguous. >> in the nonlegalistic world when we talk about speculation, we typically use words like gossip, rumor, inukwend wednesday doe, isn't that right? >> yes. >> and isn't it true that the
only direct evidence we have is that ukraine received the aid without giving anything in return. president zelensky repeatedly stated no pressure, no problem with the phone call and the relationship with mr. trump, and that the president had a legitimate concern about ukraine corruption? >> he did. and the burden sharing of european allies. >> so much has been made about the alleged desire on if an announcement of an investigation, but, again, there's no direct evidence that supports the allegation that president trump wanted merely the announcement of an investigation. >> like i said, there's eight lines in the call transcript that goes go to what president trump said about the investigation. eight lines. >> and everything else is hearsay, incue wednesday doe, rumor, gossip, right? >> inconclusive, certainly. >> when we get into this event today and the process, we start talking about the process, were you surprised to see mr. burke, get out of his chair, move to the seat and sit down next to the chairman and start asking questions? >> i don't know if i was surprised or not. >> i tell you i was. and it looks like mr. burke has
been disappeared and so that's one of the outraitt rageogeous about this process and it's been outrageous from start to finish. we've seen prejudice and bias from the president from start to finish. we have the lion's share, almost two-thirds of the members of the democrats have already voted to impeach at least once and that's before anything with regard to this july 25th telephone conversation ever took place. and we're left with a constant view that as on november 9th, 2016, representative green from texas wanted to begin impeachment proceedings at that point, is that correct? >> yes. >> january 20th, 2017, "washington post" headline, let the impeachment begin, correct? >> yes. >> ten days light mr. xi hethe the -- tweeted out let the
impeachment begin, coup begin, and kudos to the lawyers? >> i've seen that. >> they said they went on tv and said we wanted to start impeachment earlier but the speaker held us back. did you see that? >> i haven't seen that, no. i haven't seen news reports today. >> you wouldn't be surprised about that, would you? >> no. >> no, nobody should be surprised about that because this is a sham hearing. three years that they've been trying to remove this president and this is the culmination of a predetermined outcome. that's where we are today. and so with that, we can -- we bring it back to the same points, no pressure, no conditionality, and all of the aid, meetings, calls were received by the ukrainians. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. will you. >> thank you, chairman nadler. let's cut through the republican arguments today and make things simple. no one else in america could do what donald trump did and get
away with it. no american elected official can call up a foreign government official and ask for an investigation opponent. no one sitting on this judiciary committee can call up a foreign government official and ask for help in a re-election campaign. if we did that and got caught, we would likely be indicted. now, let's focus on the president abuse of power in this case, because it's actually worse than the examples i just gave. and i know that i first swore an oath to the constitution when i joined the united states air force and active duty. and three core values i learned were integrity first, service before self, excellence in all we do. i'd like to focus on the first two. integrity first and service before self because it's engrained in our military members that we cannot mix personal duties with personal private gain. mr. goldman, in this case the $391 million at issue, that wasn't donald trump's money,
that was u.s. taxpayer funds, is that right? >> yes. >> and certainly the president should not use our taxpayer money for his own personal benefit, and especially not to leverage it for some re-election campaign, isn't that right? >> that's correct. you cannot solicit foreign assistance for a re-election campaign. it's a violation of the federal election campaign act. multiple people have gone to prison for violating various sections of that act. a reasonable person could also conclude that the president violated the empowerment control act of 1974 which congress passed as a response to president nixon's abuse of power. i'd like to explore that a little further with you, mr. goldman. in this case, congress with bipartisan support appropriated taxpayer funds for the specific purpose of aiding ukraine in its war against russia, is that right?
>> yes. >> not only had that money been appropriated, the money had been released to the department of defense, is that right? >> they were about to release it, yes. >> and then suddenly without explanation the president demanded that those taxpayer funds be withheld from an ally who desperately needed aid. mr. goldman, did the president notify congress about his decision to withhold aid? >> no, he did not. >> the empowerment control act was designed to prevent the president from taking appropriated funds and doing whatever he wants with them. so is it true that in your intelligence report you found the following finding of fact, president trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by ukraine and the president did so despite his obligations under the empowerment control act. did you find that? >> yes. >> not only did the president abuse his powers for personal gain and not only was it illegal, his actions also harmed u.s. national security.
so it's a fundamental tenant of u.s. national security to push back against russian aggression. ukraine's at the tip of the spear pushing back against russian aggression. is it true, mr. goldman, that harming the ukrainian military also harms u.s. national security? >> that's what pretty much every witness said. >> last week professor car lan confirmed that it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice the national interests for his own private ends, a slide show of which he said. mr. goldman, based on the evidence that you found in your report, is it fair to conclude that the president's actions, both leveraged taxpayer funds for his own private gain, and sacrifice of national interest for his own private ends? >> that is what we found. >> i was perfectly struck by mr. holmes' testimony because it makes clear that the president did not care about foreign policy or u.s. national security. he only cared about investigating his political opponent. here's what mr. holmes said. >> ambassador sondland stated that the president only cares
about big stuff. i noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine, like a war with russia. ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. >> look, here's the thing, if any military member used official acts for personal gain, that member would no longer be part of the military, and in fact last year a navy commander was convicted for taking things of value in exchange for official acts. the u.s. attorney who prosecuted the case said to the commander, quote, he put his own selfish interests ahead of the navy and that of our nation, end quote. we shouldcommander to a lower standard and we should not hold the president to a different standard than any elected official. no one is above the law. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. mcclintock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in every election one side wins and the other loses.
democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters. the moment that social compact breaks down, democracy collapses into chaos. that's only happened twice in our nation's history. it happened in 1860 when the democrats refused to accept a legitimate election of abram lincoln, and it happened again in 2016 when the democrats refused to accept the legitimate election of donald trump. the issues before us today do indeed strike at the heart of our democracy. the first calls for impeachment began just days after the 2016 election and ever since the democrats have been searching for a pretext. when the mueller investigation found no evidence to support the monstrous lie that the president acted in collusion with russia, the democrats realized they were running out of time and suddenly the ukrainian phone call replaced collusion, stormy daniels, tax returns, emoluments and even tweets as the reason to
nullify the election just a year before the next one is to be held. impeachment is one of the most serious powers with which congress is entrusted. it requires an overwhelming case of high crimes supported by clear evidence that a vast majority of the nation deems compelling. our constitution vests the executive authority including the enforcement of our laws with the president and it gives him sole authority to conduct our foreign affairs. clearly this includes requesting a foreign government to cooperate in resolving potentially corrupt and illegal interactions between that government's officials and ours. now, the sum total of the democrats' case comes down to this. not one of their hand picked witnesss provided any firsthand knowledge of the president ordering a quid pro quo, and two witnesses, sondland by testimony and senator johnson by letter, provided firsthand testimony that the president specifically ordered no quid pro quo.
no testimony was provided that the ukrainian government believed that there was any quid pro quo, but there are ample public statements that its officials did not believe there was such a linkage. the testimony of their witnesses crumbled under questioning and we were left with career brew bureaucrats who admitted that the only evidence they offered was presumption, speculation and what they read in the new york times. it's this flimsy evidence that the democrats justified nullifying the 2016 presidential election. it's so flimsy the democrats have had to turn our bill of rights on its head in order to make it. they've argued that hearsay evidence better known as gossip is better than direct testimony. they've argued that the burden of proof rests with the accused to prove his innocence while at the same time denying the defense witnesses permission to testify. they've argued that the right to confront your accuser is an invasion of the accuser's
privacy. they've argued that appealing to the courts to defend your constitutional rights as the president has done is ipso facto obstruction of justice and evidence of guilt. they've asserted the power to determine what witnesses the defense is allowed to call, and they've argued that a crime is not necessarily to impeach, only impure motives in performing otherwise lawful acts, motives of course to be defined entirely by the accusers. these are the legal doctrines of despots but the only one who can accommodate the case before us today. this is a stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will stain the reputations of those responsible for generations to come. god help our country if they should ever be given the power to replace our bill of rights with the doctrines that they have imposed in this process. democrats are fond of saying no one's above the law but they
have one unspoken caveat, except for themselves. the speaker's already short circuited what should be a solemn, painstaking, thorough, and above all fair process by ordering her foot soldiers on this committee to draw up articles of impeachment without this committee hearing from a single fact witness. despite the fact that mr. schiff doesn't dare to appear before this committee to defend his work, we're supposed to accept his report at face value and oh obediently follow his orders. we can only pray the senate still adheres to the judicial principles of our founders. if they do, perhaps then we can begin repairing the damage that this travesty has done to our democracy, our institutions, our principles of justice, our constitution and our country. >> the gentleman yields back.
>> why is impeachment in the constitution? well, the framers feared a president might corrupt our elections by dragging foreign powers into our politics in order to promote the personal political ambitions of the president above the rule of law and above the national security. the framers set against a potential tyrant's boundless thirst for power, the people's representatives here in congress and the people's own democratic ambitions, our self-respect, our love for freedom and the rule of law, our fierce constitutional patriotism. now, it looked like president trump might get away with his ukraine shakedown. after all, most americans didn't know anything about it and the few who learned of it would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth.
president trump could rest easy, but if donald trump misjudged the american character, the framers of our constitution did not. i count 17 honorable public servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president, is that right, mr. goldman? >> yes, 17. >> i counted dozens of state department and national security officials who served democrat and republican presidents over decades who came to testify. in fact, four of president trump's own national security counsel staffers, hill, vindman, morrison and mcguire came forward to report trump's scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didn't they, mr. goldman? >> morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned it, yes. >> that moved me a lot because my father was a staffer on the national security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience.
he devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people. so i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. mr. goldman, who is dr. fiona hill. >> she was the senior director for the europe and russia directorate at the national security council until july of this year. >> and she was president trump's senior adviser on russia? >> correct. >> her family had fled both nazi germany and soviet russia. >> i think her family actually came from england. marie yovanovitch was -- >> oh, that was ambassador yovanovitch. dr. hill voiced her concerns to the nsc's lawyers on july 10 and july 11, long before anyone on this committee knew about it. why was she -- why did she go to report what she had learned?
what motivated her? >> she was concerned that ambassador sondland and mick mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the ukrainians would open up these investigations for president trump's political interests in return for getting the white house meeting that president trump had offered. >> i want to talk about deputy assistant secretary george kent who served as a career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five different presidents, democrats and republicans alike. he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president's conduct. mr. goldman, what were the events that led mr. kent to draft these notes to his file? >> there were several. there was a conversation at the end of june where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these
investigations. there was one on august 16th i recall that he talked about, but you bring up a very important point which is all of these state department witnesses in particular and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador sondland took unbelievable meticulous notes. i would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that's based on contemporaneous notes. >> so do we have mr. kent's notes in this process? >> we have no state department records including these memos to file, the notes, ambassador taylor's first-person cable, emails. there are so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation. >> why do we not have them? >> the state department refused to provide them, notwithstanding our subpoena, under the president's direction. >> in authoritarian societies like putin's russia or the kingdom of saudi arabia, people are terrified to speak out about
the crimes of their political leaders. in the united states a lot of people are not afraid even though president trump has tried tomidate or silence them. he is trying to make our country more like russia, and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heros who stood up for the truth in our constitution. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. less co. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first two questions are for the american people. america, are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham? and america, would you like congress to get back to work and actually get something mr. castor, the rest of the questions are for you. i would like yes or no answers if possible. mr. castor, my first question is important. did any of the democrats' fact witnesses establish that the president had committed bribery,
extortion, or a high crime or misdemeanor. >> good he have heavenens, no. >> the deputy assistant to the president of the national security, mr. morrison, listened in on the phone call. he testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper, is that correct? >> yeah, he was worried about leaks. >> several democrats witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons including concerns that the country is corrupt and taxpayer dollars may be misspent. ambassador volker testified that this hold on security assistance to ukraine was not significant, is that correct? >> yes, a number of witnesses also said the same thing. >> former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, testified that in ukraine -- and i quote -- corruption is not
just prevalent but frankly, is the system, is that correct? >> yes, all the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt. >> mr. castor, burisma holdings had a reputation in ukraine as a corrupt company, is that correct? >> big time. >> according to "the new york times," hunter biden was part of a broad effort by burisma to bring in well connected democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations, is that correct? >> yeah, k"the new yorker" had n extensive report on that as well. >> obama's deputy assistant secretary of state, george kent, testified that he raised concerns directly to vice president biden's office about hunter biden's services on burisma's board, is that correct? yes or no. >> yes. >> mr. castor, in the july 25th call president trump referenced
joe biden bragging about how he stopped the prosecution. we all saw that video earlier today where joe biden bragged about how he told ukraine if the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. mr. castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma? >> it is. >> in a similar scheme, obama assistant attorney general said -- and i quote -- awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption, plain and simple. mr. castor, here is another key question. given that, one, burisma had a reputation of being a corrupt company, two, obama's own state department was concerned about
hunter biden serving on burisma's board at the same time that vice president biden was acting as the point person to ukraine, and three, obama's assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme that there was corruption, plain and simple. do you think then it is understandable, reasonable and acceptable for president trump to ask the ukrainian president to look into the hunter biden/burisma potential corruption scheme? >> yes. >> mr. castor, there are four indisputable facts that will never change that prove there is no impeachable offense. there was no quid pro quo on the july 25 call. ukraine leadership did not know the aid was held up at the time of the july 25 telephone call. ukraine received the white house meeting, phone call and aid even
though, four, ukraine didn't initiate any investigations. do you agree? >> ukraine received a meeting with vice president pence in warsaw and a meeting not at the white house but at the -- in new york at the united nations. >> mr. castor, did mr. turley testify in the past hearing that this impeachment inquiry has not passed chairman nadler's three-prong test? >> he did. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, the gentle woman from washington is recognized. >> thank you. mr. goldman, let's focus on the republican claim that president trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain, and let me be clear. we actually do not have to read the president's mind on this. as your report notes, on page ten and as we will see on television, he told us himself
exactly what his intent was. >> . first, president trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of his calls with president zelensky. second, investigations of the bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official u.s. policy, and third, congress authorized military aid to ukraine. ukraine passed all the checks
that the united states established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption, and there was anonymous consensus among the state department, department of defense and national security council that the president should release the military aid that ukraine critically needed to fight russian aggression. between the time that president trump put a hold on the aid and then released the aid, the president never conducted an actual review or corruption assessment on ukraine, did he? >> that's correct. there was no witness testimony that there was any review or investigation of any sort related to the ukraine aid. >> isn't it also true that had defense department determined not to conduct a review because ukraine had already met all of the crutches benchmarks in may of 2019? >> yes, and everyone involved in
ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path, and president zelensky in particular. >> in addition to ukraine having satisfied all the relevant corruption assessments prior to u.s. military aid being withheld, there is significant witness testimony that both the state department and the ukrainian embassy actually advised that a white house meeting with president zelensky would help further an anti-corruption agenda, correct? >> both the anti-corruption agenda and the aggression -- fighting the aggression from russia. >> in fact, president trump's budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in ukraine. now, mr. castor argues that president trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general, but in both 2017 and 2018 didn't president trump release military aid for ukraine without any complaints about corruption? >> that's correct. >> so mr. goldman, the president was perfectly fine giving military aid to ukraine in 2017
and 2018 but somehow not in 2019, so what changed? >> joe biden starting running for president. >> vice president biden started running so -- >> and i would add the mueller report came out which did not -- even though it did not charge the president, it implicated the president and his campaign in welcoming the assistance from russia and utilizing it. >> and the sequence of events and all the corroborating evidence makes it crystal clear that president trump didn't care about corruption at all. in fact, as he told us himself on national television, he simply cared about his own politically motivated investigations into his political rival. and you saw the clip where ambassador sondland picked up the phone, called president trump and then mr. holmes asked him what the president thought about ukraine and quickly what was mr. sondland's answer? >> mr. sondland said the president does not give a bleep about ukraine. he only cares about the big stuff, meaning the biden
investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. by the way, just to add, that is a direct evidence conversation between president trump and ambassador sondland on that day and there are many that we have not talked about on the minority side. >> so we know what president trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and witness testimony. the president of the united states wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal political benefit to interfere in our election, and he was willing to use u.s. military aid which is taxpayer dollars and an essential white house meeting as his leverage. that is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power. i yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. in the navy we had a saying, bluff, which is bottom line up front. let me give everybody the bottom line. we're here because democrats are terrified that president trump is going to win re-election.
that's really what this call com comes down to. we're here dealing with impeachment because democrats don't want to talk about the red hot trump economy. they don't want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. we are dealing with impeachment because democrats don't want to talk about how the president has worked to protect american companies from chinese aggression, how he's renegotiated trade deals that benefit american workers, how he's eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy and that help job creators. congressional democrats don't want to be reminded that the american people, that the democratic agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes, giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-funded health care and taking private health insurance away from the american people. that's really why we're here.
this whole process is just a distraction. it's an attempt to hide the far left radical agenda. so let's talk about the facts. schiff's report claims the administration froze military aid for ukraine without explanation, yet the facts are that president trump gave more military aid to ukraine than president obama. president obama gave ukraine well wishes and blankets. president trump gave the ukrainians javelin missiles. that's the difference, and those are the facts. let's go over some more facts. house democrats want to claim it's a conspiracy that ukrainian officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. yet, ukrainians attempts to interfere with the 2016 election are well documented by politico, by financial times and the hill. there was an attempt to influence our elections, and
that's troubling and that's why president trump brought it to the attention of president zelensky. again, those are the facts. at the end of the day, those facts don't seem to matter to my democrat colleagues. house democrats don't care that president zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. it's not important that the script is the best evidence we have, it's the actual primary document. that transcript shows no quid pro quo, no bribery. i got to remember we're calling it bribery after an old latin phrase didn't poll well or test well in a democrat focus group. my democrat colleagues seem to really care about focus groups and polling. unfortunately, again, they don't care about the facts. the fact is the democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began. representative talib said in january, i don't even think we were sworn in yet, she said in
january, impeach the mother. representative green said in may -- and i quote -- i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. these proceedings, this entire process, is nothing more than a political hit job. i'm troubled that our committee did not hear from a single fact witness this entire time. we should be here hearing from hunter biden. we should be hearing from schiff's staff. we know that schiff's staff coordinated with the whistle-blower, and again, we need to hear from the whistle-blower. last week i offered a motion to subpoena the whistle-blower to testify in executive session, meaning that he or she could testify behind closed doors. my democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. mr. castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the
whistle-blower's complaint? >> the first thing about the complaint that troubles us is that it's clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. the information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted and it's from a person who is -- it seems to be making a case like an advocate about what happened on the call. the whistle-blower references a number of individuals inside the white house and at the state department that he or she has spoken to to form the basis of the complaint. we have not been able to piece together all those people and talking to all those people is important. there's a lot of -- i'm running out of time here but there's a reference to lutsenko in the whistle-blower complaint where witnesses have told us it's likely shokin. vindman and morrison's testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers, very different reasons. mr. brek bul -- >> the gentleman's time expired.
>> i don't believe he was on the call. >> i recognize the gentle woman from florida for five minutes. >> mr. goldman, as a member of the intelligence committee, i saw significant firsthand evidence that president trump conditioned our military aid on ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and the bidens and betrayed our national security interests in the process. for example, ambassador sondland told us that once the ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld, it was made -- and i quote -- abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid -- and i quote -- they were going to have to make these statements. mr. goldman, beginning on and around the 25th of july call through september, would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the
white house visit that they were going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations? >> not only were they made aware but they were made aware either by president trump's proxy, rudy giuliani, or from president trump himself through ambassador sondland who spoke to president zelensky and andriy yermak on september 7 and told them what president trump had confirmed to him that the aid was conditioned on the investigations. >> by the end of august president zelensky did in fact commit to making that statement on cnn, is that correct? >> that's right. finally president zelensky relented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic u.s. political process and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice to break the stalemate, as ambassador sondland told them, that he ultimately agreed to go on television before the -- before president trump got caught and released the aid. >> i'd like to direct your attention to the screen in front
of you which displays again a "washington post" article from september 5. the headline says, trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections. the article reports that president trump is -- and i quote -- attempting to force zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u.s. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate, joe biden. mr. trump is not just soliciting ukraine's help with his presidential campaign, he is using united states military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. so am i correct, mr. goldman, that by september 25 allegations that president trump was using military aid to pressure ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported? >> i'm sorry, by what date? >> september 5. >> yes, widely reported, certainly the aid being withheld was widely reported.
>> by september 9 our investigative committees formally announced a congressional investigation into the president of these issues -- to the president about these issues, and mr. goldman, what day did president trump release the military aid? >> two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the ig, the inspector general, told the intelligence committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld. >> so then am i correct that as the timeline on the screen in front of you shows, it wasn't until after the whistle-blower complaint, after the "washington post" report, and after congress launched the investigations that president trump finally released the aid? >> that's right. and i would just add one thing briefly to the congressman's point, that it is true that president trump has given more military assistance than president obama, and so one would wonder if he does support military assistance so much, why
then is he holding it up for more than two months. >> lieutenant colonel vindman testified that people at the nsc discussed that congress' investigation, quote, might have the effect of releasing the hold on ukraine's military aid because it would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid, is that correct? >> that was the testimony, yes. >> in other words, the aid was released after the president got caught, and what makes me angry is that this president, president trump, thinks he can get away with it. but he got caught and he tried to cover it up, but we won't let him do that. we thank god, mr. goldman, for the true courageous public servants who came forward in spite of intimidation and obstruction from the white house. you see, everybody counts, but
everybody is accountable up to and including the president of the united states. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr mr. correa -- i'm sorry, california. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. goldman, my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the president apparently said -- and i quote -- no quid pro quo on september 7 in a call with ambassador sondland. mr. goldman, did you receive testimony about this september 7 call? >> yes. we received testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little complicated but that was a consistent refrain through all the witnesses, is that the president did say no quid pro
quo. >> let's try to clarify it. ambassador sondland described that call to mr. morrison that same day, correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. morrison then reported it to ambassador taylor, correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> and both mr. morrison and ambassador taylor took notes of those discussions. >> they did. >> were those notes produced to the committee? >> they were not produced to us but the witnesses said that they relied on their notes to provide their testimony. >> that set of notes was blocked consistent with the president's direction? >> correct. >> and in his recitation to mr. morrison, ambassador sondland said that president trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo. >> that's right. ambassador sondland also said that too, yes. >> mr. goldman, what did the committee make of this fact? >> well, it was quite odd that the president would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid
pro quo that there was no quid pro quo. what's even more important is that what he said immediately after that, which is effectively conduct that amounts to a quid pro quo. he said there's no quid pro quo, but you have to go to the microphone and make this announcement -- >> let's talk about that. what did the committee make of the fact that according to ambassador taylor and mr. morrison right after president trump said no quid pro quo, president trump then told ambassador sondland that ukrainian president zelensky would have to go to the microphone and announce the investigations of biden and the 2016 election interference and that president zelensky should want to do that himself. >> that's right. we had a number of different accounts of this and i think this is -- >> they're up on the board here. >> right, i see that, yes. ambassador taylor said that. mr. morrison said something similar. their understanding of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a
quid pro quo, factually from the conduct, from the actions. we've talked a lot today about the words and that zelensky said no pressure and trump said no pressure and no quid pro quo. but as an investigator, as a prosecutor, you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean. that's why this call in particular is so important. >> let's go further. as we've discussed multiple individuals reacted with concern to president trump's call with ambassador sondland. do you recall mr. morrison's reaction? >> mr. morrison said that he was shocked, i think, and that -- >> sinking feeling? >> sinking feeling, correct, and then he went and talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador bolton. >> correct. and mr. goldman, ambassador taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on zelensky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogic
illogical, crazy and wrong, is that right? >> that's what ambassador taylor testified to, yes. >> my colleagues have also pointed out that on september 9 a text message from sondland reflecting that the president has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo. mr. goldman, am i correct that ambassador sondland has now testified that prior to sending his texts, he himself came too believe th believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations? >> yes. ambassador sondland's subsequent public testimony revealed at least two things that were precisely false, that were not true in that text message, including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that there absolutely assuredly was as it related to the white house meie meeting. >> this september 7 call and the september 9 text occurred after the press reports that president trump was conditioning military
aid on investigations of his political rival, is that correct? >> yes, and also this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed president trump's message to president zelensky. >> mr. goldman, did the investigative committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president's assertion that there was no quid pro quo? >> we received a lot of evidence and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. >> thank you. i yield. >> mr. chairman, i have a anonymous consent request. or madam chairman. >> can you please hold it until after i do my questions, thank you. >> it will be very brief. it's just anonymous consent. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. mr. goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words so i want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for president trump to use the
american government to pressure the ukraine president to benefit his re-election campaign. let's look at what the president said in his july 25 call to the president of ukraine. lieutenant colonel vindman listened to the president's call and testified that when president trump asked ukraine for a favor, it wasn't a friendly request. it was really a demand. i'm going to direct your attention to the slide about lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony. why did he say the president's favor was a demand? >> he said because the power disparity between the united states as the greatest power in the world and ukraine which is so dependent on the united states not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. >> am i correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because ukraine has been at war
with russia since russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have died, is that correct? >> yes. not only does the u.s. provide 10% of their military budget but the united states is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support ukraine. europe actually gives -- the european union i think gives four times as much money as the united states over all to ukraine. >> president trump knew that the ukrainian's back was against the wall and president zelensky needed u.s. validation and support, is that right? >> yes. >> according to the u.s. ambassador to the ukraine and we have ambassador taylor's testimony up there, it wasn't until after ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that there would be a, quote, stalemate, end quote, on the aid, that zelensky agreed to announce the investigations that president trump was demanding, correct? >> that's right, yes.
>> furthermore, the committee heard testimony that the ukrainians felt they had, quote, no choice but to comply with president trump's demands, correct? >> that's right, yes. even after the aid was released. >> in fact, when asked in front of president trump in september whether he felt pressured, president zell zeensky said, qu i'm sorry but i don't want to be involved to democratic open elections, elections of the usa, end quote. is that right? >> that sounds right if you're reading the quote, yes. >> the president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give in to president trump's demand. did your investigative committees consider those statements by president zelensky? >> we did. and we found that the statements of what is effectively an extortion victim are not
particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter because president zelensky cannot in reality for the same reasons that he interpreted the request to be a demand, he can't go out and say that he did feel pressure because that would potentially upset president trump and they're so dependent on the relationship with president trump and the united states. >> one could almost say it's similar to a hostage testifying under duress. >> it is certainly a -- duress would be a good word. >> so when the president made these statements and up to and including today his country was still under attack by russia, still hadn't gotten a meeting at the white house, and still needed aid from the united states, correct? >> that's right is, and david holmes testified persuasively about the importance of the white house meeting and of the relationship to ukraine even after the aid was lifted, including pointing to today when president putin and president zelensky met to discuss the war in the east.
>> so the evidence is clear that president trump knew he had the power to force ukraine's hand and took advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our taxpayer dollars basically to get what he wanted, right? >> yes. and what's really important here and i think it has to be clarified is that the president -- the evidence showed that the president directly said to ambassador sondland that there was a quid pro quo with the security assistance. there's been some debate and some discussion about that, but that is one thing that the evidence shows based on the morrison testimony, the taylor testimony, the sondland testimony, and the texts. so that's very important to understand that whatever we want to say about hearsay or whatever, that is direct evidence. >> and that is precisely the kind of betrayal that our founders sought to prevent. i yield back to myself and i'll recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. klein. >> madam chair, you indicated to me that you would allow me to
make my uniform consent after you had asked your questions, so i'd ask for uniform consent -- excuse me, anonymous consent to introduce two letters -- >> the gentleman will suspend. who is speaking anonymous consent? for what are you seeking anonymous consent? >> i have two letters addressed to you on december 4, 2019 and december 5, 2019. >> without objection. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> i have a brief parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last week i expressed concern regarding the deeply flawed and partisan process the democrat majority has been undertaking during this impeachment inquiry. mr. chairman, i'm particularly reminded of your quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties
and largely opposed by the other. such an imt impeachment would call into legitimacy of our political institutions. you made that statement back in 1998. now i'm glad we're moving on to presenting the quote unquote evidence gathered in this report, not to hear from direct fact witnesses but a 300-page report that's built largely on hi hearsay, opinion and speculations. i'm especially outraged that the purported author of it, chairman schiff, is not here to answer our questions today. now that we have the report and can discuss the facts within or the lack thereof, there are four facts that will never change. both president trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation. three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the president spoke.
and fourth, ukraine didn't open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting with president trump. i want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it. mr. castor, did the democrats' impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions? >> yes, it did. >> how many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay? >> we went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts. >> can you give us some examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case? >> a lot of the information for example that ambassador taylor was communicating, he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him, but it was about -- it was one and two steps removed from the actual facts and that's the problem with hearsay. it's a whisper down the lane situation and if some of the
people that are doing the whispering have a -- are predisposed to not like president trump, then what they're whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted. >> did you also find instances where the democrats' report used witnesses' speculations and plung presumptions? >> in the biggest ones of course and the big daddy is sondland presuming that the aid was tied to the investigations because as he engaged in a back and forth with mr. turner, nobody on the planet told him that that was the case. >> mr. castor, i want to move on to foreign policy and the idea that somehow the president was abusing foreign policy. repeatedly witnesses came before the intelligence committee and talked about how the president was operating outside the bounds of the process for using norms. the president sets foreign
policy, correct? >> absolutely. >> and from where does he derive that power? >> the constitution. >> article 2 section 2. >> yeah. >> can you give us examples of these members of the foreign policy establishment who took issue with the president's foreign policy direction and choices? >> for example, lieutenant conce colonel vindman testified that he had prepared talking points and a call package and he was visibly completely deflated when he realized that his call notes weren't being referenced by the president. a lot of the inner agency officials i think became very sad that the president didn't revere their policy-making apparatus. >> is it safe to say there's another reason the president is skeptical of relying on some of these individuals to carry out his foreign policy goals like rooting out corruption in ukraine? >> i think the president is skeptical of the inter agency
bureaucra bureaucracy. >> is that maybe why he relied of the chain of the u.s. government. >> would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in the ukraine to temexempt or remove, say, a political supporter? >> it certainly would be. >> would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent? >> that's correct, yeah. >> would it be inappropriate to remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation? >> absolutely. this all goes to the heart of bias. >> thank you for those answers. mr. chairman, i go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. i would argue that the facts, in fact, are dispute. what you contend are facts are, in fact, not. they are witness presumptions, hearsay, and speculation. the facts here are, in fact, that this is the shortest
impeachment in u.s. history, based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds. mr. chairman, this impeachment process is a as far as and a stain on the committee and on the house of representatives, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr ms. garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we just heard, the president and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the president's conduct. now, i'm a former judge and you, mr. goldman, a former prosecutor. we know what direct evidence is. mr. goldman, my republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence, is that true? >> no, there's a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay. >> indeed it is not true. now, i don't want to relive a law school evidence class. instead, i'd like to go over
some examples with you, and please tell me if they're direct or indirect evidence. ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that on may 23, 2019 president trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy about ukraine. is that direct evidence? >> yes, technically. well, not technically, but yes. >> thank you. >> then we have the memoranda of the july 25 call between president trump and president zelensky. is that direct evidence? >> yes, that is. >> so there is direct evidence that president trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations, correct? >> yes, and if i could just jump in here, on the july 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be that
there's no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25 call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washington d.c. then he says, on the other hand, i also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. that is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call, so that's wrong. it's also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call even though that doesn't even matter. then finally, there was no white house meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so i think that needs to be clarified particularly as we're focusing on what direct evidence is. >> well, let's get some more examples. we also heard the testimony of three individuals who participated in the july 25 call. is their testimony direct evidence of what happened during that call? >> yes, although i would say the
call record is better evidence than their -- >> and the day after that call, david holmes testified that on july 26 he overheard the president ask ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was, quote, going to do the investigation. is that direct evidence? >> that is direct evidence. >> and after the july 25 call record was released, the president got on the white house lawn and again declared that ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent's family, the bidens. is that direct evidence? >> yes, it is. >> his own words. now, that seems to me like that's a lot of direct evidence. mr. goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these? >> there's a lot of evidence that i would call direct evidence because it's not hearsay. if any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other and they rely what someone else said, that is not hearsay. that would be in court a
co-conspirator statement and that would be admissible. let's not get too far afield on direct evidence -- >> we don't want to relive -- >> i understand it's important because anything ambassador sondland or rudy giuliani says, anything these people say is not hearsay and wouldn't be permitted under the federal rules of evidence, of course we don't follow the federal rules of evidence but that's an important point. >> is there anything wrong withdrawawit withdrawing inferences from circumstances? >> courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. that is how you determine what the evidence shows. so when ambassador sondland draws inferences from the fact that there's no explanation for the aid, the fact that the white house meeting has already been held up because of the investigations and determines that that's the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural logical inference that every jury draws across the country. >> i agree with you, i'm just disappointed that rather than
respond to the serious factual, direct and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. what president trump did here was wrong. it's unconstitutional. if anyone else did this, they would be held accountable. i urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our constitution. our democracy depends on ensu ensuring that no one, not even the president, is above the law. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. nagoose. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we approach the ninth hour of this hearing i want to thank mr. goldman and mr. castor for being here today and for your testimony. there's a lot of discussion about whether or not the facts of this matter are contested. i believe they are not contested so i'd like to level set here and give you both an opportunity to address some of the facts that i believe are not in dispute. i want to begin by addressing something that i think we all
know for certain, and that's that russia interfered in our 2016 election. after two years of investigation, the russians interfered in our elections. >> yes. >> mr. goldman, am i correct that zero intelligence agencies have publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections in 2016, is that right? >> that's right. i don't even think the minority is alleging that the ukrainian government systematically in any meaningful way interfered. i think this is just based on a couple of news articles. >> mr. castor, correct? >> the president had a good faith belief there were some significant ukrainian officials -- >> i hear you and you've said that previously. i'm asking you -- >> the president said that the ukrainian government -- >> there are no intelligence agencies in the united states that publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections. you're not testifying that that's the case? >> i'm not, correct. >> in fact, president trump's
former homeland security adviser, tom bossert, said that the idea of ukraine for example hacking the dnc server was, quote, not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked. that's president trump's homeland security adviser that said those words that you see on the screen. is that right, mr. goldman? >> yes, i saw that interview. >> mr. castor, you visaw that interview? >> i'm aware of it. >> in fact, isn't it true that none of the witnesses that appeared before your committee testified in support of the theory that ukraine somehow interfered in our elections. is that right, mr. goldman? >> that is absolutely correct. >> mr. castor? >> that's correct but -- >> thank you. no witnesses testified in support of that theory before your committee. mr. goldman, isn't it also true that your committee, in fact, received testimony indicating
that there is evidence that russia is in part perpetrating this false theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections because russia wants to deflect blame for its own involvement? >> that's correct. we had evidence of that and i think it's very important to emphasize what is evidence and what is pure media reports or speculation because there is no evidence in our investigation that ukraine interfered inthat e interfered in the 2016 election. >> in fact, i'd like to put some of the testimony that you might be referencing, mr. goldman, on the street in front of you, both for mr. holmes, as well as doctor fiona hill. and i will quote from her testimony, i am confident, based on all the analysis that has been done, and again i don't want to start getting into intelligence matters, that the ukraine government did not interfere in our election in 2016. this is a fictional narrative. it's being perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. you recall the testimony, mr. goldman?
>> i do, i also recall her testifying that in addition to the ukrainian officials who made a couple of disparaging comments about president trump, there are officials from countries all over the world who also made disparaging comments about president trump, and as doctor hill said, their military assistance was not put on hold. >> given your testimony, and given your -- mr. castor, is stressing that there in fact for uncontested facts. first, russia attacked our 2016 elections. several intelligence agencies have independently confirmed that this is true. second, ukraine did not interfere in our 2016 elections. there's absolutely no evidence that this faces -- of this baseless conspiracy theory. third, there is evidence that russia perpetrated the allegation that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. and finally, that russia benefits from the u.s. investigating ukraine. which was made clear through public testimony before your committee. so mr. goldman, is it fair to say that the
intelligence community agrees with these for conclusions? >> the intelligence community definitely agrees with one and two. doctor hill testified to three, as well as, the public statement from mr. putin, and yes, certainly the witnesses emphasize number four, that russia benefits from this. and we saw, in my opening statement, president putin's comments that it's good now that ukraine is all the talk. >> and if that is the case, it begs the question, why would president trump perpetuate this conspiracy theory already disproven by the entirety of the intelligence community that actually helps our adversary, a country that is attacking our elections in realtime? with that i yield. >> the generals. back mr. suubi? >> a brief parliamentary inquiry about schedule. he has the time. >> are you going to recognize
him after for his parliamentary degree after my question? >> i will make an announcement about the schedule shortly. >> thank you, mister chairman. i've never seen a more partisan spectacle than what i've missed here today. democrats want the rules to apply when it benefits them and not to apply when republicans invoked them, nine hours ago now, a hired gun for the government's got three minutes to spread his partisan rhetoric, and then 45 minutes across examine witnesses. that's 70 minutes more than most of the members of this committee, who've been elected by their districts to serve in the united states congress. mr. burke is an unelected new york lawyer specifically brought in by the democrats to give his opinion. a politically biased consultant who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal elections to the likes of act blew, hillary clinton, obama, and biden. -- no wonder why he has an ax to grind. mr. burke is a white collar criminal defense lawyer who brags on his website of
getting new york financial brokers deferred prosecution for tax fraud, and fund manager -- and mr. barr was able to say whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony that it would be truthful so he could sit before this committee, not as a fact witness, and directly lied to the american people that any threat of criminal prosecution. makes sense, he's a white collar criminal defense lawyer. i'm sure he did not want to incriminate in south. this is the same mr. burke who authored a series of reports as early as october 2017, two years ago, on his opinion as to whether president trump obstructed justice, and colluded with russia. he also represented mayor bill de blasio in a federal investigation of his fund-raising activities. for my fellow americans and floridians, watching this charade, this is who was sitting at the top of the -- acting like a member of this committee. a partisan new york lawyer with written bias against president trump who gave thousands to hillary clinton's presidential campaign.
all of the spectacle, not a single fact witness has appeared in front of this committee. we have been denied a minority hearing day, which i asked for in the last hearing. all we have had testifier partisan lawyers giving their opinions. so let's talk about the fact that we do have before us. we heard from mueller, no evidence of the trump campaign -- no destruction of justice, after denying the president to call witnesses in closed door secret proceedings and the many republicans from calling all their witnesses in closed door proceedings, denying the presidents counsel to cross examine witnesses, the facts are this. -- did the president tell you about any pre-conditions for anything? >> his answer, no. for the aid to be refused. no. for a white house? meeting no. the master also testified that president trump wanted nothing from ukraine. tim morrison, when questioned, and there was no quid pro quo, answered, correct. the aid was released, for facts never change. both president trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure, the call transcript
shows no different reality to the aid in the investigation. no quid pro quo. the ukrainians were not aware that the aid was withheld when the president spoke. ukraine did not open investigation, but still received eight and a meeting with the president. mr. castor, has any committee heard from the whistleblower, either in closed or hearings or an open hearings? >> no. >> did chairman schiff state that he would call the whistleblower to testify? >> he did. >> has it happened? >> it has not. >> is it going? to >> i hope so. >> have other countries -- >> yes. >> mr. goldman. on october 2nd, the new york times reported that the whistleblower quote, approach a house intelligence committee aide with his concerns about mr. trump. is that accurate? >> i'm sorry? >> on october 2nd, the new york times reported that the whistleblower -- is that accurate? >> i think the whistleblower's concerned about the president
are from the threats -- >> that's not what i'm asking. did the whistleblower approach a house intelligence? let me ask you a different way. have you had any communications with the whistleblower? >> as i said earlier in response to questions from her colleagues, i'm not going to get into -- >> so you are fusing to answer whether communicated with the whistleblower? >> the whistleblower is not relevant to this report. >> he is the whole basis of the beginning of this investigation. he is absolutely relevant. >> he's not relied upon, the risk blowers complaints, for the race that mr. castro said, are not included. his allegations are not included in our report. because the evidence has been outstripped and surpassed by the 17 witnesses that we've had coming in to testify directly about the conduct that the whistleblower blew the whistle about. >> as you sit here today, do you know the identity of the whistleblower? >> and i go to talk to you about the identity -- you >> are refusing to answer whether you've had communications -- that's my time, not yours. you are refusing to answer whether you had communication with the whistleblower, has any other staff in the intel community had communication with the whistleblower? >> in the intelligence
community -- >> you refusing to answer that question. unfortunately, the american people -- >> congress has a right -- >> mister chairman? could we have order? >> the gentleman wants to spend -- the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i have unanimous consent. >> mister chairman, i asked for an initial document entitled ukraine efforts to separate trump backfire, -- dated 2017. >> if you give it to our staff, will take a look at, it and we will make it -- >> should i make a motion to insert instead, mister chairman? >> before i recognize miss mcbath, i'm going to announce that, with respect to scheduling, that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. it may and be for
votes are called, which would be nice. if it does not end before votes are called, then we will recess for the votes, and we will reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor are over. it's going to be a close call. we will see. i will further announce i'm not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond today's hearing. >> point of order, mister chairman -- >> who has -- who sees recognition? >> i do, mister chairman. >> your right, mister chairman. >> to ask -- i wanted to confirm, a point of, order the rules of the common, i don't believe that the gentleman from florida meant to violate them, know what to give him the benefit of the doubt. but more than, once he referred to a new york lawyer, and if you just explain why he meant then, i'm prepared to withdraw my point of order. >> it's not a point of order. that's not a recognizable point of order. >> mister chairman, the point
of order, regarding the schedule, there's no point of order regarding the schedule. >> in this case there is,. >> there's no point of order regarding the schedule. >> will you answer my question? >> the gentleman will suspend. there is no recognizable point of order regarding the future schedule. >> will he recognize -- >> miss mcbath is recognized. >> thank, you mister chairman. mr. goldman, i want to follow up on just one part of president trump's conduct that -- i asked our constitutional scholars about last week. the investigative committees found evidence that president trump intimidated, threatened, and tampered with perspective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, correct? >> yes. >> and mr. goldman, it is a federal crime to intimidate, or to seek to intimidate any witness appearing before congress, is that right? >> yes, there's a little bit more to, it but that's the gist of, it yes.
>> mr. goldman, am i correct that president trump publicly attacked witnesses before, after, and even during their testimony? >> that is correct. >> i'd like to quickly go through some examples. on twitter, the president tried to smear ambassador bill taylor, a former military officer who graduated at the top of his class at west point. he served as an infantry commander in vietnam, and earned a bronze star, and an air medal with a v device for valor. he was attacked for doing his duty to tell the truth to the american people, correct? >> he did his duty, by testifying, yes. >> president trump also attacked other trump administration officials who testified before the intelligence committee, including lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, who is the
director for ukraine on the national security council, and jennifer williams, the special advisor on europe and russia with the office of the vice president. am i right? >> that is, right yes. mr. goldman, i think another troubling example of this is the president's treatment of ambassador yovanovitch. when you questioned a bachelor yovanovitch, you asked her about the president's remarks that she would, and i quote, go through some things. she told you that that remark sounded like a threat. is that right? >> yes, in the july 25th call, that is when president trump said that. >> ambassador yovanovitch is a career professional who served in republican and democratic administrations. she was once caught in a live cross fire during a coup attempt, and here's how she described that experience in her very own words.
>> i later served in moscow, in 1993, during the attempted coup in moscow, in russia, i was caught in cross fire between presidential and parliamentary forces. it took us three tries. me without a helmet, or body armor, to get into a vehicle to get to the embassy. we went because the ambassador asked us to come. and we went because it was our duty. >> it was our duty. even under such duress, this is a public servant who did her duty. and as she testified before you and the intelligence committee, the president tweeted yet another attack against her. is that correct? >> during the testimony, yes. >> at a rally, the president further attacked ambassador taylor and deputy assistant to george kent, foreign affairs official with decades of
bipartisan service. i just have to say, i am so deeply saddened that our president has attacked our brave and public servants. these attacks are and abuse of his power, and they betray our national interests. my republican colleagues, until now, have agreed with me that this behavior is not okay. that in america, we protect witnesses and people who tell the truth. we want people to come forward, we protect witnesses in our community. i myself have no stranger to these kinds of attacks. they are not okay. i want to read a partial statement by lieutenant colonel vindman, who is a military officer and public service, and it is -- intelligence committee, mr. vindman said, and i quote, i want to say that the character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible. i ran for
congress because i care urgently about health care, gun violence prevention, and our veterans. those are the urgent policies for me and many of my colleagues, but these witnesses, these public servants stood up and courageously told the truth and i must be courageous and stand up for them as well, i yield back the balance of my time. >> they gently deals back bounce over time, a few minutes ago he asked for contention to politico for that objection, i think it mister chairman we've heard today from some suggesting that this process has somehow been unfair, mr. goldman let's clear of that record. minority members on the investigative committees have access to all witness depositions, is that correct? >> yes and all the documents
and were they allowed to ask questions of every witness? >> they were given equal time to the majority for every single interview, deposition or hearing that we did. >> we are allowed to call the own witnesses to the hearings. >> yes, they did, they got three witnesses they're also allowed to call their own witnesses for the depositions and they chose not to do that, the only witness they requested for the deposition was chairman schiff who was not a witness to this investigation. >> mr. goldman why did the investigative committees decided to conduct this behind closed doors? >> vest investigative practice when you're doing a fact finding mission is to keep the information closed and the reason is exactly what i described earlier with ambassador sondland, first of all the day before his deposition he spoke with secretary perry about his testimony, that is the type of tailoring that can happen when people are engaged in misconduct and they try to line up their stories. so if you
keep the information closed they can't lineup their stories and i think frankly part of the reason why ambassador volker and ambassador sondland's public hearing testimony was so different from their deposition testimony is because the initial depositions were in closed session before we released the transcripts to the public. >> this is unprecedented because in both in nixon and clinton inquiries there were close store grand jury at the beginning of the inquiries. >> in congress it's a rule, in the house rules that was passed by republican congress is it was used in benghazi, used by a number of committees in the past decade or so. >> for clarity president trump has received all protections afforded to other presidents facing impeachment, is that correct? >> in the judiciary committee he has had all the options, that were angry was not the industries investigation it was the president's ability to present evidence, of course if
the president wanted to present evidence to the intelligence committee he could've provided documents, provided the witnesses that we asked from him, but he obstructed rather than cooperated. >> the president has been invited to participate in the house impeachment inquiry, correct? >> yes. >> any declined the invitation? >> that is my understanding. >> twice? >> twice this far. >> the president has refused to participate would try to stop congress from obtaining evidence, is it true that he has refused to provide any evidence subpoena to the white house. >> yes. >> not a single? one >> not a single document. >> he also got all of his agencies to refuse to produce documents, is that right? >> that is also true. >> based on the presidents order federal agencies have ignored more than 70 specific requests or demand from records from the investigative committee, is that correct? >> yes and if i can just add. >> quickly please. >> this would ordinarily be a document case, if you're prosecuting this case and
basing it on the documents, so the fact that those documents are being withheld is quite significant and it's quite remarkable that we built the record we had on the witnesses. >> the presidents order to obstruct caught -- didn't just go with witnesses, witnesses also refused to testify, is that correct? >> yes that is correct. >> in total more than a dozen members of the administration defied a lawful subpoenas or request for a testimony or a documents as we see on the side. >> right, between testimony and documents that is correct. >> is it also true that when witnesses chose to follow laws and testify the president denied those witnesses access to the documents that they needed to properly prepare for their testimony. >> for some of, them that is correct. >> i also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging. in many respects, less than fair. i have not had access to all of my phone
records. the state department emails, and many other state department documents. and i was told i could not work with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. these documents are not classified. and in fairness, and in fairness, should have been made available. >> the state department has called all materials in response to september 27th subpoena, that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. i have no such documents or materials with me today. >> the president was not denied the right to participate, quite the opposite. the president has chosen not to participate, and he is consistently trying to obstruct the impeachment investigation to ensure known testifies against them, that known produces a document that may incriminate him, and to engage in a cover-up to prevent the american people from learning the truth. i yield back. >> mister chairman, may i just say something for five seconds -- was a chairman, please? just something for five seconds.
>> no. the gentle lady -- >> thank you mister chairman. mr. goldman, some have argued that we should wait, that we are moving too fast, that we should try to get more evidence. let's examine why these arguments are without merit. -- all members of the white house staff will appear voluntarily when requested by the committee. they will testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper questions, and quote. during the investigation of president clinton, ken starr interviewed white house staff. president clinton also provided written responses to 81 interrogatories from the house judiciary committee. unlike his predecessors, president trump has categorically stonewalled congress is investigation at every turn, into this far back is april, the president
presented his -- >> we are fighting all the subpoenas. >> more recently, on september -- october 8th, white house counsel pat seem alone echoed the sentiment, in the letter reflecting the president and tracking that all executive branch officials not testify in this impeachment inquiry. are you aware of that letter, mr. goldman. >> yes i am. >> and mr. goldman, is it fair to say that president trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek the completely -- undertaken by this house? >> that is correct. it is unprecedented. >> and in, fact pursuant to president trump's ordered, 12 executive branch officials refused to testify as part of the house impeachment inquiry. ten of whom defy congressional subpoenas. am i right? >> yes. >> given the president's sweeping directive, not to cooperate with congress, do the investigative committees believe that there was any chance that other administration officials would come forward if subpoenaed? >> no, it became clear that the
president was trying to block everything, and block everyone, and eventually, they came up with an alternative reason to write an opinion to prevent people from coming in, which is quite an aggressive view that they took. but it was quite clear that they were trying to block every single witness. >> some have said that the investigative committee should have gone to court. did you decide not to go to court? >> we thought about it a lot, because obviously, there are additional witnesses and we want this to be as thorough and investigation. as you can see from the deutsche bank case or the mcgahn case, it takes months and months to go through the appeals court, and that's effectively what the president wants, to delay this as long as possible -- >> let's take a look at that exact case, the mcgahn case. we are all intimately aware of it. on april 22nd, this judiciary committee served a subpoena for testimony. to white house counsel, don mcgahn. and after
mcgahn refused to testify on may 21st, the committee filed a lawsuit on august the 7th, to compel his testimony. and even though we did request expedited ruling, it was another three and a half months before judge jackson found the constitution does not allow a president to kneecap congressional investigations because, as the judge wrote, and they put it up on this screen, quote, presidents are not kings. as you know, mcgahn has appealed. a hearing is set for january the 3rd of next year. as we sit here today, eight months since we issued that subpoena, would you agree it's likely we will not have an appeals court ruling for many months to come? >> it's quite possible that it could be several more months, and then there may be the supreme court. >> exactly. mcgahn may appeal to the supreme court, and conceivably, that could take another many months, a year, more. >> it depends on whether it's the storm or gets pushed over to the next term? given us to lay illustrated mcgahn example
specifically, would you agree that if we go to court to endorse the investigative committee subpoenas we could face another month or year long delay to hear testimony? >> absolutely there is an ongoing threat because the president is trying to cheat to win the next election, it's not something that happened in the past it's continuing in the future so we cannot delay it just wait for the courts to resolve this one the reason we would have to go to the courts is because the president is obstructing an investigation into himself. >> the urgency is not just about our elections but also our national security, and my right? >> that is a critical component to it let me and with this what is plain is we cannot wait, wait means never, we must not let this president disregard, defy, and delay justice, this president has shown that he repeatedly abuses the power interested him by the people every moment we wait is another opportunity to chip away at the foundation of our constitution so carefully crafted by our
founders, i think you mister chairman any old fact. >> gentle lady yields back and you'll to miss jackson lee. >> thank you very much mister chairman, i'd like to submit or ask unanimous consent to refer to the record in my questioning statement of administration policy proper -- without objection i would like to. and they call dated. >> mr. armstrong, thank you mister chairman. mr. castor it's been a long day, it's been all long couple of months, you've been in the middle of this and i know privacy wanted to say something so. >> thank you i resisted on my willingness to be this this afternoon, but first of all the republicans on the intelligence committee gave out a number --
ranking member nunes sent a letter asking for witnesses ranking member colin sent a letter on december six asking for witnesses some of them would've touch at part of the issues and that is could ukrainians try to interfere with our elections this is a fact that it is meritorious of the investigation of the ingredients are investigated and we are being investigated so to the extent that hasn't happened republicans have attempted to do that during this process so, i'd like to say that and i have a couple other things mr. armstrong. you know ambassador sondland is a witness who went from being not
very favorable to very favorable in his hearing. one of his remarkable statements it is hearing was that everyone was in the loop, he types of this email to pompeo, to the secretary and the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone is in the loop is not conclusive at all, you know he talks about the statement that was going back and forth especially the early part of august, first of all they said all along in think the statement was a very good idea tried to write this statement and ultimately both sides decided that it wasn't a good plan so they didn't do it, so the fact that the sondland is emailing the secretary talking about the statement and so forth it doesn't show that every once in a loop ambassador
hill testified with us and they don't just email the secretary the secretary gets an email of course but it's not like this there's a whole secretariat that filters the email and so it's not emailing the secretary of state, it's not quite as simple as i think ambassador sondland made it seem here. so i just wanted to address that and we talked a couple times about the reliability of george kent's notes, one of ambassador volker's assistance catherine croft testified and it was rather startling piece of testimony. she was asked whether cans notes would be reliable, sort of a typical question, everyone expecting the answer to be yes, they said she said no, i don't think ken's notes would be reliable so i think that is important to put on the record that there is
evidence, you know perhaps mr. kent felt some oceans about some of these issues and his nose according to one state department official light not in fact be reliable. the cnn interview that there has been discussion about, okay there is discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned, maybe there is discussion of a cnn interview but we did not really get to the bottom of that, that was this is a more surface fact that was out there, ambassador taylor was worried it was going to happen but we didn't really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur with the cnn interview and whether president zelensky was actually going to do it. if you look back at the statements that they were talking about you are no wasn't comfortable doing it, so when it comes to the cnn
interview it's possible that you are macro david vice president zelensky not to say what people thought he was going to say so i'm sorry mr. armstrong. >> know you worked hard and i want to summarize this, you can and because you cannot proof this entertainment on tv it's they get a conviction in three minutes but my question is for what crime? a mueller conspiracy fell flat, the obstruction charge was a banded, campaign finances is a nonstarter, victim of conspiracy or the victim of bribery and extraordinary cities not a victim, so you can proves any of it doesn't mean you can use all of it and that's no way to prosecute a case it is no way to proceed with impeachment, thank you all. >> gentleman yields back >> thank you mister chairman, mr. goldman i want to come back and highlight what i think is the biggest national security
threat and that is foreign interference into our elections. i can tell you in florida we are extremely concerned about the security of our elections and the potential for election interference by foreign governments especially russia because florida my home state was the victor victim of russian hacking, there is every indication that they are trying to do the same thing right now, our country was founded on the premise that the elected officials are elected by the people but president trump doesn't share these ideas, he has and continue to interfere he doesn't want the american people to decide and he's inviting foreign effort to fear. it's on mr. goldman it's been confirmed that he actually saw the interference in the 2016 election, is correct. >> what special counsel mueller
said is that president trump did invite them and solicit them to hack hillary clinton's emails ultimately the trump campaign i think it was welcome, knew about the interference, welcomed it and utilized it. >> right and in 2016 trump it became quite clear in all of his comments and all the other witnesses at any mention of corruption or anti
corruption was really meant in the evidence show this it was really a euphemism for the investigations. >> correct and trump is not only asking, excuse me president trump is not only asking ukraine but he also says china should start investigating his political opponents, the presidents pattern of behaviors incredibly disturbing, russia, ukraine china he's inviting three countries to help him in his reelection campaign, mr. goldman i don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't ask any other governments, for example venezuela, correct? >> he could at this point he has shown not only willingness to do this multiple times but i think most importantly for all of the members consideration he has also shown a lack of contrition, a lack of acknowledgment that what he is doing is wrong and that it is wrong, if you don't recognize it it is wrong then there's no reason but you won't do it
again, if you've already done it. >> exactly we saw giuliani and ukraine just three days ago and last night i wanted to say the washington post based saying that rudy giuliani has been now advising opening a back channel, so i'm very worried about that now i don't think we have any time to wait to see if any countries are now going to take him up on the offer to help him on his reelection campaign. mr. goldman did the investigative committees reach any committees about the ongoing threats, he continuing risk that the president poses. >> yes for the same reasons we have just discussed, i think june television interview where the president integrated that he would once again anne have a data point, questioning that he is saying that he has such a
great record and the democrats don't want him to win, the question is if that is the case and the very mae be the case then why does he need to cheat to win the election, why can't he just go on his own platform? >> i think they demanded it follows the rule of law and fight to keep russian interference, excuse me for an interference, now i know that i was elected by the people of florida and i work only for the people of this country and i'm not going to let anyone interfere in our elections or threaten our democracy. the continuing power of behavior should be a warning that it is a beginning of a dictatorship that i have seen in latin america, i have seen the abuse of power, and foreign interference and also obstructing any checks on their power. the constitution has no
partisan allegiance, we cannot allow this behavior from this president or any future president our democracy depends on it. >> gentle lady yields back, thank you mister chairman. >> mister chairman. >> i recognize mr. jordan for the purpose of this request. >> thank you the majorities witness was wrongly said that we were able to interview people. >> we were not so the record, to letter santa chairman nadler and. >> you'll miss escobar is recognized. >> thank you mister chairman many thanks to us who have spent the entire day, despite what our republican colleagues have stated over and over again and their own witness mr. castor has agreed that these have produced direct evidence, direct evidence with any objective observer would recall as overwhelming, that evidence
proves that the president solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election, pressured on zelensky to publicly announce unfounded investigations, conditioned a white house meeting, and 391 million dollars on the announcement of the egg investigations and then the president covered up his conduct obstruct the investigation, the findings reflect a serious abuse of power by the president yet we are being asked to ignore we have seen with her own eyes and what we have heard with your own ears. so mr. goldman i'd like to get yourself to respond to some other claims of my colleagues have made today. >> happily. >> the president and his allies say there was no quid pro quo, in other words they claim that the president wasn't withholding the aid in exchange for the manufacture political investigation, is it true that the aid was withheld and that
there has been no logical explanation for the withholding of that aid? >> there is common sense that leads one to conclude that the aid was withheld from the investigations and then there's also direct evidence in that the president's own words to ambassador sondland said the same thing. >> thank you president trump knew he had leverage over president will zelensky and in fact david holmes testified that ambassador sondland told president trump that president zelensky will quote, do anything you ask, him is that correct? >> that is what ambassador sondland said, actually that is what president trump said. that is what ambassador sondland said to trump, my apologies. >> you testified that the ukrainians did no clear that the aid was being withheld, my colleagues continue to say that there couldn't be leverage because they had no idea that
the aid was being withheld yet there has been evidence showed that -- >> i think it's important for a second to take a step back it doesn't matter when they knew as long as they knew at some point then they realized at that point that the investigations were depending on the aid, in addition and there is a lot of evidence that they knew before the cable public on august 28th. >> and you're right it doesn't matter if you are about to be held up a gunpoint by a burglar it doesn't matter if you know or not. the intent is still there by the criminal about to commit the fact. my republican colleagues also make much about the a family being released, isn't it true that it wasn't released until the president got caught? >> there was an released into the president got caught and all of the money didn't actually get to ukraine and that fiscal year and you all had to pass to get that money
to ukraine. >> earlier today mr. castro tried to explain the way the request for foreign interference in the election by claiming the president had three concerns, that number one the president was concerned about ukraine corruption, that number two he was concerned about burning sharing with europe and number three he brought up the debunked conspiracy theory about ukraine election interference which by the way that the last point we know is a russian talking point. mr. goldman did the investigative committees consider those three explanations and if so what did the evidence show about whether president trump's request was actually motivated by those concerns? >> it's a very good question there are two things that were discussed here today, what is evidence and one is assertions and opinions, based on the evidence there is no evidence to support any of those three things that you just mentioned, there's no evidence to think
that the president acted towards ukraine because of his concerns about corruption, even if he held those concerns that was not the motivating factor. there is no evidence that his concern, will giving enough money motivated him and there is really not a reasonable belief given all the evidence that he believed that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. >> thank you i'd like to close with other scholars explain to us last week about why all of this is so important. >> drying a foreign government into our elections isn't especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. >> because if we cannot impeach a president to abuse his office for personal advantage we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or a dictatorship. >> if what we are talking about is not impeachable that nothing
is impeachable. >> thank you mister chairman i yield back will. >> can i respond to that? >> this concludes the questioning, i -- >> i seek unanimous request to introduce mister chairman in his first hearing and the new congress which was on examining prescription drug prices, his first hearing was not about michael cohen as was asserted earlier. >> without objection i now recognize the ranking member for any conclusion remarks he may have. >> thank you mister chairman one quick thing it does matter whether they knew or didn't know. because after they supposedly found out it does matter because after two meetings with officials from the united states it was never talked about it no linkage was made. the reason it matters is because if there is no understanding that this is being withheld's there is no quid pro quo and also goes to the state of mind of mr. zelensky who says i'm not being
pressured, there is nothing here and again it goes back to the amazing thought of this majority who keeps calling the ukrainian leader a liar, is just amazing that we continue to propagate that mid here tonight, but what did we learn today? >> here is some things we did learn, in the hearing they talk about in which staff basically not members gave testimony and got into very heated debates with each other, this is not what the judiciary committee should be doing, it's not the way they should be held and again and the reason it is mr. goldman who handled himself very well but he's not adam schiff this is ridiculous we shouldn't be doing this, the intel committee also what we did find out took phone records and went on it endeavor against the wrecking with member but no it'll take responsibility for telling the staff to use mr. nunez or who decided to put this mirror job in the report, we will just assume that mr. schiff because i do hold the
member accountable. also we found out today which is really interesting the staff can determine what's relevant or not not member of congress. it's interesting to me that staff told members of congress but that wasn't relevant again goes back to the problem if you are not members here to actually talk about this. also interesting another thing we've learned that the chairman continues to regard in -- this regard house rules. plainly disregarding house rules, if i hear basically one more time all address that one remark up impeachment articles what's the use of the hearing today forgot gonna have evidence if you get the confirmation of the markup itself. even your most heated debate on getting rid of this president doesn't show any way that can be fair and in the end both parties are in the minority. if you destroy the institutional integrity which again in the staff have talked about we destroy this there is nothing else for us to do but well we were here there was something that did happen and as we were sitting here discussing whether to encourage
the president on the call he had with president zelensky, to look at how it happened in 2016 democrats are seeking to impeach the president over that and we are seeing that problems with the russian investigation play out in front of our eyes. it's the same playbook, a select group of individuals concluding against trump, they are blowing through every procedure to ensure they get him in time. so what happened today while we were stuck here the inspector general reports. other aspects of the investigation, hurricane administration here some of the top findings the fbi included inaccurate information, the fbi failed to include an information in the fisa, the fbi did not cooperate a huge amount of information. the fbi shows two on brief candidate clinton not trump. and disclose information that was going
directly to the clinton campaign. the fbi attorney on altered and other agencies email to miss league about whether they carter page had banana intelligence orders. the bottom line is that it should never have been obtained, if you don't have this than you don't have a russian investigation, if you don't have a russia investigation you can't knock out the president and you can't hamstring the president's first two years where there is special counsel investigation. i could go on from mr. trump who has waited as the next batch of this and we will see where it goes. i do want to take one last thing from our side because this undoubtedly will be the last hearing because we have no desire to hear anything from our side, minority hearing or otherwise. i want to take the time to think mr. castor the top investigators and they combined have 15 to 20 years experience in the house conducting investigations to protect the american interests, what these public service fans don't usually do is get questions from others who come before them, miscast and
caroline usually alongside members of the congress, i'm sorry today that the majority chose to highlight their investigators and also the ones that have been brought in over these public servants, i'm sorry to choose this but it's where were out and i want to thank them for their work today, i'd like to thank them for their work on our behalf but also the ones listening here if you look around the room this is what happening to the american people. but the end of the day most of the ones in the members of the meeting are begging to go somewhere else because at the end of the day one thing that keeps being said from mr. goldman and others is these facts are undisputed the very nature of the fact that i say i disagree and use it you don't is a disputed fact, these are disputed facts and will be the first impeachments that is partisan and facts are not agree to, that is a state in which the history as we go, we have the cover rubberstamp just
as the chairman predicted almost 20 years ago when we willingly except from someone else a project a report that we don't investigate ourselves, with that, that is the problem we have and that is called the judiciary committee impeachment scam today, you go back. >> and now recognize myself concluding remarks. >> after hearing the reports in the evidence today we now know several things with certainty. we know that the president was at the center of a scheme to pressure ukraine to announce an investigation of the president's political rivals. he applied that pressure by withholding both the white house meeting and vital military aid, he made that demand directly to president zelensky and confirmed his personal involvement, we know that there are no excuses for this conduct, it is no excuse that president trump eventually released the aid after his scheme was revealed to the public and it's no excuse that he insisted that there was no
quid pro quo only after his scheme was revealed to the public, we know that his actions endangered national security including our reputation our safety at risk in. we know that the president also compromised the integrity of our elections for corrupt private political purpose we know president trump in a president active obstruction quoted everyone in the executive branch to divide all congressional subpoenas for documents and subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry. we know that his attempts to solicit a political favor from the government of ukraine fit a pattern of conduct that the president established in 2016 when he solicited political assistance from the government of russia. that pattern of misconduct undermines or national security and undermines free and fair
elections. abusing his office in this manner and in obstruction the investigation that followed we know the president trump has put himself before his country. i am struck by the fact that my republican colleagues have offered no serious scrutiny of the evidence and hand. they've talked about everything else but they have offered no one substantive word in the president's defense. i suspect that is because there is no real defends for the president's actions, president trump put himself before his country. there is a constitutional remedy for a president who national security in our elections, who puts his own interests before those of the country, that remedy is impeachment. the facts are clear, the danger to our democracy is clear, our duty is clear president trump violated his oath to the american people, he placed his own private
interests ahead of our national security and the integrity of our elections and constitutes a continuing threat to the integrity of our elections into our democratic system of government. such conduct is clearly impeachable, this committee will proceed according. this concludes today's hearing and we thank all of our prisoners from participating,aye.