That if he was acting corruptly, wrongfully, that it was unlikely he was going to confess to president zelensky that he was asking for the investigations explicitly to help his prospects . In my experience, you almost never have a defendant or someone who is engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say in this case, president zelensky, im going to bribe you now or im going to ask for a bribe for i am now going to extort you. That is not the way these things work. Thank you. And going back to you, you said hunter biden had been on the board going back to 2014, correct . Yes. President trump supported ukraine with aid and otherwise in both 2017 and 2018, correct . President trump has done a lot for the ukraine. Taking a break from the
hearing for breaking the news on the doj watchdog report. Has just out, Inspector GeneralMichael Horowitz as anticipated, his longawaited report on the russia investigation. We are just getting it now, live at the Justice Department with what we are learning. This investigation began in march 2018 so you could say this is definitely a long time coming, no question at all, this is a 434 page report if you can imagine, a very long one. Is now posted on the Inspector Generals web site here at the department of justice. Let me go through the highlights and put up a quote right now that is pretty stern and shows up pretty early on the report. Says we did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the fbis decision to seek fisa authority on carter page. Carter page was a Trump Campaign official in 2016. There was a fisa warrant issued with three renewals on
carter page that he was never charged. Also, the report shows, and we have some graphics made, top fbi officials james comey and Andrew Mccabe who were at the fbi at the time did not act with political bias. The investigation was properly predicated but there are several of missions and inaccuracies in the phis application. There are 17 significant errors of omission in the carter page phis application. There was an audit today and this is significant, by the department of justice Inspector General to look into the future fisa processes to prevent future errors that we have seen today and there are some errors. The fbi did rely on that steele dossier with Salacious Information About NowPresident Trump for the Carter Page Application but did not press Christopher Steele the man behind the dossier for his funding source. A low level fbi attorney took part of an email from another Government Official and put it into an email used for the page
application and that did not affect the overall validity of the application. Basically, what we can tell from this document, there are parts that democrats will celebrate, there are parts that republicans will celebrate. While there were problems with the fbis handling of this warrant, the report today says there was no political bias nor motivation when seeking this warrant and specifically i want to point out the words because this is important, no documentary or Testimonial Evidence. We are not talking about circumstantial evidence, specifically documentary or Testimonial Evidence. This began in march 2018. The Inspector General adam was two years to look over this. The initial investigation into carter pages called cross fire hurricane that began in july of 2016. A lot of dates here, dont want to get too many people confused. This was posted on foxnews. Com, those are the Key Highlights from this report just released a few moments ago. 476 pages will take some time to go through. Mark meadows the republican congressman had a chance to go through that report, to our briefing he walked out of on the ig report, his response is deeply disturbing. They are about to have some serious explaining to do. More details to come shortly so reaction starting to come in, thank you. A lot to get you now, Andy Mccarthy on the story from the very beginning in your reaction is what based on what we are hearing . Starting with what we just heard means they didnt have a witness who came out and said there was political bias, they didnt have a paper trail that says or indicates there was political bias. That doesnt mean that they are saying of course, none of us has been able to read the report yet but this doesnt mean they are concluding that it was prudent or proper to go ahead and get the fisa warrant particularly if it was rife with errors, we will have to see what that is all about. Seems to me that this tracks what we heard from Attorney General Barr in congressional testimony some
months back, he made a point of saying that he Wasnt Leaping to the conclusion that agents of the fbi or upper officials in the Justice Department had acted on political bias or improper political motivation but that perhaps they had acted out of overzealousness and what he seemed to mean by that was they had breached our norm against having investigations interfering with our political process without an adequate amount of predication. Again as we discussed before doesnt necessarily mean that they would have had insufficient predication under the fbis regulations or what you need the level of suspicion to open any investigation. The question is, when you are dealing with our Political Campaigns, you should have a higher level of suspicion before you take the risk that
investigative activities by the fbi and the Justice Department could affect the outcome or influence the outcome. We are rifling through a lot of these headlines, trump tower meeting in 2017 was james comey before the president was sworn in was referred to as investigation. The fbi attorney who authored the email with regard to the investigation has been a criminally referred to the department of justice. Dip bret baier in washington for more of what youre picking up there. The Attorney General is that with a statement, and this obviously will hearken back for critics of the administration to the Mueller Report where he gave his assessment, but he is out with a very scathing statement about this ig report and it reads in part the Inspector Generals report now makes clear that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u. S. President ial campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that in my view were insufficient to
justify the steps taken and it is also clear that from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and into President Trumps administration and a rush to obtain and maintain surveillance of Trump Campaign associates as officials misled the Court Omitting Critical Exculpatory facts from their filings and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. My point being is that listening to that, how the Attorney General characterizes this report is a lot different than just the headlines of it and we are going to dig into what is 434 pages of this report and something tells me at the end of it, both sides are going to be pointing and holding up different parts. We did not find political
bias, before a Senate Hearing at 10 00 a. M. On wednesday of this week and certainly we will that life. We are all getting a chance to dig through this and see the highlights from it, brett read a portion of the Attorney Generals response or statement after the release of the ig report, and then at the end said no report was made about these applications, i have full confidence in director ray and his team at the fbi and thousands of dedicated agents who work tirelessly to protect our country so that is the latest from the Attorney General that we have heard, your thoughts so far. There are times in the past when the Attorney General respectfully and firmly disagrees with the Inspector General. Just happens. So one key point is that bill barr may know things that Michael Horowitz is professional as he is does not know and why is that . John durham, United States attorney has the benefit of a criminal investigation including access to a grand jerry. Michael horowitz does not have that so i think we need to wait and see what the basis is for this disagreement but it is very fundamental and obviously very important. Everyone has agreed that the fbi did not handle the fisa application well especially with omissions so what are those omissions . What should the court remember . We are talking about representations to a court. What is it the court was not made aware of that now the Inspector General is saying in effect it shouldve been made aware of . Thank you. Also, one more headline. The cia expressed concerns about the lack of vetting with the Christopher Steele dossier and the information that he had handed over. Bill barr coming to this conversation now. Back in may with regard to the
steele dossier on its face had a number of clear mistakes. So horwitz will be there on wednesday and perhaps the point is theres a little bit of everybody at the moment that i think one clear distinction must be made with regard to horwitz in this investigation with john durham is doing on the criminal side. Horwitz was allowed by the government, durham has the authority to go much broader than that for current employees or former employees. That is absolutely true, and also the Inspector General is issuing a report potentially was brought in to handle this case launching a criminal investigation so the stakes are a lot higher but lets bring it back to what the Inspector General horowitz says about the watching of the entire investigation back in july of
2016 and he says there that there was legitimate reason, a variable threshold, obviously thinks that they didnt put the threshold high enough, but according to the Inspector General, they met the standard for launching the investigation of members of the Trump Campaign back in july of 2016, and we also know not in this report but in a number of reports that one of the questions was the steel report really comes on the scene only in the fall of 2016. We are several months before in the summer of 2016 and this was all based on George Papadopoulos who supposedly said he had heard that the russians had dirt and information, hacked emails from the democrats and based on that, what he specifically supposedln that basis, they decided to launch the investigation of the Trump Campaign in the first place. According to a report of the Washington Post, horowitz went to durham and said do you have any information that would argue against the legitimacy of them launching the entire investigation in the first place, and then said no. And there had some talk about the person that supposedly had told papadopoulos. Gets a little complicated, a professor named joseph massoud, was he really a representative of the russians or was he fed up by u. S. Intelligence agencies to entrap or embroil donald trump and supposedly told him i had no information to that regard so at this point, it appears the launching of the investigation in the first place was legitimate, there seem to have been more questions about that than getting the fisa warrant to surveilled carter page but remember when that happen, that was in October Of 2016 and carter page was no longer a member of the Trump Campaign. Horowitz apparently we reported in fox news and foxnews. Com, forwarded evidence at this fbi lawyer manipulated key investigative documents related to the secret of surveillance of carter page. Why is that important . The question then goes to the attorneys who was been referred to as a criminal matter, who told the attorney to change the language and that in itself is a critical question to figure out what is next. What have you had a chance to look at . It just goes back to the words that are used here, the word predicated is used in the report as we just heard, that is a word that bill barr used, said he wanted to know if this investigation was adequately predicated and in this sense, he is claiming that it is, so there was clearly a dispute between these two individuals in terms of how this is being read. We are obvious they going to get more from bill barr but he has made clear in his initial statement that he doesnt agree with everything here. They also want to make two quick points here. It finds that the Justice Department did not know who his patron was. This goes to the question of the funding of the steele dossier going back to the Hillary Clinton campaign and it reminds me of the question that bret baier asked of jim comey and that excellent interview when he responded that he didnt actually know who had paid for the dossier which i think all of us kind of made our jobs drop that that question was never asked. So that is significant, also that the fbi didnt tell the fisa court about the flaws that they knew were in the steele dossier and the concerns that they had about Christopher Steele so i think there are a lot more questions here that need to be asked and hopefully well get to the bottom of some of them as we move forward and in the durham report. Looking at a few notes here, the 400 plus page report, said
that the reports that he generated were mostly Single Source reporting and were uncorroborated in until just up to a point. We will see where that leads us. What do you have . I am actually looking at the report on my phone right now and there is an interesting part right here because there were questions on if the fbi ever brief the Trump Campaign about this investigation, some would say why would they ever do that but sometimes they do, it is called a defensive briefing in this case specifically shows that the fbi never briefed the Trump Campaign to let them know about any potential connection between carter page and russia, so there was no defensive briefing by the fbi to the Trump Campaign so the Trump Campaign was left out of the loop on that and ended up eventually finding it out later. Feel free to jump back in at any point while trying to dig through a 500 page report, to dana and juan standing by now, your thoughts so far . I worked on the Justice Department for a brief period of
time and i think one of the things that you see Attorney Generals Department doing is announcing along with this report and audit for ongoing, so i do think that under the trump administration, you will see some Policy Changes to the fisa application process, it has been controversial for many years, always does get reapproved, the president wherever he is, obama reauthorized it, President Trump has reauthorized it once but you will see some changes to that process and whether that alleviates any concern, we will see. The other thing ive been thinking about us for a couple of years now, President Trump has tease the idea of releasing an unclassifying as is his power to do the underlying document that would provide a lot more clarity on all of this and answer some of the questions that martha was just talking about. He has not done that and there could be reasons for that but i think the other thing is the reason that he looked to the report is that the fbi in this report i imagine that chris wray
would say was vindicated and starting this fisa warrant that it was finding to do what was appropriate but thats because they are saying there are other information, so what was that . I dont know if that includes something President Trump could release, but it mustve come from the Intel Community or something, might not be what you are pointing out. The steele dossier he admits is based on Single Source info so there mustve been Something Else for this report and for the fbi for many years now saying that it was warranted, they had a reason to come i had to come from somewhere else and we dont know where that is. Here is something that is intriguing, he was asked whether or not he was biased against President Trump and the trump family. Apparently, he called that ridiculous. He stated that if anything, he was favorably disposed for the
trump family because as he began his research, he met a member of the trump family and has been friendly with the family because a personal gift had been given to a Family Member in scotland. So the web runs deeper right now for Juan Williams on your observation. I think we have been waiting, republicans and democrats for this report for some time it has been delayed and debated, i recall even recently at the white house, there was concern about why the president was holding a helicopter and saying bill barr was there an intense conversation and i think the large point here is potentially the independent report would somehow change the way that we are talking about impeachment today even as these hearings proceed and what is the bottom line here . I think it is disappointment for republicans who thought this was going to change the story. Has not. The finding is that it was not political bias that led to the investigation of the relationships between the Trump Campaign and potential interference, now proven interference by the russians in 2016. I think that there are lots of people, we can talk about steel, we can talk about exactly why he acted in the way that he did, we can talk about clerical and clerical omissions that did not change or somehow leaves that document inaccurate as we presented to the court, all of that we can discuss but it is a big point here today that horowitzs report finds no political bias, no evidence that this was somehow something being done by the deep state to undermine the Trump Campaign or the trump presidency. Weve got some reaction coming in now, the attorney himself saying this independent department of justice report
confirms what everyone already knew. His personal opinion never impacted his work as an official of the fbi, those who recklessly denied this truth for political gain you a brave disservice and you reference back to the point of the report, while the ig points out the hostility that was seen in those Text Messages between the two, he went on to conclude that he attended some of the discussions regarding opening of the investigation i did not play a role in the decision or they for individual cases, similarly with peter strzok, concluded that he was directly involved in the decision to open cross fire hurricane in the fourth individual case that he was not the sole or even the highest level Decision Maker as to any of those matters. I will also say this tidbit about a trump Family Member, who was that Family Member . So far it appears it is not identified in the report, it is not something we can clarify soon . Perhaps. A couple of things, just noting this report does find for the first time that the fbi used a confidential source to communicate with the senior high level Trump Campaign official in september of 2016, but nothing comes of it out approach. In other words, it doesnt lead to anything and that person, whoever that is is not under investigation. Did find this report that they did not plant someone inside the Trump Campaign, but it does not say it essentially says there were numerous sources being used that contacted or had a communications with people inside the Trump Campaign, so they definitely were talking to a number of Confidential Sources dealing with the Trump Campaign. Back on legal analysis now, what is the headline coming from this report now that weve all had a chance to dig into it . It certainly is a big deal that they did make a finding that there was bias or particularly political bias that drove the investigation, that said, i think people are going to find this frustrating in the same way that horowitzs report on Hillary Clinton email investigation was frustrating. He says right up front at the beginning we are not here to secondguess discretionary judgment by the Justice Department about whether there was a predication to open an investigation or about any of the specific investigative calls that were made. That is all well and good for him. What hes basically saying is our only job here in terms of our lowest common denominator of regulations is that this is mustered under those. When i think people are most interested in is what drove the
discretionary judgment and was it appropriate to use fisa surveillance . Was it appropriate to use informants whether they were planted inside the campaign or whether they were targeted at members of the campaign in order to gather information. That is really the issue here. What drove those decisions and why did they make them . Horowitz is basically saying is similar to what he said in the Hillary Clinton emails investigation not my job, and i am very interested in what the basis is for the nonbiased finding. When you look at the fine print in connection with the Hillary Clinton emails investigation, what he actually said was yes, we found lots of evidence of bias, but we couldnt draw a firm conclusion that bias drove any particular investigative decisions. Couldnt say it didnt either but said there wasnt enough evidence that they could say
with certainty that this was something that was driven by bias. Now, think of what we just heard in the last few minutes. What they are saying is he may have exhibited some bias but there were lots of other people who were involved in that decision and page may have had some bias but she wasnt involved in the decisionmaking as far as the investigations opening was concerned. So i think we are going to have to look at this really carefully but it seems to me that what the findings, the basis that he is using to make his findings is something that is really lowest common denominator stuff. Is given what their standards are for all investigations across the board, can we justify the opening of this investigation and given that there is no one, no witness out there saying yes this was bias, can we make that conclusion . Quick answer on this, can an fbi attorney alter this email or application on his or her own, yes or no . Not properly, of course not. So the ig was concerned that fbi policies do not require a Senior Department official to be notified prior to the opening of a particularly sensitive case. How do you interpret that if both of these statements are true in that report . Again, there is a question of what is required according to the rule book and then there is how things actually work in the real world which is if you are doing an investigation that involves a president ial campaign and the allegation is that the campaign may be in a treasonous or traitorous relationship with the kremlin that may be threatening to steal the election or undermine the election, the thought that that would go one would have people up and down the chain of command
being fully informed about it is very unlikely. Here in new york down to dallas and listening and watching and back to you in the reaction you were getting right now in the early stages of this story only 25 minutes old. It would appear that Michael Horowitz who was an honest guy, and honorable person has set the bar really high. I would call it this presumption of regularity or appropriateness and a very high level of evidence necessary to read but what i am calling a presumption. But secondly, and this was mentioned earlier, in light of the sensitivity by its very nature by the investigation into a president ial campaign, why indeed was the campaign not notified . I dont think the report goes to that. Is beyond his compass, but it certainly seems to me that in light of our democratic system that if we are going to have the
most powerful Law Enforcement agency in the United States investigating a president ial campaign, there needs to be an avenue so that the campaign at a level, General Counsel campaign is made aware of this so that the campaign if there was a problem can clean its own house. So we have a lot to learn especially why it is for George Papadopoulos in his interaction with the diplomat viewed by horowitz as being of such moment that it was appropriate as part of the background to justify this extraordinary kind of action. Just to let everyone know, the hearing continues on capitol hill. You will get back to that in just a moment but first, as we wrap it up here from everyone joining, Chris Wallace in washington about 27 minutes after the release of that highly anticipated ig report. Everybody is viewing this
from the lane of what they do for a living. I am doing it as a reporter and the potential headline. Remember, this is against the backdrop of donald trump talking about the investigation of him in 2016 as a political hit job, when he talked about president obama ordering the wiretapping of the twin the tr. In one of this hearing, bill barr talked about the fbi spying on the Trump Campaign and later said spying is not a pejorative word, it is a perfectly legitimate word and usually people talk about surveillance, not spying which would seem to have a negative connotation. When you read the report and obviously we are all skimming through it, the headline is they didnt find the things that bill barr and donald trump alleged. They basically found that there was no political there was not political bias, either by
james comey or by his deputy Andrew Mccabe that they found that it was proper to launch the investigation. You could argue about whether the threshold is proper but the Inspector General who has been investigating it in 450 pages explaining it that it was proper to launch the investigation and indeed that it was proper to seek a warrant on carter page, it certainly does say that there were a lot of improprieties, carelessness on the part of a low level fbi people indication that this came a fellow who none of us had ever heard of but certainly no indication that that was undercutting orders. So it seems to me that the headline here that they basically found the fbi conducted the investigations of the warrant on a proper legal
basis, some conduct by individual people by any of the higherups and with regard to the defensive briefings briefings, there is a section where it says the top fbi officials gave a great reason that the ig seemed to accept as to why there were not defensive briefings, why donald trump wasnt alerted because they were individuals involved. It was proper not to be identified to the president , we could argue with the Oversight Hearing Way whether thats the way things should be done but the ig is saying that this all fell within fbi and Justice Department guidelines. Just as you say that, there is another headline. John durham, the gentleman conducting the outside investigation just put out a statement that concludes based on the evidence and Data Collected in investigations ongoing, last month we advise the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the reports conclusions as to predication and how the fbi case was opened. Which inclusions we do not know, we are waiting for more on that. Before go back inside the hearing, just react to what hes putting out and the fact that he feels compelled to make that Statement Public now. I really think this is the other side of the points that chris is making which that again, the Inspector General is looking at this, because at a high standard, i call it lowest common denominator, but the point is, he is asking in terms of by the book of this or any investigation in the United States, would it have been permissible, not necessarily wise, not prudent, permissible to do the things that were done . I think what the Justice Department is looking at on the question it is asking is as a matter of prudence and a matter of propriety and a matter of policy, are these activities that should be conducted in connection with the Political Campaign on the level of evidence that was available to the fbi . And that is worth stressing here that even as he has said from the beginning of his report and from what ive been able to detect, he is looking at a much more limited picture then durham is. He is looking at a much smaller subset of information than he is, so we will just have to wait on that. Final thoughts from bret baier as we will get back to the hearing in just a moment. Just on this very quickly, this other line before you read on the statement, our investigation is including developing information from other persons and entities both in the u. S. And outside the u. S. , this statement is essentially saying with the Washington Post reported about durham telling the ig about the beginnings of this investigation is wrong and durham is now compelled to put this statement out. I think it is a big statement in addition to The Ag Statement Being put out on the same day as this report. Bret baier in washington, our team will stand by. We are going to take a quick
break for a moment to share with you some professional news and our own bill hemmer. We knew it was a big news day. There is more . Im going to be moving later to the day and i am very much excited about it. You are a great partner. Lets let everyone know. Of the fox news alert. My colleague and friend a true professional is going to be moving to the 3 00 hour eastern time here on the Fox News Channel. He created that show americas newsroom, built it from the ground up and he is going to go off to host a solo hour and lead our breaking news coverage. Congratulations. Thank you, you are a great person with a great heart. Been together two years but sandra and shannon and martha and when megan and i started this broadcast 12 years ago, we went on a journey and its been a really great ride to share with the viewers at home and all
of the world, so thank you for that honor and i hope to make you proud in the new honor with the new broadcast in the afternoon. So thank you. They make you walk around the hallways of Fox News Channel highfiving everybody, we are also supportive of you and we cant wait, does it have a name yet . It does, so not done with me yet. Have a little bit of time together still, an office right next to each other so keep it down over there. So we will wrap things up in january, but thank you. We are so happy for you and we cant wait for that hour every afternoon. I feel the same, so thank you very much for your really kind words and it means a lot to me to represent the Fox News Channel, so i hope to do you all very proud very soon and with that news, back to the news. With that statement on their minds they could get a
white house meeting and satisfy President Trump and have the aid released. Ambassador sondland testified to that and ambassador volker also testified to that. Am i correct that he gave a statement where he did not make any reference to Vice President biden, correct . And was that Rudy Giuliani who said in the second one that it had to include a reference that they were going to investigate burisma in the 2016 election . And what did burisma stand for . All your witnesses said they have an understanding what that meant. Every single witness said after reading the phone call on july 25th that it was clear burisma equaled biden, that they were one of the same. There were only two witnesses who said they did not know that until that time and there was ample testimony, a lot of testimony from people involved in all aspects of ukraine policy who indicated that it was completely unrealistic and unlikely that anyone who had anything to do with ukraine would not know that the burisma
investigation related to the bidens. And that is how mr. Giuliani public referred to it as burisma and Vice President biden. Did the ukrainians complained repeatedly that they didnt want to be a pond in u. S. Democratic politics by helping President Trumps Reelection Campaign by making such a statement . They said that in july and august ultimately didnt get the statement in large part because they had reservations given that president zelensky was an anticorruption reformer. They had reservations about engaging in u. S. Domestic politics, that is right. I want to go back to mr. Castor. He was said when President Trump said to ambassador Sondland On September 17th that he had no quid pro quo, you said he had no reason September 9th he said he had no reason to be any less than candid. Thats what you said. No reason to be less than candid. Let me show you what happened on
september 5th, slide 52. Days before he made that statement, the Washington Post printed an article that says trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections and goes on to describe some of those efforts, and let me show you whether President Trump was aware of that article before he volunteered no Quid Pro Quo Is a defense. Let me show you a tweet by President Trump on slide 53. Again, this is putting out a tweet that is essentially saying the democrats following up the article that they are pursuing impeachment again showing awareness that this had now been reported on, so mr. Goldman, is it fair to say when mr. Castor
said that President Trump had no reason to be less than candid about saying no quid pro quo . President trump had every reason to try to put out that message at that point as ambassador sondland said even when if you credit his version of the testimony which is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes were far more credible than mr. Solomon, he said even in that comment, he said no quid pro quo Out Of The Blue without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. Gentlemens time has expired. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Members for his first round of questions pursuant to House Resolution 660, the Ranking Member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. It has become very evident why this hearing is here and while the craziness of this
hearing especially not having mr. Schiff here, please put up the last slide. I have no idea what number it is. 53. Did we cut it off after they got food . While we are doing this, the most amazing statement came out there, theres nothing the democrats had not been concerned about for two and a half years since november 2016. It is now back up, he has known they have been after impeachment, thats why mr. Goldman is here and mr. Burke is here and why we are going through this charade of staff having to answer questions and we dont like how its going, we start asking and getting into a staff argument. Where is adam . Where is adam . Its his report, his name, you
are a great attorney and you are not adam schiff. We have a problem here and the problem is there a very good prosecutor and i believe it, you are a good attorney. You understand what Quid Pro Quo Is, correct . You understand what asking for something in exchange for something actually means, correct . You know about the conversation of mr. Biden when he asked and said im not going to give you a billion dollars, you recall that conversation, correct . You want me to read it to you . Talking about in 2016 . The one from the national where you did ill read it for you. As i remember going to the ukraine in convincing our teams to my convincing them they should provide guarantees. The 12th or 13th time, i was supposed to announce there was a billiondollar guarantee and i got in that commitment and said i would take action against the state prosecutor. They didnt. So they said they were walking
out of the press conference. I said im not going to. We are not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have no authority, you are not the president. The president said, i said call him. I said you were not getting the billion dollars. I am getting ready to be leaving here and i think about six hours. I said i am leaving here in six hours. Youre not getting the money. While he got fired. Did he ask for something or hold something of value . He testified. I am not asking about george kent. Answer this question. Did he or did he not . Is joe biden a liar telling a story to make people impressed or he actually did this, which is a . He did a pursuant to u. S. Official policy. So he did it withholding actual knowledge, so joe biden
is the only one that has done a quid pro quo, the only one who has used Taxpayer Dollars to threaten a foreign government. We are sitting here pretending this is not happening . Were sitting here pretending that a president of the United States now would not be concerned . Is a at it this way, he can destroy himself on the Campaign Trail but he cant get by this. And it Doesnt Matter who brings it up, Doesnt Matter who does it because this is what happened. Then you can fly wash it all you want, but thats what it is, either a liar or he did it and he did it. I want to continue on. Question is a question that you had earlier. You rely on approximately how many times do you rely on Gordon Sondlands testimony . In your report . Nearly a 300 page report. Would you be amazed if it was 600 times or better . You wouldnt have any idea were not . You did come over 600 times. Would you also understand that
over 158 times, mr. Sondland said to the best of my knowledge or i dont know. Are you talking about his report of the deposition . The deposition in the closed door testimony. Over time he remembered a lot more as he was refreshed. The question we are having here, as he also said or presumed it would actually happen. Lets go back to Something Else, we will continue this in just a moment. According to your report, the turbine that to be the Intelligence Committee on the other investigation with the other two committees, are we okay with that . Issued dozens of subpoenas, is that right . Certainly over a dozen, yes. Some of those were not publicly reported until the majority report, correct . Most of the subpoenas. Lets go at it, either answer
the question or elaborate, one or the other. I am trying to answer the question. Did you didnt you, did it come out or not . Did what come out . Some of the subpoenas were not publicly issued until they issued the majority report. They were given to the minority but not the public. Make the witness who have publicly been identified, did you issue any other subpoena for testimony other than the one publicly identified . Im not sure, i dont think so. How many subpoenas were issued for records . We issued a number of subpoenas for records, did issue six subpoenas to executive Branch Agencies and they all defied our subpoenas. Moving on to other issues here, the Wall Street Journal reported the committee issued at least four subpoenas to verizon and at t for call records, is that correct . Yes, we are because there are multiple numbers, only issued subpoenas for call records for people involved in the investigation and had already been subpoenaed by the committee for documents and testimony of their own. Wonderful stuff that answer my question. I am trying to answer your question. Was it at least 4 . Yes. Thank you, could have saved us a lot of time there. How many subpoenas were issued to at t . Can you check your records . We just found out about this, we have a massive document over the weekend preparing for this hearing in which the chairman admitted theyre not going to be able to read it all anyway. So we are just simply going on in adam schiff report which he refuses to come testify about so this is important that we just
found out about, so how many subpoenas were issued to at t . I dont know. Again, maybe your chairman could be here next answer this. Did it target a single Telephone Number or numbers . We subpoenaed for call records multiple numbers. How many . I dont know. None of the members of congress, none staff of congress. We are getting to that. We only did in the subjects involved in the investigation which is a very routine and standard investigating practice. You are not going to hear anything from me about a subpoena, my problem is this, who on the committee asked that you actually did put into the record for a subpoena and get those numbers back, who was at that that they be crosschecked for members of the media and members of congress, who ordered that . I dont think thats how we did it, sir. You came out with a report that showed these people such as chairman nunes and others were actually on the call. Now, someone we are not going to play cute here. Somebody took the Phone Records that you asked for, took those numbers and then said lets play match game. Who ordered the match game from the members of the congress and the press . Was that you . I dont think anyone did, sir. That is the most ridiculous item ive ever heard. You dont subtly pick up numbers to actually show where they are and you dont come up with them. Who ordered them to actually match members of congress and the press . Thats what you described is exactly how it happened. To find out if the number was on those calls . If i could just explain, sir. You pick an event of significance and you look for sequencing and patterns surrounding that event, you look then at the numbers and you try to identify what those numbers are and then you start to build the circumstantial page. At this point, thats a wonderful explanation but not in answer to my question. He was seeing how they are connected, i understand the subpoena you issued. A question, was it you are chairman schiff that said while we are doing this, lets see if this matches the number, someone along the way didnt all of a sudden have an epiphany in this youre getting ready to throw a lowlevel staffer under the bus, so who did it . Was it chairman schiff or was it you . Be careful, you are under oath. I know im under oath sir. I will answer the question if you give me a second here. Is not a simple answer. Who decided to leak it, by the way. And while youre thinking about how youre going to answer that question, who decided to leak it . Why did you include in the report . That is not a leak, sir. So two questions are hanging out that everyone is looking for an answer for including me. Who ordered it was it you or was it chairman schiff and for
nothing but smear purpose is to included in the report . I am not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you and i will tell you the reason it was included in the report is because the calls were surrounding important evidence to our investigation and i think that your question is frankly not directed at me but at the people who were having conversations involved. We are not going to play that game. You are not answering the question and every member of the media, when you start going into looking at members Telephone Numbers for which they ought to be scared about, you took a subpoena and then you decided to play match game, you found numbers that you thought didnt exist because you claimed they were for the white house than they were not, so sewing stories out there because nobody was out there so i go back to my question, are you going to go on the record in front of everybody here today and said he will not say who ordered this, you or
mr. Goldman, you were mr. Schiff . Im going to go record and say i am not going to reveal how we did that investigation. Mr. Schiff said behind closed doors. I am done with you for right now. You are not being honest because you know it is, you are just not answering. Mr. Castor. I have some information on the subpoenas. Lets go. We did receive copies of the subpoenas and we tracked this, they were six, as i understand it and let me just say at the outset, our members have concerns about this exercise for three reasons. The subpoenas yielded information about members of congress, whether they subpoenaed the members from records or not, it is a concern
when the yields member of congress Phone Records is publicized, the second is with journalists, just generally a very tricky area to start investigating journalists call records and the third is with regards to mr. Giuliani serving as a president s personal attorney but six subpoenas as i understand it, the first went to at t, the second was in regard to igor, the company csc holdings, the third related to mr. Sondland verizon. The fourth was back to at t seeking information on a certain number, back to at t and the sixth was seeking Subscriber Information which impacted the veteran journalist john solomon
some of the intern is involved. Can i ask you a question . You have been a veteran of the hill investigation for 15 years on this is crazy, ive never seen anything like this. Would be interesting to note because mr. Goldman chooses not to answer because he doesnt want to incriminate either himself or the chairman or somebody else. Would it be interesting to you to find as youve dealt with committees for a long time, somebody should just have an epiphany just to do those records on their own or where they under direction by somebody to do that . Obviously they were trying to figure something out. I have one thing for mr. Goldman. We are used to committees and people and witnesses taking gratuitous shots at people they dont like. Earlier today and the testimony, goes to an interesting thing
here facial expressions showed a milliondollar donor to the president , indication being he bought the job or the implication was he was loyal and didnt say anything about it, you and mr. Burke are real heavy donors to the Democratic Party and your motives or your position here today, but youre going to say that this thing is already blown out of proportion. We are not answering questions and you are here because your chairman will not testify. That says all we need to hear. I hope it works out for you, i am done and at this point i turn it over. Are you trying to say what are you trying to say, what is the implication here . The implication is we want adam schiff in that chair, not you. The person who wrote the report is the person who should come and present and You Werent Elected by anybody and you were here giving this testimony in
place of the chairman. The gentleman does not have the time and the gentleman has been warned before, you cannot simply yell out and disrupt the committee. Mr. Collins has the time. I think you understand exactly what you did and i called it out for just the way you did, you thought you were going to get by with it and you didnt, thats all im saying. I would just like to say one other thing. I am done. You are casting dispersions. As you did, mr. Goldman. According to the chairmans own ruling just a few minutes ago, i am done asking questions and i am not asking you to elaborate because i am not asking you any more questions. You wont answer the question of who told the committee to actually check these numbers, you wont say if its you or mr. Schiff. He wont answer my question, so we are done. As mr. Burke said, you will have plenty of time with the majority. Is the gentleman yielding his
time . I have a number of things i think i need to clear up. I may. Bear with me. I have a number of them here. First of all on the call. Tim morris son and general kellogg have a different view of the call. The call is ambiguous. Thats the first thing. Morninrison testified he went t the National Security lawyers for a very different reason. He didnt say it was because he concerned about the call. Number 1 they were not on the call. He wanted to update them. He was concerned about leaks. He was concerned if this call leaked out how it would play in Washingtons Polarized Environment which is what we have here. He was also concerned that if the call leaked, it might affect bipartisan support in congress. The issues of the ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where republicans and democrats share interests. The third reason was he didnt want the ukrainians to get a distorted perception of what happened on the call. On the call we were talking about 8 lines of concern and a lot of ambiguty. This Oval Office Meeting on may 23rd, there is this question, i
didnt think it was ambiguous, but when the president the delegation to the inauguration may 20th. They come back. Its sonland and volker and perry and the president is having none of it. He said the ukrainians are corrupt and he doesnt want to invite zelensky into the white house. Volker testified about this. The president doesnt order anybody to do anything. Volker testified in the deposition and the public hearing he didnt take it as a direction. If you think this is important and you want to work it, go talk to Rudy Giuliani. Very different than a direction. Thats very different than the president ordering a scheme. Its very different from the president collecting up a bunch of agents to go do something. Because he simply according to volker said go talk to rudy. Whether the ukrainians new of the aid was paused for 55 days. Whether or not the ukrainians knew it or not, laura cooper and the dod and some state Department Witnesses testified about lightyea questions they perceived. They said they never knew about holding the aid until the politico article. Yahrmack believed the embassy was keeping information from them. Other thing he said in the November 22nd bloomberg article, he recounts the meeting with sonland which has become very significant apparently. The pool side meeting he said he doesnt recall it the way ambassador sonland recalled it. Mr. Yahrmack speaks english but he did not recall it. He recalls it very differently. The question of what happened with in sonland on the way to the escalator remain in dispute