Of law and our fierce constitutional patriotism. Now, it looked like President Trump might get away with his ukraine shakedown. After all most americans didnt know anything about it and the few who learned of it would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth. President trump could rest easy. But if donald trump misjudged the american character, the framers of our constitution did not. I count 17 honorable Public Servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president. Is that right, mr. Goldman . Yes. There was 17. And i counted dozen Career State Department and National Security officials who served republican and democratic president s alike over decades who came to testify. In fact, four of President Trumps own National Security council staffers, hill, vindman, morrison and maguire came
forward to report trumps scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didnt they mr. Goldman. Morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they heard of it, yes. And that moved me a lot. Because my father was a staffer on the National Security council under President Kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscious. And he devoted his career to the idea people must speak truth to power when power becomes a Clear And Present Danger to democracy and to the people. So i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. Mr. Goldman. Who is dr. Fiona hill. Was the senior director for the europe and russia director at the National Security council until july of this year. And she was President Trumps Senior Adviser on russia . Correct. Her family fled nazi german
and soviet russia. I think her family came from england. It was Marie Yovanovitch that was ambassador yovanovitch . Yes. Dr. Hill voiced her concerns to the nsc lawyers on july 10 and july 11th, long before anyone on the committee knew about it. Why was she why did she go to report what she had learned . What motivated her . She was concerned that ambassador sondland and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the ukrainians would open up investigations for President Trumps political interests in return for getting the white house meeting that President Trump had offered. And i want to talk about Deputy Assistant secretary george kent who served as a Career Foreign Service office for more than 27 years under five different president s, democrats and republicans alike. And he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions
to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president s conduct. Mr. Goldman, what were the events that led mr. Kent to draft notes to his file . There were several. There was a conversation at the end of june where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. There was one on august 16th, i recall, that he talked about. But you bring up a very important point. Which is all of these state Department Witnesses in particular, and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador sondland, took unbelievable meticulous notes. I would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. And it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that is based on contemporaneous notes. Do we have mr. Kents note in this process. We have no state Department Records including notes and
ambassador taylors first person cable and emails and so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation why do we not have them . The state department refused to provide them notwithstanding our subpoena under the president s direction. You know, in authoritarian societies like Putins Russia or the kingdom of saudi arabia, people are terrified to speak out about the crimes of their political leaders but the United States a lot of people are not afraid. Even though President Trump is tried to intimidate or silent them. And hes trying to make our country more like russia and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heros who stood up for the truth in our constitution. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Miss lesk yo. Thank you. My first two questions are for the American People. America, are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham . And, america, would you Like Congress to get back to work and actually get something done . Because i sure would. Mr. Castor, the rest of the questions are for you. And i would like yes or no answers if possible. Mr. Castor, my first question is important. Did any of the democrats fact witnesses present bribery, extortion or a high crime or a misdemeanor . Good heavens, no. Mr. Castor, the Deputy Assistant to the president of the National Security mr. Morrison listened in on the phone call. He testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper. Is that correct . He was worried about leaks. Several democrat witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons. Including concerns that the country is corrupt and Taxpayer Dollars may be misspent. Ambassador volker testified that this hold on Security Assistance to ukraine was not significant. Is that correct . Yes. A number of witnesses can also said the same thing. Former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified that in ukraine, and i quote, corruption is not just prevalent, but frankly is the system. Is that correct . Yes. All of the witnesses confirmed the environment as very corrupt. Mr. Castor, Ukraine EnergyCompany Burisma holdings had a reputation as a corrupt company, is that correct. Big time. According to the New York Times, hunter biden was paut of a broad effort by burisma to bring in a period when the company was facing investigations, is that correct. The new yorker had a extensive report on that as well. Obamas Deputy Assistant
obamas Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent testified he raised concerns directly to Vice President bidens office about Hunter Bidens services on burismas bords is that correct, yes or no . Yes. Mr. Castor, in the July 25th CallPresident Trump referenced joe biden bragging about how he stopped the prosecution. We all saw that video earlier today. Where joe biden bragged about how he told ukraine if the prosecutor is not fired, youre not getting the money. Mr. Castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma . It is. The Assistant Attorney General said and i quote,
emolument opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence Government Officials is corruption, plain and simple. Mr. Castor, here is another key question. Given that, one, burisma had a reputation of being a corrupt company, two, obamas own state department was concerned about hunter biden serving on burisma board at the same time that Vice President biden was acting as the point person to ukraine, and, three, obamas Assistant Attorney General said in a similar scheme what that that corruption that there was corruption plain and simple, do you think then it is understandable, reasonable, and acceptable for President Trump to ask the ukrainian president to look into the Hunter Biden Burisma potential corruption scheme . Yes. Mr. Castor, there are four undisputable facts that will never change that prove there is no impeachable offense. There was no quid pro quo on the July 25th Call. Ukraine leadership did not know the aid was held up at the time of the july 25th telephone call. Ukraine received the white house meeting phone call and aid even though, four, ukrainian didnt initiate any investigations. Do you agree . Ukraine received a meeting with Vice PresidentPence In Warsaw and a meeting not at the white house but in new york at the united nations. Mr. Castor, did mr. Turley testify that this Impeachment Inquiry has not passed chairman nadlers threeprong test. He did. Thank you. And i yield back. Thank you. The gentle woman from washington is recognized. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, lets focus on
the republican claim that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain. And let me be clear, we actually do not have to read the president s mind on this. As your report notes on page 10, as we will see on television, he told us himself exactly what his intent was. What exactly did you hope zelensky would do about the bidens after your phone call . Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they would start a Major Investigation into the bidens. It is a very simple answer. So the first and best witness about the president S Corrupt Intent was donald trump. There is also plenty of Corroborating Evidence so lets review the basic facts that weve already established. First, President Trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of liz calls with
president zelensky and he disregards all of the Talking Points that were prepared for him on corruption by the National Security council. Second, investigations of the bidens and a debunked Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official u. S. Policy and, third, congress authorized military aid to ukraine, ukraine passed all of the checks that the United States established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption and there was unanimous consensus among the state department, Department Of Defense and National Security council that the president should release the military aid that ukraine critically needed to fight russian aggression. So, mr. Goldman, between the time that President Trump put a hold on military aid to ukraine, and then released the aid, the president never conducted an actual review or Corruption Assessment on ukraine, did he . That is correct. There was no witness testified
that there was any review or any investigation of any sort related to the ukraine aid. And isnt it also true that the Defense Department actually determined not to conduct a review on ukraine after the president froze the military aid because ukraine had already met all of the Corruption Benchmarks in may of 2019 . Yes. And everyone involved in ukrainian policy believed that they were on the right path and president zelensky in particular. In addition to ukraine having satisfied all of the relevant Corruption Assessments prior to u. S. Military aid being withheld, there is significant Witness Testimony that both the state department and the Ukrainian Embassy actually advised that a white house meeting with president zelensky would help further an anticorruption agenda, correct. Both the anticorruption agenda and the Aggression Fighting fighting at gression from russia. And, in fact, President Trumps budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption
in ukraine. Now mr. Castor argues that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general. But in both 2017 and 2018 didnt President Trump release military aid for ukraine without any complaints about corruption . Thats correct. So mr. Goldman, the president was perfectly fine giving military aid to ukraine in 2017 and 2018, but somehow not in 2019. So what changed . Joe biden started running for president. Vice President Biden started running. And i would add the Mueller Report came out which did not even though it did not charge the president , it indicated it implicated the president and his campaign in welcoming the assistance from russia and utilizing it. And the sequence of events and all of the Corroborating Evidence makes it Crystal Clear that President Trump didnt care about corruption at all. In fact, as he told us himself on national television, he simply cared about his own politically motivated
investigations into his political rival. And you saw the clip where ambassador sondland picked up the phone, called President Trump and then mr. Holmes asked him what the president thought about ukraine and quickly what was mr. Sondlands answer . Mr. Sondland said the president does not give a bleep about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. Meaning the Biden Investigation that mr. Giuliani was pushing. And by the way just to add, that is a direct evidence conversation between President Trump and ambassador sondland on that day and there are mr. That we have not talked about on the minority side. So we know what President Trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and Witness Testimony. The president of the United States wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal, political benefit to interfere in our election and he was willing to use u. S. Military aid which is Taxpayer Dollars and an essentially white house meeting as his leverage. That is unacceptable and a grave
abuse of power. I yield back. The gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chairwoman. In the navy we had a saying. Bluff. Which is bottom line up front. Let me give everybody the bottom line. Were here because democrats are terrified that President Trump is going to win reelection. That is really what this all comes down to. Let me get into the specifics. Were here dealing with impeachment. Because democrats dont want to talk about the Red Hot Trump economy. They dont want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. Were dealing with impeachment because democrats dont want to talk about how the president has worked to protect American Companies from chinese aggression and renegotiated trade deals to benefit american workers. How hes eliminated burdensome regulations that hurd the
economy and that help job creators. Congressional democrats dont want to be reminded that the American People, that the democrat agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes, giving Illegal ImmigrantsTaxpayer Funded Health Care and taking private Health Insurance away from the American People. That is really why were here. This whole process is just a distraction. It is an attempt to hide the far left radical agenda. So lets talk about the facts. Schiffs report claims the administration froze military aid for ukraine without explanation. Yet the facts are that President Trump gave more military aid to ukraine than president obama. President obama gave ukraine wellwishes and blankets. President trump gave the ukrainians javelin missiles. That is a difference and those are the facts. Lets go over more facts. House democrats want to claim it is Money Conspiracy that ukraine officials interfered with the 2016 election but it is well documented by politico by Financial Times and the hill. There was an attempt to influence our elections and that is troubling and that is why President Trump brought it to the attention of president zelensky. Again, those are the facts. At the end of the day those facts dont seem to matter to my democrat colleagues. House democrats dont care that president zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. It is not important the call transcript was the best evidence we have it is the best evidence we have, it is the primary document and that transcript shows there was no quid pro quo, no bribery. I got to remember were calling it bribery after an old latin
frad that didnt pull well or test well in a democrat focus group. My democrat colleagues seem to really care about focus groups and polling, again unfortunately they dont care about the facts. Because the fact is that democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began. Representative tlaib said there january, i dont think we were sworn in yet, she said in january, impeach the mother. Representative green said in may, and i quote, im concerned that we dont impeach this president he will get reelected. These proceedings, this entire process is nothing more than a political hit job. Unlike my democrat colleagues i actually do care about the facts which is why im troubled that our committee did not hear from a single fact witness this entire time. We should be hearing here hearing from hunter biden. We should be hearing from schiffs staff. We know that schiffs staff
coordinated with the whistleblower. And again we need to hear from the whistleblower. Last week i offered a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to testify in Executive Session Meaning that he or she could testify behind closed doors. My democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. Mr. Castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistleblowers complaint. Well the first thing about the complaint that troubles us is that it is clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. The information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted. And it is from a person who d did it seems to make a case like an advocate of what happened on the call. The whistleblower references a number of individuals inside of the white house and at the state department that he or she has spoken to, to form the basis of a complaint. We have not been able to piece together all of those people and talking to all of those people
is important. And there is a lot of them im Running Out Of Time here but there is a reference to lutsenko in the whistleblower complaint where witnesses have told us it is likely shokin and vindman talking to lawyers very different reasons. Mr. Brechbuhl the gentlemans time is expired. I dont think he was on the call but i recognize the gentle woman from florida for five minutes. Mr. Goldman, as a member of the Intelligence Committee i saw significant firsthand evidence that President Trump conditioned our military aid on ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and the bidens and betrayed our National Security interests in the process. For example, ambassador sondland told us that once the ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld, it was made, and i
quote, abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid, and i quote, they were going to have to make these statements. Mr. Goldman, beginning on and around the 25th of july call, through september, would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the white house visit that they were going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations . Not only were they made aware but they were made aware either by President Trumps proxy Rudy Giuliani or from President Trump himself through ambassador sondland who spoke to president zelensky and Andrey Yermak and told them what President Trump had confirmed to him, that the aid was conditioned on the investigations. And by the end of august, president zelensky did, in fact, commit to making that statement on cnn, is that correct . Thats right. Finally president zelensky
prelented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic u. S. Political process and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice but to break the stalemate as ambassador sondland told them that he ultimately agreed to go on television before the before President Trump got caught and released the aid. I would like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you which displays again a Washington Post article from September 5th the headline said trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections and the article reports that President Trump is, and i quote, attempting to force zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u. S. President ial election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate joe biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting ukraines help with his president ial campaign, hes using United States military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. So am i correct, mr. Goldman, that by September 25th Allegations that President Trump was using military aid to pressure ukraine to announce investigations was being widely reported . Im sorry, by what date . September 5th. Yes. Well, widely reported, certainly the aid being withheld was widely reported. And by September 9th our Investigative Committees announced a congressional investigation into the president of these issues into the president about these issues and, mr. Goldman, what day did President Trump release the military aid . Two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the i. G. , the inspector general, told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld. So then am i correct that as the timeline on the screen in front of you shows, it wasnt until after the whistleblower complaint, after the Washington Post report, and after congress
launched the investigations that President Trump finally released the aid . Thats right. And i would just add one thing briefly to the congressmans point that it is true that President Trump has begin more Military Assistance than president obama. So one would wonder if he does support Military Assistance so much, why then is he holding it up for more than two months . And matter of fact, Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified that people at the nsc discussed that congress investigation, quote, might have the effect of releasing the hold on ukraines military aid because it would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid, is that correct, mr. Goldman. That was the testimony, yes. In other words the aid was released after the president got caught. And what makes me angry is that this president , President Trump, thinks he can get away with it. But he got caught. And he tried to cover it up. But we wont let him do that. And we thank god, mr. Goldman, for the true, courageous Public Servants who came forward in spite of intimidation and obstruction from the white house. You see everybody counts. But everybody is accountable, up to and including the president of the United States. Thank you. And i yield back. Thank you. The chair okay. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. Correia im sorry, california. Thank you madam chair. Mr. Goldman, my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the president apparently said, and i quote, no quid pro quo on
September 7th in a call with ambassador sondland. Mr. Goldman, did you receive testimony about the September 7th call . Yes. We received testimony from three witnesses about it. And it gets a little complicated but that was a consistent refrain through all of the witnesses, is that the president did say no quid pro quo. Lets try to clarify it a little bit. Ambassador sondland described that call to mr. Morrison that same day, correct . Thats right. And mr. Morrison reported it to ambassador taylor, correct. Thats correct. And both mr. Morrison and ambassador taylor took notes of those discussions . They did. Were those notes produced to the committee . They were not produced to us but the witnesses said they relied on their notes to provide their testimony. That set of notes was blocked consistent with the president s direction . Correct. And in his recitation to
mr. Morrison, ambassador sond said that the president brought up the words quid pro quo. And ambassador sondland said that too, yes. And mr. Goldman, what did the committee make of this fact. Well, it was quite odd that the president would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid pro quo that there was no quid pro quo. Go ahead. I was going to say what is more important is that what he said immediately after that, which is effectively conduct that amounts to a quid pro quo. He said there is no quid pro quo. But you have to go to the microphone and make this announcement well, lets talk about that. What did the committee make to the fact that according to ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison right after President Trump said no quid pro quo, President Trump then told ambassador sondland that president zelensky would to go
to announce the investigation into the 2016 interference and president zelensky should want to do that himself . That is right. We had a number of different accounts of this. And i think this is theyre up On The Boards here. Right. I see that. Ambassador taylor said that mr. Morrison said something similar. Their understanding of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo factually from the conduct, from the actions. Weve talked a lot today about the words and that Zelensky Said no pressure and trump said no pressure and no quid pro quo. But as an investigator and prosecutor, you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean and that is why this call in particular is so important. So lets go further. As we discussed multiple individuals reacted with concern to President Trumps call with ambassador sondland. Do you recall mr. Morrisons reaction . Mr. Morrison said that he was shocked, i think. And that he
sinking feeling. Sinking feeling, correct. And then he went and talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador bolton. Correct. And mr. Goldman, ambassador taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on zelensky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogical, crazy and wrong, is that right . That is what ambassador taylor testified to, yes. And now my colleagues pointed out on September 9th, text message from sondland reflecting that the president has been Crystal Clear that there is no quid pro quo. Mr. Goldman, am i correct that ambassador sondland has now testified that prior to sending his text he himself came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations. Yes. Ambassador sondland subsequent public testimony revealed at least two things that were precisely false, that were not
true in that text message, includeing there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier theyre assuredly was as it was related to the september meeting. And the text occurred after the Press Reports, that is after the Press Reports that President Trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of of his political rival, is that correct. Yes. And also this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed President Trumps message to president zelensky. Mr. Goldman, the Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president s assertion that there was no quid pro quo . We received a lot of evidence and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. Thank you. I yield. Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent
request. Or madam chairman. Can you hold it until after i do my questions, thank you. It is just. It is very brief. Just unanimous consent. I recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words. So i want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for President Trump to use the American Government to pressure the ukraine president to benefit his reelection campaign. Lets look at what the president said in his July 25th Call to the president of ukraine. Lieutenant colonel vndman listened to the call and testified when President Trump asked ukraine for a favor, it wasnt a friendly request, it was really a demand. Im going to direct your attention to the slide about Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony. Why did he say the president s favor was a demand . Because the power disparity between the United States as the
greatest power in the world and ukraine, which is so dependent on the United States, not just for the Military Assistance but for all of its support, made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. Am i correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have died, is that correct . Yes. And not only does the u. S. Provide 10 of their military budget, but the United States is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support ukraine. Europe actually gives the European Union gives four times as much money as the United States only to ukraine. So President Trump knew that the ukrainians president s back was against the wall and he
needed validation and support, is that right. Yes. According to the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine and we have ambassador taylors testimony up there. It wasnt until after ambassador sondland told them there would be a quote, stalemate, end quote until he agreed to announce the investigations that trump was demanding, correct. That is right, yes. And furthermore the Committee Heard testimony that the ukrainians felt they had, quote, no choice but to comply with President Trumps demands, correct . Thats right, yes. Even after the aid was released. Okay. In fact, when asked in front of President Trump in september whether he felt pressured, president Zelensky Said, quote, im sorry but i dont want to be involved to democratic open elections, elections of the usa, end quote. Is that right . That sounds right if youre reading the quote, yes. Okay. Now the president and some of
his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give into President Trumps demand. Did your Investigative Committees consider those statements by president zelensky . We did. And we found that the statements of of what is effectively a Extortion Victim are not particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter. Because president Zelensky Cannot in reality for the same reasons that hes interpreted the request to be a demand, he cant go out and say that he did feel pressure because that would potentially upset President Trump and theyre so dependent on the relationship with President Trump and the United States. One could almost say it is similar to a hostage testifying under duress . It is certainly duress would be a good word. So when the president made these statements and up to and including today his country was still under attack by russia,
still hadnt gotten a meeting at the white house and still needed aid from the United States, correct . Thats right. And david holmes testified very persuasively about the importance of the white house meeting and of the relationship to ukraine even after the aid was lifted. Including pointing to today when President Putin and president zelensky met to discuss the war in the east. So the evidence is clear that President Trump knew he had the power to force ukraines hand and took advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our Taxpayer Dollars basically to get what he wanted, right . Yes. And what is really important here and i think it has to be clarified is that the president the evidence showed that the president directly said to ambassador sondland that there was a quid pro quo with the Security Assistance. And there has been some debate and some discussion about that. But that one thing that the evidence shows based on the
morrison, taylor testimony, sondland testimony and the texts. So that is very important to understand. That whatever we want to say about hearsay or whatever, that is direct evidence. And that is precisely the kind of betrayal that our founders sought to present. I yield back to myself and i recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. Klein. Madam chair, you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform con sent after you asked your question so i ask for uniform or unanimous consent to introduce two letters. Gentleman will suspend. Who is seeking unanimous consent . For what are you seeking unanimous consent . Mr. Chairman i have two letters addressed to you on december 24th, 2019 and december 25th, 2019. Without objection. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from virginia mr. Klein. I have a brief parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Last week i expressed concern regarding the deeply flawed and partisan process that the democrat majority has been undertaking during this Impeachment Inquiry. Mr. Chairman im particularly reminded of your quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or supported by one Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy and produce Divisivene Divisiveness for years to come and call to question the legitimacy of our political institutions. You made that statement back in 1998. Im glad were moving on to present the quote unquote evidence gathered in this report. Not to hear from direct fact witnesses, but a 300page report built largely on hearsay, opinion and speculation. And im especially outraged that the purported author of It Chairman Schiff is not here to answer our questions today. Now that we have the report and can discuss the facts within, or
the lack thereof there are four facts that will never change. Both President Trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. Second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation, three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld and when the president spoke. And fourth, ukraine didnt open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting with President Trump. I want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it. Mr. Castor, did the democrats impeachment report reply on hearsay to support their assertions. Yes, it did. How many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay. We went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts. Can you give us some of the examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case. One of the a lot of the information for example that ambassador taylor was communicating, he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him but it was about one and two steps removed from the actual fact. And that is the problem with hearsay. Is that it is a whisper down the lane situation. And if some of the people that are doing the whispering have a are predisposed to not like President Trump, then then what theyre whispering down the lane becomes more distorted. Did you also find instances where the democrats report used witnesses speculation and presumptions. And the biggest one i suppose an this is the big daddy of the hearing is Sondland Presuming that the aid was tied to the investigations. Because as he engaged in a back and forth with mr. Turner, nobody on the planet nobody on the planet told him that was
the case. Mr. Castor, i want to move on to Foreign Policy and the idea that somehow the president was abusing Foreign Policy repeatedly and witnesses came before the Intelligence Committee and talked about how the president was operating outside of the bounds of the process for using norms. The president sets Foreign Policy, correct. Absolutely. And from where does he derive that power . The constitution. Article two, section two. The people, yeah. Could you give us examples of the members of Foreign Policy establishment who took issue with the president s Foreign Policy direction and choices . Well, for example, Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified when he was listening to the call, he had prepared Talking Points and the call package. And he was visibly just completely deflated when he realized that his call notes werent being referenced by the president. And a lot of inner agency
officials, i think, became very sad that the president didnt revere their policymaking apparatus. Is it safe to say there is another reason the president is skeptical of relying on some individuals to carry out his Foreign Policy goals like rooting out corruption in ukraine . I think the president is skeptical of the interagency bureaucracy. Is that why he relied on Secretary Perry and volker and others correct. And all three of these officials are not that far outside of the chain of the u. S. Government. Would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in ukraine to exempt or remove, say, a political supporter . Certainly would be. Would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent . Thats correct, yeah. Would it be inappropriate to remove the son of a political opponent from any investigations involving ukraine absolutely. This all goes to the heart of
bias. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Chairman, i go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. I would argue that the facts, in fact, are disputed and what you contend are facts are, in fact, not. They are witness presumptions, hearsay and speculation and the facts here are, in fact, that this is the shortest impeachment in u. S. History. Based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds. Mr. Chairman, this Impeachment Process is a farce and a stain on the committee and on the House Of Representatives and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Garcia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we just heard the president and his supporters claim that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the president s conduct. Now im a former judge and you, mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true . No. There is a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay. Indeed, it is not true. Now i dont want to relive a Law School Evidence class, instead i would like to go over some examples with you and please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador sondland and mr. Volker both testified that on may 23rd, 2019, President Trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy about ukraine. Is that direct evidence . Yes, technically. Well not technically. But yes. Thank you. And then we have the memorandum of the July 25th Call between President Trump and president zelensky, is that direct evidence . Yes. That is. So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked president zelensky to look into
these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u. S. Officials to talk to his personal attorney about those those investigations, correct . Yes. And if i could just jump here, on July 25th Call because the four facts that we keep hearing about are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. One of them happens to be there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th Call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also want to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, Spesly Washington and he said on the other hand i want to ensure that well be very serious about the case and well work on the investigation. That is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call. So thats wrong. It is also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call. Even though that doesnt even matter. But then finally there was no white house meeting ever provided. So the third or fourth fact so i do think that that just needs to be clarified particularly as were foekting on what direct evidence is. Well lets get more examples. We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the july 25 call, is there testimony direct evidence of what happened during that call . Yes. Although i would say the call record is better evidence than their and the day after that call, david holmes testified that on july 26th he overheard the president ask ambassador Sondland Whether Zelensky was going to do the investigation, is that correct evidence . That is direct evidence. And after the july 25 call record was released the president got on the white house lawn and again declares that ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent family the bidens, is that direct evidence. Yes, it is. His own words. That seems like a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition
to these . Well there is a lot of evidence that i would call direct evidence because its not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a coconspirator statement and that is admissible. So lets not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence we dont want to relive the law class. But it is very important because anything mr. Giuliani said or ambassador sondland said or anything any of the people say is not hearsay and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of of course we dont follow the federal rules of evidence here which is more lien yents but that is an important point. Is there anything wrong withdrawing withdrawing inferences from circumstances . Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single crom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when ambassador sondland
draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the white house meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that is the reason why the Security Assistance is also held up, that is a national logical inference that every jury draws across the country. I agree with you. Im just disappointed rather than to respond to the serious factual direct and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. But what President Trump did here is wrong and it is unconstitutional and if anyone else did this, they would be held accountable. I urge all of my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that no one, not even the president , is above the law. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Neguse. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And as we approach the ninth hour of this hearing i want to
thank both mr. Goldman and mr. Castor for being here today and for your testimony. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not the facts in this matter are contested. I believe they are not contested. And so id like to level set here and give you both an opportunity to address some of the fak some of the facts that i believe are not in dispute and i want to begin by addressing something we all know for certain and that is that russia interfered in our 2016 election. After two years of investigations, russia interfered in our elections in sweeping and systemic fashion, is that right. Yes. Mr. Castor, is that right . Yes. And am i correct that zero Intelligence Agencies have publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections in 2016, is that right. That is right. I dont even think that the minority is alleging that the Ukrainian Government in any meaningful way interfered. I think this is based on a couple of news articles. Mr. Castor, correct . The president had a goodfaith belief there were some significant ukrainian officials. I hear you. And youve said that previously. Im asking you and there are to Intelligence Agencies in the United States that have publicly stated that ukrainian have attacked our elections. Youre not testifying that is the case. Im not correct. And in fact President Trumps former Homeland Security adviser tom bossert said that the idea of ukraine for example hacking the dnc server was, quote, not only a Conspiracy Theory, it is completely debunked. Thats President Trumps Homeland Security adviser that said the words to the screen on my right, is that right mr. Goldman. Yes. I saw that interview. You saw that interview. Im aware of it, yes. In fact, isnt it true, that none of the witnesses that appears before your committee testified in support of the theory that ukraine somehow
interfered in our elections, is that right mr. Goldman. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Castor . Its correct but thank you. No witness has testified in support i reclaim my time. No witness testified in support of of that theory before your committee. Mr. Goldman, isnt it true that your Committee Received testimony indicating that there is evidence that russia is in part perpetrating this false theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. That is correct. We had evidence of though. And i think that is te very important to emphasize what is evidence that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. And in fact. I would like to put the testimony that i believe you might be referencing on the screen in that the ukraine
government did not interfere in our election in 2016. This is a fictional narrative propagated by the Russian Services themselves. Do you recall that . Di. I also remember a couple of officials who made disparaging comments about President Trump, there are officials from countries from All Around The World that also made disparaging comments about mr. Trump and as was said, their Military Assistance was not put on hold. It strikes me there are in fact four uncontested facts. First, russia attacked our 2016 elections. Several Intelligence Agencies independently confirmed this was true and second, ukraine did not
attack our 2016 elections, no evidence of this baseless Conspiracy Theory. Third, that rush interfered in our elections and russia benefits from the u. S. Investigating ukraine. Is it fair to say the Intelligence Community agrees with these four . The Intelligence Committee agrees with one and two. Dr. Hill testified to three and a statement from mr. Putin and certainly the witnesses that russia benefits from this. We saw in my Opening StatementPresident Putins comment, its good ukraine is all the talk. If that is the case, it begs the question, why would President Trump perpetuate this Conspiracy Theory already disproven by the entirety of our
Intelligence Community that helps our adverse sare and elections in realtime . With that, i yield. Mr. Chairman, brief parliamentary inquiry about the schedule. The gentleman, mr. Steuben has already been recognized. He has the time. Sir, are you going to rec z recognize him for his parliamentary inquiry after the questioning . I will after this. Thank you. I have never seen a more partisan spectacle than today. Democrats want the rules to suit them. Nine 1 2 hours ago there was 30 minutes to cross examine witnesses and then 40 more, and thats 70 minutes, and mr. Burke
is unelected brought in to give his opinion, a politically biased c biased consultanttant Given Thousands to Hillary Clinton and her president ial race. No wonder he has an ax to grind. Mr. Burke is a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer bragging about helping with tax fraud and others. Mr. Burke was able to say whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony it would be truthful so he can sit before this committee not as a fact witness and directly lie to anyone without fear of prosecution. Makes sense. Hes a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer and sure he didnt want to incriminate himself. This is the same one october 17th, two years ago whether President Trump obstructed justice and colluded with
russia. He also represented mayor Bill De Blasio in the investigation of his fundraising activities. For my fellow americans watching this charade this is who is at the top of the Testimony Giving Thousands of dollars to Hillary Clintons president ial campaign. Not a single fact witness has been presented before this committee. We have been denied a minority hearing day, i asked for. Lets talk about the facts we have before us. We heard from mueller, no evidence the Trump Campaign colluded or conspired with russia for the 2016 election. No obstruction of justice. After denying the republicans and calling their witnesses in Closed Door Proceedings and denying the witnesses in intel hearings, did the president tell you any preconditions for
anything . The answer, no. The aid to be refused . No. A white house meeting . No. Ambassador sondland also testified President Trump wanted nothing from ukraine. Tim morrison, when questioned, there was no quid pro quo . Correct. The aid was released. Four facts never changed. President trump and zelensky says no pressure and no conditionality between aid and investigation, no quid pro quo. Ukrainians were not aware aid was withheld when the president spoke and ukraine didnt open an investigation but still received from President Trump. Mr. Castro, has anyone heard from the Whistleblower Reit in closed door Heart Attacks or public hearings . No. Did chairman schiff state he would call the whistleblower to testify . No. Has that happened . No. Is he going to . I hope so. Has aid to other countries also been held up . Yes. On october 2nd, the new york
times reported a whistleblower approached a house Intelligence Committee aid with his concerns about mr. Trump. Sorry. Say that again . On october 2nd, the New York Times reported a whistleblower approached a house intelligence aide about his concerns about mr. Trump. Is that accurate. I think it was about the threats thats not what im asking. Did a whistleblower approach the house Intelligence Committee let me ask a different way, have you had any response from the whistleblower . As i said, im not going to the whistleblower is not the basis of this report. He is the whole basis for this. The whistleblowers complaints for the reason mrs. Castor said, his allegations are not included in the report because the evidence has been outstripped and surpassed by the 17 witnesses we have had come in
to testify directly about the conduct that the whistleblower blew. As you sit here today, do you know the identity of the whistleblower . Sir, im not going to talk about because youre asking my time not yours. Youre refusing to answer whether you had communications with the whistleblower . Has any other staff had communications with the whistleblower . Youre refusing to answer that question and the American People have a right to know. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order, mr. Chairman. I have Anonymous Consent the gentleman will suspend. The time of the gentleman has expired. I have unanimous consent. I ask for ukrainian documents for President Trump backfired dated january 2017. If you will give it to our staff well take a look at it. Should i make a motion to insert instead, mr. Chairman . Before i recognize mrs. Mcbath, i want to announce with respect to scheduling, that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. It may end before votes are called, which would be nice. If it does not end before votes are called, then we will recess for the vote and we will reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor are over. Its going to be a close call. Well see. I will further announce im not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond todays hearing. Point of order. Who has who speaks recognition for Point Of Order . Di, mr. Chairman . Whos i . To your right, mr. Chairman. Over here. One of yours. For what purposes