Transcripts For CSPAN2 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hearing On Evidence In Impeachment... 20240713

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we recessed about to hear from mr. Castor, you are recognized for 45 minutes. Good afternoon chairman and Ranking Member collins, members of the committee and the staff, thank you again for having meto back. And giving me the opportunity to testify about the evidence gathered during the impeachment inquiry. At the outset let me say the evidence does not support the allegations that my democrat colleagues have made. I dont believe the evidence leads to the inclusion they suggest. I am hopeful that some important perspective and context to the facts under discussion today. The chief obligation as a Democrat Impeachment inquiry is trying to assess over the last 76 days is this, whether President Trump abuse the power da his office through quid pro quo, bribery, extortion or whatever by withholding a meeting or Security Assistance as a way of pressuring president zelensky to pressure the political rival former vp biden. Or the president s political benefit in the upcoming election. The secondary allegation that has been levied is whether President Trump obstructed congress during theth inquiry. The evidence obtained during the inquiry doesum not support eithr of those allegations, the republican report of evidence lays out the reasons and more detail but i will summarize. I will begin with the subsequent allegation of abuse of power in the inquiry has returned no direct evidence that President Trump withheld a meeting or Security Assistance in order to pressure president zelensky to investigate former vp biden. Witnesses who testified any inquiry denied having awareness or criminal activity or even an Impeachable Offense. On the key question the president s state of mind, there is no clear evidence ofs President Trump acted with malicious intent. Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is rippled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways, to paraphrase professor from last week, the impeachment record is heavy and presumptions in empty improve. That is not me saying that, that is professor. Let me start with the direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or peach scheme. This is president s phone call with zelensky which the nationab Security Council in the white house situation room staff per protocol summary. According to testimony from tim morrison the summary was accurate and complete. The nsc staff member, Alexander Vindman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and editing not done when maliciously. President trump is declassified and released the call summary so the American People can review and assess for themselves. I will make a few points that seem toif have gone under notic. The call summary reflex absolutely no pressure or conditionality. President zelensky vocalized no concerns with the subject matter discussed. There is no indication of bribery, extortion or other illegal conduct on the call. The call summary shows President Trump and president zelensky engaged in pleasantries and cordialitys in the call summary revealed laughter and simply put the call is not the sinister mob shakedown that some democrats have described. President trump raises concerns about european allies paying their fair share and Security Assistance to ukraine, a concern that President Trump will continue to raise both publicly and privately. There is no discussion on the call, i repeat no discussion on the call about the upcoming 2020 election. Or Security Assistance to ukraine. Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call on september 25 at the United Nations he said we had, i think a good phone call, it was normal. On october 6, president zelensky said i was never pressured and there were no conditions being opposed. Four days later, on october 10 zelensky said there is nothing wrong with the call, no blackmail, this is not corruption. This is just a call. Recently inn Time Magazine president zelensky said, never talk to the president from a position of a quid pro quo. Because president zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim. Other senior Ukrainian Government officials confirm president zelensky statement. Foreign minister said on september 21, i know the conversation was about and i think there was no pressure. Alexander, then secretary of Ukraine National security and defense counsel told ambassador bill taylor on the night of the call, that Ukrainian Government was not disturbed by anything on the call. President trump has said he did not pressure president zelensky. On september 25 President Trump said there was no pressure when asked if he wanted president zelensky to do more to investigate the former vp, President Trump responded no i want him to do whateveres he can but whatever he can do in terms of corruption because corruption is massive, thats what he should do. Several witnesses attested to the president s concerned about ukrainian corruption. The initial readout of the july 25 call from the Ukrainian Government and the state department raised no concerns. Although Lieutenant Colonel vindman noted concerns, those concerns were not shared by national Security Council leadership. They were not shared by Keith Kellogg who listened on the call, kellogg said in his statement, i heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns. Lieutenant colonel vindmans superior to morrison testified that he was concerned the call was leaked and can be misused in washingtons political process. But he did not believe that anything discussed on the call was illegal or improper. Much has also been made about President Trumps reference on the july 20 call to Hunter Bidens position on the board of breezburisma. The ukrainian officials and a runup to the 2016 election. Democrat dismiss the conspiracy theories to suggest that the president has no legitimate reason other than his own political interest to raise these issues with president zelensky. The evidence however, shows there are legitimate questions about both issues. But withre respect to burisma, george kent testified that the company had reputation for corruption. The company was founded who served as ukraines minister of ecology and Natural Resources and when he served in the role the Company Burisma received expiration licenses without public auctions. Burisma brought hunter biden onto the board of directors according to the New York Times as part of a broad effort by burisma to bring in wellconnected democrats during a period when the company was facing investigation not just by domestic Ukrainian Forces but by officials in the Obama Administration. George kent testified about these efforts. Hunter biden reportedly received between 50,083,000 a month. As compensation for his position on burismas board. At the time the hunter biden joined the board his father, the former vp, was the Obama Administration point person for ukraine. Biden has no specific court writ government expertise and we dont believe he speaks ukrainian or russian, we dont believe he moved there. So hes getting this gigantic paycheck for what . The Washington Post wrote at the time of his appointment to burismas board it was nepotistic at best and the Washington Post said nefarious at worst. According to the wall street journal, anticorruption activist in ukraine also raised concerns that the former vp son received money and worried that that would mean that he would be protected and not prosecuted. Witnesses and the impeachment inquiry noted Hunter Bidens role on the board. And how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. Lieutenant colonel vindman testified the hunter biden did not appear qualified to serve on burismas board. Witnesses testified the Hunter Bidens role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise. In fact george kent explained in 2015 he raised the concern to the office of former Vice President biden. That Hunter Bidens role on burismas board presented a potential conflict of interest. However, Hunter Bidens role did not change and former Vice President biden continued to lead the u. S. Policy in ukraine. On this record, there is a legitimate basis that President Trump to have concern about Hunter Bidens role on burismas board. The prospect of some senior ukrainian official worked against President Trump in the runup to the 2016 election draws a visceral reaction from most democrats. Let me say very, very clearly, election interference is not binary. I am not saying it was ukraine and not russia, i am saying that both countries can work to influence an election. A systemic coordinated russian interference effort does not mean that some ukrainian officials, some ukrainian officials did not work to oppose President Trumps candidacy. That it did not make statements against President Trump during the election. Ambassador volker testified in his public hearing it is possible for more than one country to seek influence in more than one election. Doctor hill testified likewise after public hearing contemporary noo news articles d how President Trumps candidacy led wider Political Leadership to do something they would never have attempted before. Intervene however, indirectly in the u. S. Election. In august 2016 the Ukrainian Ambassador to the u. S. Published an oped in the hill criticizing canada trump, other senior ukrainian officials consecrated it trump a clown and other words. They alleged that he challenged the very values of the free world on prominent ukrainian explained that the majority of ukraines political figures were on Hillary Clinton side. On generate 2017 political article lays out a more detailed effort by the Ukrainian Government officials to oppose President Trumps candidacy. The article notes how ukraine worked to sabotage the Trump Campaign by questioning his fitness for office. The article detailed how a woman named alexander true lupa ukrainian American Contractor paid by the d c and working with the d c in the Clean Campaign traded information and leads about the Trump Campaign with the staff at the ukrainian missy in washington. True lupa explained how they work directly with reporters direct them in the right direction. Witnesses testified that it was appropriate to examine. The ambassador volker testified that he thought it was fine to investigate allegations about 2016 influence. Ambassador taylor said for example that the allegation surprised and disappointed him on this record i do not believe that one can conclude that President Trump had no legitimate basis to raise t a concern about efforts by ukrainians to influence the 2016 election. Now let me turn to the first extortion that President Trump withhold a meeting with president zelensky as a way of pressuring him to investigate the former vp. Here it is important to note ukraines long profound history of endemicic corruption. Several witnesses and the inquiry testified about these problems. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch said ukraine corruption is not just prevalent but frankly is the system. Witnesses testified to having firsthand knowledge that President Trump is skeptical of ukraine due to its corruption dating back years and this skepticism contributed to President Trumps initial sksitancy to meet the president zelensky. Ambassador volker testified, i know he had a very deeprooted skeptical view in my understanding at the time was that even though he agreed and the meeting that we had with him will invite them, he did not really want to do it. That is why the meeting kept getting delayed. Another relevant set of facts the effort of some ukrainian officials to oppose President Trumps candidacy in the 2016 election. Some of these ukrainian politicians initially remain in government when president zelensky took over. Witnesses testified that these ukrainian efforts in the 2016 colored how President Trump viewed ukraine. It is also important to note that president zelensky was a relatively unknown quality for u. S. Policymakers. Marie yovanovitch called him an untried politician. Doctor hill testified that there were concerns within the national Security Council about zelenskys relationship with the controversial old guard in ukraine. Although president zelensky ran under review form platform, president zelensky appointed his lawyer as his chief of staff. Both ambassador volker and ron johnson noted the disappointment raise concerns. These facts are important in assessing the president s state of mind and understanding whether president zelensky was truly committed to fighting corruption in ukraine. The evidence shows that President Trump invited president zelensky to meet at the white house on three separate occasions all without any conditions, the first is on april 21st, during the congratulatory phone call and the second was a letter on may 29 and this letter followed an Oval Office Meeting on may 23 with the u. S. Delegation to the inauguration and during the meeting President Trump expressed his kep skepticism abt ukraine. Ambassador volker recalled the presidency these are terrible people and a corrupt country. Ambassador sondland testified that ukraine and the president s view try to take them down. In the 2016 election. Senator ron johnson confirmed the testimony and the submission to the impeachment inquiry. Finally the third time the President Trump invited zelensky to meet without any preconditions was during the call. 5 phone although some time passed between may 2019 when the president formally invited zelensky to meet in september 25 when he met the evidence does not show that theto Ukrainian Government felt additional pressure due to this delay. To the contrary ambassador volker testified they felt good about its relationship with the trump or ministration in the period. During those four months senior Ukrainian Government officials out of the nine meetings, were phone calls with President Trump, Vice President pence, secretary pompeo, National Security bolton and u. S. Ambassadors. The evidence does not support an inclusion that President Trump conditioned a meeting with president zelensky on investigating former Vice President biden. President zelenskys close advisor said explicitly in august 2019 New York Times story which was published before the beginning of the impeachment inquiry. In the article, he said that he and mayor giuliani did not discuss a link between a president ial meeting and an investigation. During this testimony confirms his statement ambassador volker testified there was no linkage between a potential meeting and an investigation. Although ambassador sondland testified that he believed there was a quid pro quo, his testimony is not as clear as it had been portrayed. In his deposition, ambassador sondland testified he believed the meeting with conditions on the public anticorruption statement not on investigations themselves, distinction that he was to note the ambassador sondland said then that nothing about the request raised any red flags. In his public testimony ambassador sondland clarified that he had no firsthand knowledge of any linkage coming from the president and never discussed any precondition with the president. He nearly presumed there were preconditions. Id also like to address the july 10 meeting in ambassador boltons office with two senior ukrainian officials. Allow me too submit that hereto there is conflicting evidence about the facts. Both doctor hill and Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified that ambassador sondland raised investigation during this meeting causing ambassador bolton to abruptly and the meeting. Doctor hill testified she confronted ambassador sondland over his discussion about investigations. Ambassador sondland testimony about the meeting is scattered in his closeddoor deposition he testified no National Security staff member ever once expressed concern to him that he was acting improperly. And he denied he raised investigation during the meeting. But, when we came here to testify in public he acknowledged for the first time that he raised investigations but he denied that the meeting ended abruptly. He maintained that doctor hill never raised concerns to him in any discussion of investigation did not mention anything specific such as biting or 2016. Let me lastly address the allegation that President Trumps directed Vice President pence not to attend president zelenskys inauguration, as another way of pressuring ukraine to investigate former Vice President biden. F pressuring ukraine to investigate former Vice President biden. Jennifer williams, a Senior Adviser in the office of the Vice President testified that a colleague, she said it was the chief of staffs assistance ant told her, the chief of staffs assistant, President Trump told Vice President pence not to attend the inauguration. If, indeed, such a direction was given, its not clear from the evidence why it was done because the Vice President s office was juggling other potential trips during that time. An extremely short time frame for days out were it possible to attend the inauguration separately the office of the Vice President was also planning in an unrelated trip through canada to promote the u. S. Mca during the same window. The u. S. Mca was and still is a significant priority for the administration. Vice president mike pence has been a number odone a number ofs in supportis of this. President trump was also planning for in travel during this time period. Both cannot be out of the country at the same time. These factors created a narrow window for the Vice President s participation in the inauguration. Doctor hill testified she had no knowledge. Only four days later may 20. Fullstop one of the three days Vice President s office provided for the availability and this surprised the office because they were not expecting the ukrainians tow look at that time frame. George kent at the state Department Said the short notice from the ukrainian forced the state department to scramble to find a u. S. Official to lead the delegation finally settling on the secretaryry of energy. May 20, the date of the president s observation Vice President was inn Jacksonville Florida for an event promoting u. S. Mca. Theypr met during the United Nations General Assembly and the two p met without ukraine ever taking action on the investigations and according to the ambassador, there was no discussion of investigation during the meeting. I will now turn to the second assertion of President Trump withholding the taxpayerfunded Security Assistance to ukraine in the way of pressuring zelensky to conduct these investigations. The context is critically important. President trump has been skeptical of the foreign assistance and believes quite strongly that our european allies should share more of the burden of the regional defense. Thats an assertion he made on the campaign trail and something he was raised consistently since. Its also important to note that u. S. Security assistance is conditioned to countries around the world and the u. S. Aid including to ukraine has been temporarily pause in the past for various reasons and even for no reason at all. The ambassador testified 55 day pause on Security Assistance didnt strike him in that it wasnt a significant and the state Department Official testified Security Assistance to ukraine specifically had been temporarily paused in the past. Ambassador under secretary of state for Political Affairs and third most senior official at the state department testified that the national Security Council launched a review to make sure the taxhe payer dollas were spent in the National Interest tosi advance the principle of burden sharing by our allies. Doctor hill testified as she was leaving in july. In a directive for the whole scale review of the foreignpolicy assistant. She said there had been more scrutiny on Security Assistance as a result. Another important data point is the willingness to take the stance istand in supporting ukre against the russian aggression and compared it to th compared S Administration several testified President Trumps willingness to provide with lethal defensive assistance antitank missiles was a substantial improvement and a stronger policy and significant decision when we discuss democratic allegations that they withheld vital Security Assistance dollars from ukraine we should also remember that it was President Trump and not president obama who provided ukraine with lethal defensive weapons. I make all peace points here because they are relevant pieces of information that bear on how the house shoul house should vie evidence and question. Although the Security Assistance was paused in july the evidence is virtually silent on the definitive reason for the pause. Contribute more to ukraine he explained how they received requests for information and other countries were contributing to ukraine which the omb provided in the first week of september. The aid of course was released. The testimony is particularly on thisis point it is a key intermediary with Ukrainian Government and someone who they trusted and sought out for advice. Ambassador voelker testified he was aware of no quid pro quo. They reiterated there was no linkage. They told him tim morrison and the ambassador also believed the two were not linked. The ambassadors testimony as we have seen already as they did more scattered. In the deposition he said he was never aware of the preconditions on Security Assistance or that the Security Assistance was tied to investigations. The ambassador then later provided a written statement supplementing the deposition which he explained that the first time that the absence of any explanation. He voiced the concern to the close adviser to. Published on november 2 22nd thy disputed the ambassadors account and said he doesnt remember any reference to thed military aid into the public testimony, the ambassador reiterated testimony was based on the presumption acknowledging to the congressman turner that no one on the planet told him that Security Assistance to the Security Assistance to ukraine was conditioned on the investigations of. The statement in this regard ought to be persuasive there would be anything less than candid during these private conversations on august 31 in fighting the corruption of the burden sharing among european allies and senator john then raised the potential linkage between Security Assistance and investigations, President Trump vehemently denied any connection saying no way. I would never do that. Who told you that. President trump told senator johnson that we are reviewing it now, referring to the Security Assistance. And you will probably like my final decision. He told to senator thompson on the 31st. The statement suggests President Trump was already leaning towards lifting the aid. I want no quid pro quo and i want zelensky to do the right thing. In addition to senior Ukrainian Government officials denied any awareness of the linkage between the Security Assistance and investigations into these denials are persuasive because if there was in fact an orchestrated scheme to pressure ukraine by withholding Security Assistance, one would think the pause on Security Assistance would have been clearly communicated to the ukrainians. The news following the writtenor of the supplemental testimony made informal inquiries to the state department and Defense Department about these issues. Subsequent news articles explained the conflicting testimony that the Embassy Officials in washington had made about the issue i issues with td and senior officials in kiev denied awareness of the pause. The article explains than Ukrainian Ambassador who was appointed by president zelenskys predecessoror would b and did not inform there was any issue with the aid. According to the news account, the senior team when they learned of a pause when it was reported on august 28. As ambassador voelker testified because the senior ukrainian officials were unaware of the pause, there was no leverage. It reinforces the conclusion that they did not know the aid was on hold. In the days during which the Security Assistance was paused, president zelensky had five discussions with u. S. Senior officials on the july 2015 spoke with President Trump on the phone and july 26 ambassador voelker and ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland. The 22nd he met with ambassador bolton and september 21, and then september 5 met with senator ron johnson and a number teof these meetings about the linkage andes investigations. In particular the september 5 meeting is notable. The Vice President asked him about these reforms during the september 1 meeting. In the deposition the ambassador of love the rabid reforms and national Security Council officials that during a meeting everyone on the ukrainian side of the table was exhausted because the they had been up all night working on these reforms. According to the testimony theyy discuss other progress on anticorruption reform was enough to justify releasing the Security Assistance. They were obviously armed with a conversation that he had with president zelensky and they convinced the president that age should be disbursed immediately. They were conjugating money to ukraine and President Trump told senator thompson on august 31 we are reviewing it now and you will probably like my final decision. He told the ambassador on september 9 i want zelensky to do what he ran on and he ran on a platform of an untried astition with ties to the potential controversial oligarch. He reiterated that on septembe september 21 the pause on the Security Assistance is lifted at the president spent two weeks later. The Ukrainian Government never took any action on the investigations at issue in the impeachment in. President trump conspired with ukrainele that his agents could pursue a scheme to pressured ukraine to conduct thesese investigations he lost confidence and the ambassador and simply not an abuse of power for him to. During the course of the inquiry, ambassador taylor played a prominent role in some of the hearings last month. If President Trump sought to remove the ambassadors various plan, he certainly wouldntso he replaced her with someone on the likes of ambassadorov bill tayl. Second, the three u. S. Officials that comprised the socalled shadow Foreign Policy apparatus all were officials with interests in ukraine policies. As the ambassador asked him to connect because of the team was surprised by the mayors negative comments about ukraine. They wanted to change his mind. Both ambassador voelker in his deposition and in the august New York Times article denied that mayor giuliani is speaking on behalf ofon President Trump s his agent and instead asked the ambassador explained, the Ukrainian Government saul giuliani as a conduit that they could change their president s aind. Second delegation at issue of course is whether the president t obstructed congress for not agreeing to the demand for documents and testimony as somebody with experience of the congressional investigations and strongly believe in the congresss article authority that this impeachment is domestically from the president ial impeachment greatcoat impeachment as well as the fair and effective congressional oversight. First process matters the bipartisan guarantee for the fundamental fairness and due process. It allowed to be participation from th the president s counseln the factfinding process and neither aspect was president here and they denied eyewitnesses and they voted down the subpoena and we thought the issue for documents and testimony and they never broke through the Committee Vote any that were issued in that they were all tabled. Democrats directed the witnesses not to answer the questions and these sorts of actions he legitimized the inquiry into death and thand didthe witnesset the confidence that the inquiry is fair. Or that any potential witnesses of the inquiry should be allowed to raise defenses without it being used as an adverse inference against him. The courts uphold the constitution mandates a process between the branches. For this reason congressional oversight is a time intensive and eveendeavor and it takes lor thann the six days. Here however the initial letters instructed potential witnesses if they didnt cooperate and fold it shall constitute evidence off obstruction. Democrats want all their demands honored immediately and were unwilling to consider the executive branch privilegess or defenses. Finally, there is no basis for obstruction. Obstruction. One witness said he spoke to buo President Trump about thehe appearance, they testified the president told him to cooperate and the truth. The president has classified and released a summary of the july 25 of april 21 call with president zelensky. The white house so that they were willing to cooperate further if they would return to an established bipartisan constitutional based impeachment process. As we know, these protections werebi never afforded. In closing i would like to briefly address the narrative as articulated in the report. The directed narrative ignores any evidence that isnt helpful to their case and because firms expect the ambassadorsrt testimony presented that a there was a quid pro quo and ignores the many Public Statements made by the ukrainian officials. The report presents a story as if the evidence is clear when in reality its anything but. Democrats have gone to Great Lengths to gather information to build their case and theyve even obtained and released phone records relating to the communications of the personal attorney, but reporter and member of congress. There are additional phone records that have not yet been released and our members remain concerned about the prospect of more phone records being released. Thereve been a lot of hyperbole anand a lot of hysteria over the last three months of the inquiry and undermining facts. A lot can be traced back to the anonymous whistleblower complaint and reframed a lot of the facts and caused the witnesses in the inquiry to recast their views and its unfortunate we havent been able to interview the whistleblower. Finally some have likened the impeachment to the special prosecutors investigation and one comparisonon one should also expect that like Kenneth Starr and robert mueller, the chairman should testify in our members from all the committees believe very strongly that the chairman should testify and answer questions. With that mr. Chairman, the time is yours. The gentlemans time is has expired and we will proceed to the first round of questions. The gentleman will state his point of order. We have been told that the council for the democrats was a witness and thats why he didnt have to comport with the rules and now hes sitting up here ive been a judge and i know you dont have to be a witness and a judge in the same case. That is my point of order, he shouldnt be up there. Pursuant to House Resolution is a Judiciary Committee procedures there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman and the majority counsel followed by 45 minutes by the Ranking Member of the minority counsel. The chair and Ranking Member and respective counsel to question witnesses during this pickup. Following that, unless i specify additional equal time for extended questioning allawi will proceed under the fiveminute rule. Every member will have a chance to ask questions and i now frecognize myself for the first round of questions. The republicans Expert Witness last week wrote in an article that, quote, there is no question the use of Public Office for personal gain is an Impeachable Offense including the overflowing of military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political opponent. Oru have to prove that it happened. There was mr. Charlies comment. Did the investigative committees concluded that the evidence proved the president used the Public Office for personal gain . Yes mr. Chairman. And basic President Trump used the office of the president to apply pressurpresident to appe president of ukraine into the Ukrainian Government to announce the politically motivated desired byons President Trump and did the evidence also proved President Trump withhold military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation of the political opponent . Yesterday. And President Trump acting through the support condition sd released of the military assistance suspended to ukraine under the president of ukraines public announcement of the investigations President Trump sought and that the evidence the demonstrate President Trump undermined National Security interests in the United States . Yes, in several ways. T and it said in directing and orchestrating a scheme to advance the personal political interest President Trump didnt implement, promote or advance the corruption policies affect sought to pressure induced the government of ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the u. S. Government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world and in so doing the president undermined the policies supporting anticorruption reform and the rule of law and ukraine and undermined u. S. National security. Did the evidence also showed President Trump compromised the National Security of the United States . Yes. Fact finding number seven set by withholding vital military 7sistance andcu diplomatic support from a strategic foreign frtner engaged in an ongoing military conflict instigated by russia President Trump compromised National Security advancing the personal political interest and did the evidence coproved President Trump engaged in a scheme to cover up the misconduct and obstruct investigators . From the outset. Finding of fact line access using the power of the office of the president in exercising his authority over the executive branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal the conduct to the public and frustrate and obstruct the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. Finally, the constitutional scholars at the hearing last week testified the president s conduct towards ukraine invited the foreign interference was a continuing risk to our free and Fair Elections. Does the evidence proved President Trump is a threat to the election . You said that mr. Chairman. Factfinding number eight says based on the revelation of the actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urgent foreign investors, Foreign Governments including ukraine and china to investigate thee political opponent. This continued solicitation of the foreign interference in the u. S. Election presents a clear and present danger that the president will continue to use the power of his office for political gain for his personalt political gain and i would yield to my counsel for additional questioning. Thank you mr. Chairman. As an experienced investigator, would you agree that its relevant to the evidence bearing on the president s state of mind may help explain the president s actions . The only question is that a relevant thing to consider . Its relevant to consider. Would you agree joe biden was a leading democratic contender that faced President Trump in 2020 . You disagree so it is your testimony that President Trump didnt view President Joe Biden to be a legitimate contender . As a part of your inquiry did you determine whether President Trump and how many times . I try to stay off twitter lately. Did you know about former Vice President joe biden 20 times between january and july 25 . I didnt look at those. Did you look at how many times President Trump mentioned the Vice President of item in a speech or oreilly leading up to the july 25 call . He goes to a lot of rallies and i think that its pretty difficult to draw too many conclusions from his statements. The gentleman is not recognized. We are going to ignore the rules and allow th witnesses to asked questions how many of the ruleotherroles are you just goio disregard . The gentleman will suspend. Parliamentary inquiries are not in order at this time. This isnt appropriate to have a witness be a questioner of somebody that was a witness when he was come its just wrong. I made a point of order and you will not rule. I havent heard a point of order. Statstate your point of order te is no rule or precedent for anybody being a witness the point of order is he is inappropriate to be appear asking questions. That is not a point of order. How much money do you have to give the gentleman will not cast aspersions by the members of the committee. Mr. Burke has the time. Chairman from a point of order. Mr. Burke has the time. Point of order. You have to recognize the point itof order. This gentleman is presenting his opinions as a witness. Hes supposed to present the material not to appear for his opinions is that right or not . Is not a point of order and iif itis mr. Burkes time. I have ruled the gentleman has the time. This order mr. Chairman. The point of order66 is this we all prayed by rules theres nothing specifically in the rule permitting this. It is unprecedented for a person to come and sit and youve described as a witness to then return to the bench and ask questions. That is the point of order. Is not a par point of order i will point out the gentleman has been designated by any to do this questioning person and to go 660 which is part of the rules of the house. It is in accordance with the rules of the house and the gentlemans time will resume. Is you would agree that if ukraine announced the corruption of the former Vice President ial biden that would hurt the credibility as a candidate. Would you agree with the basic principal . The opinion the gentleman is not recognized. E . I object to the question. Its whether the question is in order or not. The gentleman will continue. It is his time. But get back to the fact talking about eight lines in a call transcript the president wasnt asking for a personal favor he was speaking on behalf of the American People. He said i would like you to find out what happens with the whole situation in ukraine. I guess you have one of your wealthy people webfocus flight number three heif we may the reference to b biden. You see on the july 25 call on page four President Trump and his call with president zelensky said he heard former president ial biden stopped the prosecution of his son is that correct yes or no . Theres a lot of talk about his son and that he stopped the persecution. Prosecution. So that is correct greater he is entitled to answer his question. There is a video of the former vp and i think that is what the president is referring to keep us at the council on Foreign Relations and it was a little bit of a former vp was a little bit audacious and how he described im only asking you what it says on the transcript is that what it says . It says theres a lot of talk about his son and that biden stopped the prosecution. Then it also goes on to say President Trump asked president zelensky if you can look into it. Is that correct . Said he was asking ukrainian president zelensky to have that ukrainian officials look into Vice President ial biden is that correct . I dont think the record supports that. It doesnt say can you look into his . I dont think it supports the. You are an experienced federal prosecutor i know thathi firsthand. Is he askingha president zelensy to investigate his political rival joe biden . I dont think that theres any other way to read the words on the page than top conclude that. And you made the point that we ask as an experienced investigator is it your experience when somebody has done something wrong for corrupt with somebody they whate their intentions to do something wrongful and corrupt is that your experience as an investigator . Just asking the general. Saying that the schema would talk about the scheme . Would he admit hes doing something wrong for and correct . So you made a point in your presentation that on the cold President Trump did not go further and tell president zelenskhow president zelensky the investigation announced to help he definitely did not talk about 2020. Would you agree that if h he were acting perfectly, wrongfully, abusing his coverage was unlikely he was going to confess to president zelensky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help the prospects . My experience as a prosecutor you almost never have a defendant or someone tha is engg osin misconduct who would ever explicitly say in this case president zelensky im going to bribe you now or ask for a bride or extort you, that i that isne way these things work. And getting back to you, you said that hunter biden had been on the board for 2014, correct. President trump supported ukraine with aid and otherwise in both 2017 and 2018. Hes done a lotid for ukrain. But isnt it correct that he didnt raise anything about his father, Vice President ial biden in 2017 or 2018 he only did it the year before when both he and Vice President ial biden were leading candidate. I think what happens is that he saw the video and it call list insi his mind. I dont know thatss he did or he didnt. That isnt something that we looked at. You talked about the Lieutenant Colonel who was a purple heart recipient and worked in the trump. Administration. He had a reaction to the call. Lets look at his reaction. He said i immediately went to the lead Legal Counsel and he said it is improper for the president of the unitepresident s to demand a Foreign Government investigate a u. S. Citizen and political opponents that was his testimony correct, yes or no. Yes. And you had said that the Intelligence Committee majority report that mr. Goldman talked about user to piston use of thes are clear but they are not clear. That is correct. You also worked on the minority report, correct . Yes, sir. Was it important to be accurate and u to be fair to witnesses to be fair and accurate about what they said . Was it important to the American People to accurately report what people said . Let me ask about somebody else on the call. Let me ask about Jennifer Williams. She was a special adviser to Vice President mike pence on europe and Russian Affairs is that correct . Opening in your statement these accusations president t trump was trying to o something for political purposes was made by people who were predetermined motives for impeachment. Some of them but i also indicated the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have revived their views after the call transcript came out. The whistleblower report was rreleased. Are you calling a special adviser a liar . Are you saying she was predetermined to impeach . I didnt say that. The question about Jennifer Williams is a interesting. She never mentioned anything to her supervisor or anything to anybody in the Vice President s office when the Vice President t was good to meet with zelensky. She didnt even raise it as a potential issue that might catch the Vice President offguard. The concern she articulated in the course of the deposition and hearing was incongruent with the facts of what she did during the times relevant. What you wrote in the report we could slide s number six pl please. You made the same point you tried to make to discount her testimony you said she testified that although she found the call to be unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor. Nobody in america knew about the concerns until she walked in the door for her deposition. You said although she found difficult to be unusual, that wasnt accurate. That isnt what she said. She didnt say that it was just unusual. Thats not all she saidsu abou it. She was hereal for nine hours so there was more [inaudible] the gentleman will suspend. Im happy to read it. Jennifer williams testified although she found the call to be unusual, quote, she did not raise concerns to her supervis supervisor. Isnt it a fact ms. Williams said a lot more than that . I have a point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. The gentleman from florida has complained that he cant see what the questioner is relying on and would like to see it. That isnt a point of order and was read to him. Only half of it was read to him. Lets slow down a bit here so the members are able to fully see what is being put in support of what you are trying to do. We cant do that without being able to see it or read it. Mr. Gates has said that. Lets slow down so that we can see or hear what he is referring to. You are not letting that happen and that goes to the privileges of the members. The gentleman will suspend. I can see now. I appreciate the accommodation. The monitor is turned and now we can see. Thank you mr. Chairman. So, here it says you said ms. Williams said she found it to be unusual and nothing more. Lets look at slide number seven. This is unusual is that correct. But it doesnt say and nothing more. So she says it i struck her as unusual and inappropriate, isnt that correct . Thats what she said in her testimony. And your staff report you left out the inappropriate part. She thought it was unusual and didnt raise concerns. Let me ask you where you as fair to the American People in describing what she said a as te word in describing Everything Else in your report flex i dont have an issue with the way we described the testimony. Lets look at what else she said. Can we put up slide eight. This is from the public testimony 34. She said, quote, i thought that the references to specific individuals in investigations such as former Vice President biden and his son struck me as political in nature given that the former Vice President a is a political opponent of the president. Youvyou went out of your staff report, didnt you. Did you leave it out of the report yes or no . If you are telling me i did im telling you you did. Okay. Do you have an explanation where you said ms. Williams said the call was unusual when in fact she said it was unusual and inappropriatinappropriate end ol nature because it raised Vice President who she recognized as a political opponent of the president. The calls differ from mr. Morrison and lieutenant general. That isnt my question. Its why did youen misquote her. From the standard that you apply to the fact finding in the report you believe that it was entirely proper to say ms. Williams foun found out to e unusual when in fact she found it to be unusual and inappropriate end of a political nature given that the former Vice President is a an opponent of the president. Is that your testimony . We described what she said. Mr. Chairman he can either ask or answer, he cant do both. He is badgering the witness. The gentleman will continue. You invoked can you rule on the point of order that he is badgering the witness because he is doing that is. That isnt a motion and it doesnt call for a ruling and the time belongs to the gentleman. The committee is in order. Would youtt room on my original point of order. The original point of order wasnt recognizable. He is badgering the witness. You have your rules that are not comporting with everybody elses rules enables a sharp crossexamination of the witnesses and badgering the witness. The gentleman will continue. Mr. Chairman, point of order that under resolution 660 b. Are supposed to follow the federal l rules of evidence. What are the rules and objections that is not a point of order the gentleman will continue. Where is the list of rules. The gentleman will continue. Thank you mr. Chairman. You invoked tim morrison, he was on the call also, correct . But we put up slide number nine y the testimony on page 38 of the public testimony. Mr. Morrison said though the question was you heard the call and recognized President Trump wasnt discussing the talking points that were prepared based on the official u. S. Policy and was instead of talking about the investigations that fiona hill had warned you about and then you reported it immediately to the Legal Advisor is that the thrrect claim . Mr. Morrison said that is correct. Before i ask you, let me ask you mr. Goldman. Earlier before your presentation, we show the testimony of ms. Hill where she refers to the President Trump was trying to do as running a domestic political air and. Is that what you understand and what you intended to ask about in your question . Yes. It was about the two specific investigations President Trump ultimately did discuss and ask president zelensky to do. These are the same two investigations that were discussed inle the issue through the entirety of the schemes of the evidence found is that any time there was a reference to investigations that referenced the biden investigation and 2016 investigation and in fact the ambassador actually said whenever he was using the term corruption, what he meant was the specific investigations. What was the significance that mr. Morrison who mr. Castro himself has relied on and invoked twice today where he said h understood these were the investigations that fiona hill had warned him about what did you understand that to mean . When he went into ten morrison replaced her they have transition meetings and during one of ther. Transition meetings by doctor hill told ten morrison about what she believed to be this irregular channel that ambassador sondland was operating. They were pushing for ukraine to do these investigations into doctor hill in particular was concerned because as you pointed out that was a domestic political aaron and what she was working on at the national Security Council was related to National Security foreig foreigy and those were two entirely separate things. Was she expressing the view that was chosen as her own political interest of the foreignpolicycy positions. At the time she said that she was not aware of whether President Trump have actually endorsed these investigations but she did testify after she read the call transcript that she read when it was released like the rest of us, she said she put two and two together and realized that is exactly what ty what she was talking about. It was used by two witnesses is the only logical conclusion to explain why Security Assistance was being withheld into the direct involvement in issues relatedhe to ukraine they concluded the Security Assistance was being withheld to put pressure and as a condition on the initiation of the two investigations that are referenced here. Ive got to clear up a couple things here. First off the gentleman has the time. Will this witness be able to crossexamine mr. Burke as he is able to crossexamine you cannot call out in the middle of testimony. The gentleman will continue. The democrats are about blocking information when they should be seeking information. Thatsir absolutely right. Theyve cooperated and facilitated congressional oversight investigations. Until it got to this impeachment inquiry. Buwith the ask about the call te Trump Administration directed them not to appear and give testimony. If the Agency Council its expensive to high gear agearthese outside lawyers. He presents another. He was directed not to come. He may have been able to come with Agency Council that he has complexities as a chief legal adviser. He was direct if not to come. He may have been able to come with Agency Council that his testimony does present complexities. Was that u. S. Policy july 26 to request that they investigate the former Vice President joe biden . The i think you are reading a little bit too much into some oo the eight lines i dont think he was requesting an investigation into joe biden. Is that a no . It wasnt u. S. Policy to look into joe biden . You are presuming at some point it became the u. S. Policy to investigate and i dont think that that is the case. Let me show you the testimony of the Lieutenant Colonel. He was asked are you aware of any written product from the Security Council suggesting investigations in the 2020 election that they are a part of the official policy in the . No im not and now if we can go to slide number 11. Mr. Morrison was asked by our u own congressman on the Intelligence Committee and just to pick up in the middle of the question if said the cal coal yu listen to between the president of the United States and president of ukraine the president of theen United States priority is to investigate the bidens and im asking you why didnt you follow up on the president s priority is when you inked to the ukrainians mr. Morrison said i didnt understand it as awh policy objective. Let me ask you there was a package prepared before the call of what President Trump was supposed to talk about, correct . Spinet yes. Am i correct one of the things he was supposed to talk about that was in his prepared remarks as the anticorruption platform of president zelensky that he ran and won on. Witnesses testified that is a consistent and persistent policy objective for the United States. The President Trump mentioned corruption once in the call . Did he mention looking into anything other than the two investigations that were politically helpful to him in tn the 2016 investigation into the investigation of the political rival former Vice President ial biden . May i add something . [inaudible] defined as the questioners and he can ask the questions however he wants and you will be able to answer the questions by the minority counsel when its their turn. President trump talks about very bad people. If i can finish wha with me k you this there were two lawyers mentioned on the call. Weve heard testimony already. Mr. Trump said to president zelensky that he should speak to two people. His personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and the attorney general, correct . Immediately after the memorandum was released isnt it the case that the attorney general of the department of justice issued a statement about his role in all of this . Spinet heeded. Width of the statement, slide 13. The department of justice. The president hasnt spoken with the attorney general about having ukraine investigate anything related to former Vice President ial biden on his son. The president hasnt asked the attorney general to contact ukraine on this or any other matter. The attorney general hasnt communicated with ukraine on other subject. Is it fair to say the attorney general didnt want anything to do with these investigations of President Trump had raised with president zelensky on the call . Spinet i think it was actually even a little bit further. Whether the attorney general wanted anything to do or not is in addition to the fact the attorney general said he had nothing to do with ukraine and in fact there were no Ongoing Investigations at the time of the call or in august and that became an issue in the investigation. There is a formal channel the department of justice has and United States government has to obtain evidence related to an Ongoing Investigation and that is generally the proper way to engage a foreign country for a treat to get information that several of the witnesses testified that they looked into it at the urging of the ukrainians and iff they determined there was no formal Ongoing Investigation nor any investigation on the topics. The other called, rudy pgiuliani, he was more than hapy to continue to be involved in trying to get ukraine to investigate President Trumps political rival joe biden. Mr. Giuliani was very active and involved in pushing for the investigations for several months before the july 25 call monthsn for several after including apparently three days ago. And you would agree you wrote in the report through the giuliani the ukrainians themselves new Rudy Giuliani the personal lawyer was a conduit to convince President Trump the president zelensky was a serious reformer, correct . Spinet ukrainians knew is that what you said in the report . He had the president s ear and he was a conduit. What we put up slide 14 if i may. And we have the report here. It says the ukrainians knew she any Rudy Giulianier was a condut to convince President Trump that he was serious about reform isnt that what you wrote in the report . Mister giuliani had a negative impression of ukraine and with the president s views forkr go as a true reformer and the real deal that would be beneficial. You agree president giuliani was pushing for the ukrainians to investigate former Vice President joe biden . Ef but ambassador volcker gave a pretty detailed account. In the article says dated ma 2019 the ukrainian capital in the coming days to pursue inquiries about to matters of intense interest. Is the involvement of former Vice President joe biden himself. And this is the same article and form policy and that to be very helpful to my client my only client is the president of United States he is the one i have the obligation to report to for what happened. So what Mister Giuliani said that it is a big story, it is a dramatic story, and i guarantee you joe biden will not get to election day without this being investigated. Not because i want to see him investigated. That refers to the 2020 election where President Trump is running against or running for reelection. And with President Trump. You will have an opportunity to talk about that when minority counsel questions you. Questions you. To be asked hes leaving soon in the next couple of days or i will speak to him about it before he leaves. He continued his pressure roughly one month before the call still silent on investigation of ukrainian interference in the ukrainians knew that Mister Giuliani was a client of mister trump. Yes or no . And then became involved with the official channel and volker went against the perspective that giuliani was taking. This tweet that they refer to is a personal political issue of President Trump or official us policy spirit thats a personal political issue i will respond to mister castor because on that on that meeting with the giuliani and volker he told Mister Giuliani the allegations about biden were bogus and wrong. And Mister Giuliani told ambassador volkers testimony that hely knew that but yet for the next two months he pushed for that same investigation under President Trump that directed president zelensky to contact Mister Giuliani so that july 19tho so meeting is important to this investigation. You already explained on mayi may 23rd the official folks that went to the inauguration told the president how impressedha they were and said talk to rudy he was taking Government Official people and handing them over to Rudy Giuliani is that fair . I agree thats what the evidence shows that at the 23rd meeting President Trump directed authority over ukraine matters over to secretary perry and told them to work with rudy over the next three months that is what happened at the president s direction. You understood the ukrainians recognize how important giuliani was in order to stay on good terms with president y trump. They quickly realized from their own internal conversations that giuliani had back channels to the ukrainian officials and ambassador volcker told the ukrainians as well that there was a giuliani factor that was told to president zelensky but that they needed to deal with. And then saying on augus augh i feel rudy please let me know when you can meet and that Rudy Giuliani is demanding the investigation of his political rival was key. So actually this was jul julh and it is critical because what it says after having speaking to mister volcker a week before learning about the importance of junie ng i giuliani and to set up a meeting with Mister Giuliani then proceeded to the july 19 and then they met in madrid on tiaugust 2nd. That chairman schiff we will stand corrected thank you let the record reflect that that that is the correct date either way rudy wa key. Slide number 24. To come a point in time that Mister Mulvaney be withheld as previously indicated. This is a testimony that there was great confusion among the rest of us and it just surprised us all with no explanation and still not have an explanation for why that happened so the only reason given was the order came at the direction of the president. To all the agencies involved deal with yemen . Yes it was the unanimous View Department of state and department ofna Defense National Security Council all of theen inter agencies and that should be approved immediately. And with the test testimony the Us Government did not convey convey the policy but that was not glenn affidavit affidavit conveyed the release of the aid wass conditioned on the now public announcement. Put up slide 26. To put up the actual affidavit that ambassador sondland ambassador to the European Union and to highlight which is in front of you now where i said that presumption of us aid likely would not occur occur until they over many weeks but i guess that was on a meeting sept with secretary yermak. Slide 27. Do you recall that in the draft statement that they would have president s zelensky give to satisfy President Trump . As thent ambassador ambassador sondland and also ambassador volcker testified to that and Mister Yermak did not make any reference to Vice President biden. Correct. Was that Rudy Giuliani who said to include a reference of burisma. Thats right. What does burisma stand for they have an understanding of what that16 meant. Every single witness after reading the phone call on jul jh that him and biden were one of the same only a couple witnesses said they did not know thathat but there is a lot of testimony fromm people involved of ukraine policy who indicated it was completely unrealistic that they did not know the investigation was related to the bidens. So it was referred to as burisma adVice President biden and the ukrainians complained that they didnt want to be upon in Us Democratic politics during the reelection campaign. They said that in july and then august they didnt get that statement because they had reservations given president zelensky wires anticorruption they had reservations being involved in us domesticco policy. You said when President Trump said to ambassador sondland that he had no quid pro quo. September 9. You said no reason to be any less than candid. Thats what you said. Let me show you whatt happened on september 5. Days before the Washington Post printed an article that trump tries to get ukraine to metal in the 2020 election and goes on to describe those efforts. Let me show you if he was aware of no quidth pro quo i will show you a tweet on slide number 53. Again he puts out a tweet that essentially says they are pursuing impeachment showing awareness this was reported on. So is it fair to say that President Trump had no reason to be less thanor candid . s. President trump had every reason to put out the message at that point and ambassador sondland said even if you credit ambassador sondland for the testimony which is contradicted by other witnesses and were far more credible than ambassador sondland who had to amend his testimony he said no quid pro quo out of the blue without any question if there was a quid pro quo. Gentlemens time is expired. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member for his first round of questions. With resolution 66045 minutes to question witnesses. It has become very evident the craziness of the hearing especially without Mister Schiff here. Go back to the lastt slide. I dont know what number it is. Fiftythree. Can we cut it off . s. The most amazing statement that the democrats were talking about impeachment there was nothing they havent been concerned about for two and a half years the president is saying nothing that does not back up. He knows they have been after impeachment thats why Mister Goldman is here thats why we are going to the charade answering staff questions if we dont like how its going we are going back where is adam . s where is adam . s you are a great attorney but you are not adam schiff. We have a problem here you said you are an attorney. You are a good attorney. I believe that you understand a quid pro quo. You understand asking for something in exchange for something means quicksand the conversation of mister biden when he says i will not give me the billion dollars. To let me to read it to you . 2015. The one and convincing the team we should provide the Loan Guarantees i propose to announce a billiondollar Loan Guarantee that that they would take action against the prosecutor and they didnt so with that said walking out of the press conference or we will not give you the billion dollars you have no authority or not therence. President i sad call him i said you are not getting the billion dollars i looked at them and said i am leaving here in six hours youre not getting the money will you got mine did he request something of value . s. Im talking about this answer this question either joe biden is a liar or he actually did this. Which is it . Pursuant to official us policycy. So joe biden is the only one that did the quid pro quo and we are sitting here pretending this is not happening . s we are sitting here pretending the unitedll states is not concerned look at joe biden hes at terrible candidate doesnt matter who brings it up or who does it this is what happens either youre a liar or he did it and i want to continue on. The question you had earlier approximately how many times in your report to rely on testimony. Is 300 page. 600 times are better . You have no idea . s. You did over 600 times would you also understand a simple check 158 times ambassador sondland said not knowing to the best of my knowledge with that surprise you. The report or the desk modesta position. Yes that he remembered a lot more to the question we are having here that ambassador sondland said he presumed what happened so now we will continue this in just a moment. According to your report we would it classify with the Intelligence Committee. There over a dozen subpoenas. Some were not publicly reported. Correctbl. If he had so much free reign answer the question or elaborat elaborate. Did he come out or not. Some of the subpoenas were not reported. They were given to the minority but not open to the public so those that have publicly been identified issuing subpoenas other than those that have been identified. Im not sure. How many subpoenas were issued for records . s. We issued a number of subpoenas we issued 62 executive Branch Agencies and they all defied our subpoena. Moving on toiv other issues wall street reported for subpoenas is that correct . s. Are we wondering . Yes. Because there are multiple numbers we only issued subpoenas for call records for people involved in the investigation and already subpoenaed by the committees for documents and testimonies of their own. Absolutelyat wonderful. Were there at least four . Can you check your records. I dont know. We have a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing and said they cant read iter all anyway and then they refused to comeso testify about so this is important we just found out about this. Maybe your chairman to be here to actually answer this. We subpoenaed for call records multiple numbers. How many . Not as members of congress. We only did it for the subjects involved in the investigation which is a very routine and standard investigating practice. With those numbers that you actually did put into the subpoena and get those back who asked they be cross checked to members of congress . In order that . I dont think thats how we did it . I dont think thats how we did it could show that someone we wont play cute so they took the records you asked for at i least four and then said lets play match game. Who ordered the match game . Was that you . I dont think anyone did. Okay. Thats ridiculous. You dont all of a sudden pick up numbers that you ask and show where they are and come up with them so who actually asked for those. What you just described is exactly how it happened. Who ordered. You pick and event of significance in the investigation look for sequencing and patterns around that event and then you look at the numbers to identify what those numbers are and en you start to build the circumstantial case back at this point its a wonderful explanation but not an answer to my question. I understand the subpoena that you issued what was it you were chairmanship that said while we are doing this lets see if this matches chairmans number somebody all along the way didnt suddenly have an epiphany and i should getting ready to throw someone under the bus that this match was it chairmanship or was it you . Be careful you are under oath. I know im under oath. Those were not afforded to my witnesses by the way. Why youre thinking about how you going to answer that question why is it that included in the report . Anything else is not publicly known who ordered it was it you or chairmanship and nothing else for smear purposes. I will not get into the deliberations of our investigation with you and the reason it was included in the report the calls were surrounding important evidence to our investigation and your question isnt directed at me but those who had conversations. No we are not going to play that game. You are not answering the question. Everybody here when you start looking at members and reporters telephone numbers you took an oath of the subpoena before and then played the match gave you thought numbers because you said there from the white house but they were not nobody was out there asking. So who ordered this . You or Mister Schiff . I will not reveal how we did this investigation. Thats a we have with this entire problem. I am done with you for right now. We are done. Youre not answering the question. You are not beingit honest. You know who it is youre just a not answering. I have information on the subpoenas. We did receive a copy of the subpoenas there were six as i understand it . Let me say at the outset our members have concerns of this exercise for three reasons. The subpoenas yielded about information to members of congress it is a concern when the members of congress phone records and then the information is publicized the second is withrm journalist and it is a tricky area and the third is regard to Mister Giuliani talking about subpoenas as we understand it. At t with Mister Giuliani numbers and then Mister Truman who accompanied cfc holdings and then the third two ambassador sondland to verizon. The fourth back to at t the fifth goes back to at t in the sixth was subscriber informationif that the veteran journalist and some of the attorneys involved. Let me ask you a question. This is crazy have never seen anything like this. Wouldnt it be interesting to know because Mister Goldman doesnt want to incriminate himself with the chairman but would it be interesting to you for somebody to have an epiphany to do match records on their own or are they under direction . They were obviously trying to figure something out. Thats right. I have one thing for Mister Goldman. Were used to committees and witnesses taking gratuitous shocks on the shots they dont like. You made a comment to question emotive when your testimony you said discussing ambassador sondland you made a snide comment it was a milliondollar donor to the president. The implication he got a job where he was loyal to the president and didnt say anything about it. Be very careful how you throw around dollars because you and mister burke are very heavy donors to the Democratic Party i will say that is a motivation for your position today but it is already blown out of proportion. You are here because your chairman will not testify. He doesnt even stand behind his own behind his own report and he sends you. Who told the committee to actually change these numbers. You wont answer my question, so we are done. You have plenty of time with the majority. I have a number of things i think i need to clear up if i may. You have to bear with me because i have a number of them here. First of all on the call, tim morrison had a totally different view of the call than t the lieutenant. Go to the point that the call is ambiguous, that is the first thing. Tim morrison testified he went for a different reason. Hehe didnt say that he went because he was concerned that the called. He went to the national Security Council for two reason. Number one, they were not on the call said he wanted to update them about it. He was concerned ifo, the call leaked out, how it would play in washingtons polarized environment which is exactly what we have here. He was also concerned that it might affect bipartisan support in congress. Theyve traditionally been one of the few where republicans and democrats share interest and for good reason, he didnt want to craniums to get a distorted perception of what actually happened on the call because we are talking about eight lines of concerned in the amount of ambiguity. This meeting on may 23 theres a question i guess its ambiguous but its a question about whether when the president referred the delegatio delegatio the inauguration on the 20th. They come back and its the secretary and senator johnson and a. Is a path to invite him to the white house and they testified to this pretty definitively the president essentially doesnt order anybody to do anything. The president and they testified that the deposition and at the rpublic hearing that he didnt take another direction its just like look if you guys think this is important and you want to work at it on the go talk to rudy. Its very different than interaction than the president ordering a scheme to. And its different from the president collecting a bunch of agents to go do something because according to the ambassador. Whether the ukrainians knew of the pause from the 55 days, whether they knew about it or not some state Department Witnesses testified about the entire eight. There was an article november 22 in bloomberg the administration said they never knew about holding the aid until the political article and they said they believe the embassy was keeping information from them and another interesting thing that he says in the article she arecounts the meeting which has become very significant and he doesnt recall its the way that the ambassador recalled it. Keep in mind he speaks english but its not his first language so he doesnt recall the meeting that happened he recalls a very differently so the question and the facts of what happened remain in dispute. Turning attention to the wrong johnson letter if i may on august 31, senator johnson is getting ready to travelohl to ukraine with senator murphy. He calls the president and actively sought permission to be the bearer of good news. He said im not ready to lift the aid. He writes a ten page letter very detailed and he takes some remarkable details and i would like to read it its on page six. This is senator johnson speaking. He said i asked whether there was some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, he said the President Trump denounced that the arrangement existed and he started cursing and said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that. He goes on to say that the reaction here was adamant, vehement and angry. Senator johnson goes on to say that as of august 31 youre going to like my decision in the end. So that is very important context on what the president s state of mind was. He fully expected that it would eventually be released after the 55 day pause. Absolutely. I want to thank you for your presentations. I believe that you have been talking for approximately 75 minutes today and i want to thank you for that. My wife thanks you as well. She does the talking. I would like to cover four or five distinct areas. Theres a lotdada of facts to te American People have not heard and theres a lot of contradictions in certain peoples testimony is that fair to say . I would like to talk about some of the people in the story that have firsthand knowledge of the fact we have the ambassadors. You had the opportunity to talk to two of three people, correct . The democrats report would like us to believe these three individuals were engaged in some sortrt of cabal or nefarious venture a. Even today they are acting in the best interest of the American People. Is that true . And with the highest integrity. I think everyone testified that the ambassador is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service. Theres a lot of people with firsthand knowledge that he didnt talk to is that correct . Now i want to talk about the skepticism of foreign aid is that correct . Deeply skeptical of sending u. S. F taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt because it is as good as kissing you goodbye. Its something that he has ran on and has implemented. They told us about the programs and described it on a zerobased evaluation. He had some information about the reason for the pause. I think that he had a conversation with an individual named rob blair and he provided some insight. Its one of the reasons they gave the firsthand account for the pause related to the concerns on the european burden sharing. Conversations with senator johnson, he mentioned his concern about the burden sharing and i believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chancellor of germany and the whole first part of the transcript hes talking about burden sharing and pointing them to do more to it were so willing to spend the a aid. Theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky isnt being candid about not feeling pressure from President Trump. The september 2015 that it the news availability over the course of the last week i want tonc change subjects and to talk about something that was raised last week, and that is the partisan nature of the investigation and youre an experienced investigator. He cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned is that correct . The worst thing you can have is the partisan rinker because nobody will accept the result on the other side. And our democratic friends have become originalist and citing the founders and their intense routinely as part of the impeachment process. Its whether this constitutes a bribery. Theres case law and i dont know, i am no Supreme Court scholar, lawyer, advocate. There is no case law and that hasnt been addressed in this space and i think the professor mentioned that. They said that th the meeting certainly doesnt constitute an tuofficial act. Since the unofficial start in september, the process has been partisan,t biased, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in the ueLieutenant Colonels position. We were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Very basic things like who, what, when, where. We are on day number 76. Its almost impossible to give a sophisticated investigation that quickly when the state are this high because any congressional investigation of any consequence does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interest in ho and how the going to respond to them. The first letter i think went in october 2017. And in december we finally got a witness into was the following spring with pushing and pulling and a lot of talkk and more we reached a deal for north of 800,000. The documents were not classified and it wasnt until may and june of this year the investigation is disappointing. We all wish there was an easy button that the congressional investigations of consequence the time. It took i think six months before the first document was even produced and you have to go down there and review it in camera and then going back even further. They sent some subpoenas i think in february of 2011. We had a hearing in june with experts about proceeding to contempt. With this in safe to go in and of the production was largely publicly available information and we spent most of the year trying to getcl information abot the justic Justice Department is working with whistleblowers who were providing us documents into the chairman of th chairman of n october issued another subpoena that was to the Justice Department for the investigation has been ongoing most of the year we were doing our best to get documents out o of the depat through that channel, but these things take time. If you want to cover every fact you have to go to court to sometimes enforce the subpoena. Wwe had a lot of requests for information, voluntary information. Please provide us with documents that you have to back it up with something a to talk to document custodian of the affairs function of the documents exist. Nominally they are supposed to be directly responsible serving interests. About holding some of the content often times witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate come forward when you attach a big proceeding a lot of times that changes the outcome but youve got a couple of different steps along the way you could raise the prospectthat you could schedule. After you schedule the proceeding you could hold a door open foror documents or intervis and then push it off, you can go through at the committee level. These are all sort of Milestone Events which historically are less palatable for the administration that starts to move the needle and with these type of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, we didnt get a witness into was the director and a couple of months but once we got Deputy Director a couple weeks later we got the directors chief of staff. Once you get the ball rolling you may not like 100 of the terms, sometimes you have to look in camera but once you get the ball rolling, usually if we do positive results and historically it has allowed the congress to do its work. Were any of those things done here . No. In fact they decide youre not goindecided we arenot goingn people that are important and we are not going to go to court and enforce them so these folks that are caught in this branch of struggle and that is an unfortunate position for any employee. The doctor that has been described by doctor fiona hill in a number of witnesses, he filed a lawsuit in the face of the subpoena and the issues were slightly different because gone is the white House Counsel and of course a National Security official. He followed the lawsuits seeking guidance. He wasnt asking the court to tell them not to testify. To the contrary it was too to precipitate his cooperation and ultimately the committee withdrew the subpoena would tracretracesquestions about whey were interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Instead of the committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland andns his testimony. I think they rely 600 times i come in yesterday opened the democratic controlled and did control f. And his name shows up 611 times. And in fairness it is going to be double counted because it is iisamazing sinceof hisinnocent a footnote in a tough comparison to the other witnesses, hes relied on big time. And i think that doctor hill testified that she had some point confronted him about his actions. The record is mixed on this front. Doctor hill talks about raising concerns and tha the depositiont least doesnt, you know tha, he didnt share the same view. Theres a lot of instances of software the ambassador because one thing and other witnesses recall another. Is that correct . Teaneck sondland as a witness, hes a bit of an enigma lets les just say itt that way. He was pretty certain in his deposition that the Security Assistance wasnt linked to anything and then he submitted in addendum. I call for a pretzel sometimes. Even in the addendum or the supplement or whatever its called, its up to him and her and, anyway sondland ends with i presume, so it wasnt really any firsthand information. We dont have enough firsthand information here. On certain facts we dont. We have information on the ma may 23 meeting in firsthand information although all conflicting. On the july 10 meeting, there are episodes i think during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account, but the investigation hasnt been able to reveal firsthand information relating to the president ac other than the call transfer. And i think weve already talked about this, the ambassador would presume things, assume things, and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . You know, it started with his role with the ukraine portfolio. A lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged with issues relating a o ukraine. There are answers for that. Ukraine is an aspirant to join the eu. Theres a lot of other reasons and mr. Turner i think explores this really well at the open hearing. He asked the ambassador and he said he did a tv interview on the 26th of july where he said the president has given me if of assignments and the president signed the ukraine and so forth. Then when we ask in the deposition could he conceded that he was in fact spinning, the president never a signed and ukraine, he was just you know, he was exaggerating. And i think the public hearings you pointed out that in contrast, the other witnesses come ambassador sondland isnt a notetaker, he in fact you said i do not recall dozens of times and thehe deposition. Lets say it this way. Ambassador taylor walked us through his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk and in his coat pocket of his suit and he brought up with us and he showed us. Succumb consequentially when ambassador taylor recounts to s. You know, what happened, its backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland on the other hand was very clear firsthand he said he didnt have access to the state department records. While he said that the public hearinat the publichearing simue department issued a statement saying that it wasnt true, but nobody is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails. Hes still a state Department Employee and he can go to you know, he does have access to the records that he stated thaten he didnt. And he stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes and he conceded that he doesnt have recollections on a lot of these issues. We sort of made a list of them and i think that the hearing they called it the trifecta of unreliability. You are not the only person that has concerns about ambassador sondlands testimony, conduct. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct; is that orrect . Yeah, tim morrison talked about instances where ambassador sondland sort of was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why he was trying to get into the meeting september 1. And doctor phil, fiona hill told us about issues of the sword and a member of witnesses, you are correct. Correct. We talked about how he was spinning certain things and he owadmitted that. He admitted that he exaggerated. When it comes to the communication with the presiden president , we tried to get him to list all the occasions. I think he gave us six then he walked us through each communication with the president was about the Christmas Party and the president of finland was here and congresswoman spear asked him the same question at the open hearing and he said he talked the present about 20 times. My time is up. Thank you both. Mister chairman. Mister chairman. Mister chairman i movedch to recess for 30 minutes. How long . 30 minutes. Thats a fruitless motion its not debatable the motion is not agreed to. The clerk will call the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] 15 aye and 24 no. Now we will engage for questions under the five minute rule i recognize myself. Mister golden, can you please explain the difference between Vice President bidens request and President Trumps request to ukraine earlier this year . Yes when Vice President pressured the ukrainian president to remove the corrupt prosecutor general he was doing so with an International Consensus as part of us policy the entire European Union and the imf that gave the loans he was referring to. He did that as part of the entire International Community consensus. When President Trump asks for this investigation for all of the witnesses it had nothing to do with official us policy. The president and Vice President bidens request where the president s did . Yes the witnesses testified if that corrupt prosecutor general were removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said by removing that prosecutor general and adding a new one that there was an increased chance that corruption and ukraine would be prosecuted including two t19 that his son was on the board of. Please explain exactly what happened with the phone records. I would like to set the record straight on that. This is a very basic and usual practice where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be investigators routinely seek their records. To be very clear this is metadata it is only calls to and from the link on the length to and from theres no Text Messages no risk of invading any communications with attorney clients there are no risks to thatin. So for the people that we had investigated and subpoenaed and alleged to be part of the scheme we got call records to corroborate their testimony or figure out if there is Additional Communications we were unaware of. Then we took the call records and mart mashup with important events during the scheme to see if there are patterns because they could be powerful circumstantial evidenc evidence. In this case that were communicating with the president s lawyer and journalist and a staff member of congress and another member of congress we did not at all seek in any shape or form to do any investigation on any member of Congress Just that they were in communication. Every investigation in ten years we have call records. Did white House Counsel make his view clear about the investigative commute on committees . We never heard from the white House Counsel that said we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in any way or shape or form. They never reached out to engage. A complete stonewall not only will the white house not participateon or cooperate but the white house says we will also d exact one direct every other executive branch agency. My republican colleagues so theres not sufficient records to impeach the president building substantial case records what is the case here . The evidence is overwhelming we have 17 will witnesses with overlapping statements so with that unprecedented obstruction by president. And to be so pervasive with a course of conduct . There was an effort to conceal the president s conduct. On october 8 there was a letter written that President Trump directed not to cooperate that he cannot permit hiS Administration to participate now the investigativemp committee including administration officials. There were 12 witnesses and ultimately they did not appear. My time is expired to yield to the Ranking Member. So we always have the International Community behind us if we have enough we are okay if enough people think its okay believe it or not i have a copy of the notes but i want to go to the phone records hear me clearly. I have no problem with the subpoena. Myr problem is taking metadata we have had that debate in congress for the last few years this committee should be hearingte the pfizer report and we are doing t this. Its interesting to see the calls ofre the metadata the problem that i have these were the only phone records returned from the subpoena why were these released . s this is what i want to know who ordered it to. The committee made a choice chairmanship is in here at least thank you for showing it made a conscious choice to put these records into the d report it was a gratuitous driveby to smear the ranking them on member because they were connected to that you just admitted that they were simply just cant contacting these people the problem i have if you really wanted to do a professional report congressperson one or two because if they did actually not contribute to your report then it is nothing but a driveby. Thats the problem i haveeb here. I have no problem with the report or the subpoena that was nothing but to show the American People for a moment the shift report was a partisan smear against other members we dont like i have no problem as i said doing proper oversight but dont make it up and not tell me or the rest of this committee who ordered that. That was nothing more than a Smear Campaign and to say it is not as disingenuous with this committee the chairman gave you a chance to make it rehabilitate and made it worse because at the end of the day it was leaked to the Washington Post and i dont understand how we can say this is okay or this is fine. This is how we have devolved may be members of the minority at some point if we set the standard if this is where were going with these kind of investigations that we are in trouble because the founders were deeply concerned about a atlot of things that now here everybody is originalist but also partisan impeachment because you dont like his policy or how he saidn it i dont like the way joe biden tsaid it but everybody has the backing of International Community now we are perpetual state of impeachment and thats a problem everyone should have but dont come here and not answer the question adam schiff is just fine without you but dont come here and say you know good and well somebody said i have the phone number and it matches were going to put in the report not because he is a part of this but he had a phone call with somebody we are investigating. That is a driveby. It is beneath you and the congress. That is why i have a problem with this this is the problem and we can be righteous about the president this is by people are turned off by the whole thing this is the problem that i have i dont blame the chairman because i hold the one with the pen responsible that he ordered thisol and he cannot defend that but unfortunately you had to take the heat and thats wrong and the committee deserves better i yelled back. Thank you mister chairman. The truth of the question is the perpetual abuse of the president s power putting himself into the next election america is based on free and Fair Elections based on 2016 the American People are concerned about ensuring the next election is free of interference and keeping that in mind i like asking the following question ambassador sondland testified according to Rudy Giuliani both President Trump wanted a Public Statement from president zelensky over investigations of burisma in the 2016 election. Ambassador sondland testified that president zelensky had to announce the investigation but he did not have to do that. Correct. As an experienced for it former prosecutor is a common to announce it but not conduct it . Normally its the reverse normally you dont announce the investigation because you want to develop as much evidence while its not public because of it is public then you run into problems of people changing testimony which is why the closed depositions were so a important. Why did that tell you the president only cares about president zelensky announcing the investigation but not conducting them . Whatever the president claims his desire to root out corruption even if you assume theseen investigations are for that purpose it undermines that because he doesnt care if they are done so even if yourm assume its corruption than he still not doing the corruption t investigations private confirmation was not enough thats an indication he wanted the political benefit. It looks to me the announcement of the investigationl could benefit the president politically because the announcemente alone could be twitter fodder between now and the next b election that is consistent with the findings. President nixon attempted to corrupt elections his agents broke into Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election that he tried to cover it up. But even more concerning in this case President Trump not only appears to abuse the power of his office but uses the government to do his bidding using military aid as leverage to get the job done this was appropriated on a bipartisan basis for ukraine to fight russia who invite one invaded them. While this aid was withheld people died we have argued ultimately it was released so it was not a problem but isnt it true it was released only after the president was caught in Congress Learned of the scheme to make this conditional of the investigation of his political rival . The president realize this is coming to a head and could not begs concealed the whistleblower complaint was circulating around the white house they announce their own investigation and then the Washington Post oped linking the two and then the Inspector General notified the committee. I made it clear throughout this investigation i didnt want to be part of the third impeachment inquiry but the evidence is damning and he hasnt offered any evidence to the contrary and nothing has come forward if he had evidence why wouldnt he bring it forward cracks this is a very serious matter striking at the heart of our constitution. Is a concern that we are here but i have heard over and over again we were both members of this committee during the clinton impeachment that took 73 days now we are in 76. Thank you Mister Goldman for your hard work and presentation i yelled back. The hearing is in recess for 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations]