With aid and otherwise and both 282-017-2018 correct be a President Trump has done a lot for Ukraine doesn't mean Yes And sir but isn't it correct that President Trump did not raise anything about Hunter Biden and his father Vice President Joe Biden in 2017 or 2080 he only did it the year before his lection in 2020 when both he and Vice President Joe Biden were leading candidates is that true sir I think what happened is the president saw this video of the former v.p. And I think it. Coalesced in his mind or please answer my question he didn't raise any of these issues in 201720 I don't know that he did he did or he did I mean that is not something that we've looked at you know evidence that he did or you did you know I would have no evidence he did not I mean this video is pretty all right sir let me ask of the let me ask you this you talked about Lieutenant Colonel Vin and it was a highly decorated Purple Heart recipient and worked in the Trump administration correct Yes or he had a reaction to the called in any he did he was listening to it correct it is he went to look at his reaction. He said I immediately went to John Eisenberg the lead legal counsel he said it is improper for the president United States to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. Citizen and a political opponent that was his testimony correct yes or no. It was his testimony . Yes. That yes and let me ask you this are you you had said that the intelligence committee majority report that Mr Goldman had talked about you said it presents things are clear but they're not clear is that what you said sir that's absolutely correct and you also worked on you were personally you said worked on the minority report correct. Yes Or was it important to you to be accurate in the minority point as you worked on was it important to be fair to witnesses to be accurate about what they said of course was it important to be fair to the American people of course accurately report what people settlers' let me to ask you about somebody else on that call let me ask about Jennifer Williams Now she was a special advisor the vice to Vice President hands on Europe and Russia affairs is that correct yes she worked for Vice President that's correct correct and you said in your opening statement that these accusations that President Trump was trying to do something for political purposes that was made by people who were prepared to predetermine motives for impeachment so I cracked some of them I but I also indicated that some of these the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry I think you have to revise their views after after the call transcript came out and then whistleblower complaint was released are you calling vice president pence a special advisor a liar sir. Are you calling are you saying she was pre-determined to impeach. I didn't say that well you know what to the question about Jennifer Williams is interesting is I didn't ask you sir she she never mentioned anything to her supervisor she never mentioned anything to anybody in the vice president's office in route to worst of all when the vice president was going to meet with President Selenski she didn't even raise it as a potential issue did my you know catch the vice president off guard or Mr concerned that she articulated during the course of the deposition and during the course of the hearing was even grew and Incan grew and with the with the facts and what she did during times relevant Mr Castro let's look at your report what you wrote in the report about Miss weigh ins so if we could put up Slide 6 please. And sir you made the same point that you tried to make to discount her testimony you said she testified that although she found the Cole to be unusual she did not. She did not raise concerns to her supervisor nobody in America knew about Jennifer Williams's concerns until she walked into door for her deposition so you when you said that although she found the call to be unusual that wasn't accurate that's not what she said about the call she didn't say was just unusual Did she she said it was unusual that's all she said about it was it Ok I mean she she that was he was here for 9 hours in a bunker so she said a lot about the car that was you in the motion she had me going to minority logic we can't i just one of the gentleman will suspend the gentleman has the time that we can't see the stuff it's as it is that happy to read it. Jennifer Williams testified that quote Although she found the call to be unusual quote She did not and to quote She did not raise concerns to her supervisor isn't a fax or the Miss Williams said a lot more than that if we're going to have a point of order. You know moves through this point of order the kind of order is the general in Florida has complained that he can't see what the questioner is relying on and would like to see it and that is not a point you could nice of a point of order and it was read to him Jenna moved to see only half of it was rigged to him irrelevant Al it slow down I've been here a moment let's scroll down a bit here so that members are able to fully see what is being put in some place where James Sensenbrenner the Republican congressman that without being able to see it or read it Mr Gates just said that let's slow down so that we can see or hear what he is referring to and you're not letting that happen and that goes to the privileges of the members was to check you are as it is and it's no good and this will see and devote gentleman will suspend the chairman I can see now I appreciate the accommodation it's the will the the monitor was turned out we can see with a gentleman resume Thank you Mr Chairman so in the here it says that you said this William said that she found it to be quote unusual and nothing more let's look at Slide 7 anyway or let's look at so it says unusual correct is there but it doesn't say and nothing more no it says unusual isn't the facts are that when this William says is she struck her as unusual and inappropriate isn't that correct sir that's what she said in her testimony Ok and in your staff report you left out the inappropriate part doesn't block quote it was she felt it was unusual she didn't raise the concerns that Lieutenant General Kellogg so sir let me ask you Were you as fair to the American people in describing what in this way i'm said as you were in describing any everything else in your report I don't know I don't have an issue with the way we described Miss Williams testimony Well let's look at what else Miss Williams said We put up Slide 8. This is from this way as a public testimony of 34. She said I quote I thought that the references to specific individuals in investigations such as former Vice President Biden and his son struck me as political in nature given that former Vice President is a political opponent of the president so you left that out of your staff report to to new. You know Miss Williams or did you leave that out of your report yes or no and I. If you're telling me I did I mean I don't I don't know as I sit here right now and that's and I'm telling you you did Ok. And you have an explanation sir where you said you said Mrs Williams said that the call was unusual when she fact she said it was unusual and inappropriate and of a political nature because every raised vice president the vice president who she recognized was a political opponent of the president her views of the call differ remarkably from Mr Marson also from Lieutenant General Kelly That's not my question my question is why did you misquote Miss Williams In terms of what just said or did you do it we didn't in this quarter so you stand so from the standard that you apply to your fact finding in your report you believe that it was entirely proper to say that Miss Williams found the call to be unusual when in fact she found the call be unusual and inappropriate and of a political nature given that the former vice president is a political opponent of the president is that your testimony sir. I mean we described what Ms Williams Senator very secure desperate you did Mr Chairman if either and you can ask you to determine I'm not going to ask or answer you gave new Gov Gen where you can ask or ask again about general duties not regular chairman as the chairman I mean going to war and that is that ad during the witness is not general continue and star you you you invoked sir you invoke Mr Gorman Can you rule on my point of order these badgering the witness because he's doing that sir you and your involvement there is not a quick nice emotion it does not call for a ruling and the time belongs to the gentleman authority ordered the committee is not in order and the chairman is not in order and is not a point of order the committee is in order to well would you rule on my original point of order the original point of order was not quick nice little does not. Necessitate a little if the lawyer is badgering the witness look we have to have some image or meaning here in Journey of your rules of decorum which aren't comporting. With everybody else's rules I will say that sharp cross-examination of witnesses not badgering the witness stand will continue Mr Chairman it is even of out of the will you know and the gentleman has the time Mr Chairman point of order it was stated point of order under Resolution $660.00 we're supposed to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence is it right what does it do what does it know it is not correct what are the rules what are the objections that were able to not have that is not a point of order it is a point of order there is no will not a point of order the gentleman who continue where's the list of rules gentlemen will continue Thank you Mr Chairman then gentlemen will continue Thank you Mr Chairman Mr Mr Castor you just invoked to Morrison he was somewhat on the call to correct you. And let me put up slide of Mr Morrison's testimony on page 38 of his public testimony. And Mr Morrison said Well the question was a question by Mr Goldman. You heard the call you recognized that President Trump was not discussing the talking points that the n.s.c. Had prepared based on official u.s. Policy and was instead talking about the investigations that Fiona Hill had warned you about and then you reported it immediately to the n.s.c. Legal advisor is that the correct claim of vents here and Mr Morrison said that's correct before I ask you Mr Castor let me ask you Mr Goldman earlier before your presentation we showed the testimony of this hell where she referred to what President Trump was trying to do is running a domestic political Aaron is that what you understand is that what you intended to ask Mr Morrison about in your question to him Yes it was about these 2 specific investigations the President Trump ultimately did discuss in asking President Selenski to do these are the same 2 investigations that were discussed and were there only 2 investigations that were at issue throughout the entirety of the scheme and so what our evidence found was that any time there was a reference to investigations it referenced the Biden investigation in the 2016 election investigation and in fact Ambassador Volcker actually said that whenever he was saying using the term corruption what he meant was those specific 2 investigations and what was the significance to you that Mr Morrison who Mr Castor himself has relied on involved twice today where he said that he understood these were the investigations that Fiona Hill had warned him about warned him about what do you understand that to mean when Dr Hill left and to Morris and replaced her they had transition meetings and during one of those transition meetings Dr Hill told him Morrison about what she believed to be this irregular channel that Ambassador song was operating where they were pushing for Ukraine to do these investigations and Dr Hill in particular was very concerned because as she said as you pointed out that. Was a domestic political errand and what she was working on in the National Security Council was working on related to national security and foreign policy and those were 2 entirely separate thing and was she expressing the view that President Trump had chose his own personal political interests over the foreign policy positions that Miss Hill was trying to pursue at the time that she said that Jim Morrison she was not aware of whether President Trump had actually endorsed these investigations but she did testify that after she read the call transcript which she only read after it was released like the rest of us she said that she put $2.00 and $2.00 together and realize that that is exactly what he was talking and what was 2 and 2 again equals 4 and what is 4 in this investigation sir well there was used by 2 witnesses ambassador sun and David Holmes as the only logical conclusion to explain why the security assistance had been withheld was being withheld from Ukraine and based on all of the various factors in their direct involvement in issues related to Ukraine they concluded that the security assistance was being withheld to put pressure and as a condition on the initiation of the 2 investigations that are referenced here attorney do you must have a clear covering zoning that are trying to I got to clear a couple things up here from May 1st of all Morrison was concerned Marzan in the car you have no I don't question gentlemen is that I'm not the way I mean Sir let me just concerned about leakers let me ask you sir sir you said I by the way involve never Mantz time if you interrupt me. I think this would be able to examine Mr Barch like he's been able to cross him in the abode in that he's not going to be inquired much out in the middle of this summit and you need to call balls rocks the right way and you don't interrupt either one of your and your basically your witness and we might get harder is built like that but once there I don't arrive gentlemen will continue sir I believe that was your testimony as I wrote it down the Democrats are about blocking info when they should be seeking information as that is absolutely right Ok and then you said that the trumpet ministration has in fact cooperated in facilitated congressional oversight investigations that cracks are my just yes or no is that correct absolutely they trumpet ministrations participated in oversight during the entire Congress until it got to this impeachment inquiry so let me ask you about this call Sir Robert Blair turns are just not fair Robert Blair who was on this call the trumpet Mr duration the president self directed him not to appear and give testimony rather very let's I'm glad you know I'm asking to the president direct him not to appear give testimony yes or no I think he was allowed to come if agency counsel he was not allowed to come under the terms set by the House Intelligence Committee correct I think he would have come with agency counsel troubled ministration directive not to come correct he would've provided testimony I think if agency counsel could have comment it's really expensive to hire these outside lawyers John Eisenberg was directed not to come correct the lawyers emerge presents another setback but he was right he was directed not to come the lawyer who Lieutenant Colonel Vin Minh went to correct Ok Eisenberg. He may have been able to come with agency counsel but he presents some complexities and he's the chief legal advisor for Ambassador Bolton so he was directed not to come correct. He may have been able to come with with agency counsel but his testimony does present complexity sir let me ask you this was it u.s. Policy on July 26th to request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. You know I mean I think you're reading a little too much into you know some of the 8 lines I don't think the president was requesting an investigation into into Joe Biden he just mentions an offhand comment . So is that a No it was not u.s. Policy to look into Joe Biden here but you're you're presuming that it then at some point became u.s. Policy to investigate Joe Biden and I don't think that's the case sir let me show you what Slide 10 testimony of all again Lieutenant Colonel Vin meant. And he was asked Are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations in the 2020 lection the Bidens of receive are part of the official policy United States no I'm not now let me go also to Jim Morrison who you invoked if we could go to Slide 11. Mr Morrison was asked by our own congressman Swalwell who was also on the Intelligence Committee and said just a going to pick up in the middle of that long question it said you listen to the the one call that you listen to between the president United States on the president of Ukraine the president of the United States powered priorities were to investigate the Bidens and I'm asking you sir why didn't you follow up on the president's party when you talked to the Ukraine Ukrainians Mr Morris and said sir I did not understand it as a policy objective Mr Goldman let me ask you there was a package prepared before that call of what President troublous supposed to talk about with the for with presidents Alinsky correct yes and and I correct so that one of the things that he was supposed to talk about it was in his prepared remarks was the anti-corruption platform of presidents Alinsky that he ran and won on correct yes the witnesses testified that that is a consistent and persistent policy objective for the United States did President from mention corruption once in his call with President Mr Zelinsky No he did not did he mention looking into anything other than the 2 investigations that were politically helpful to him the 2016 election investigation and the investigation of his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden No he did not master cast lots of them there no you can't Mr Castro let me as your president just did Manchester United manager did mention there's some very bad miles and yell I'm going to generally not answer that time is the question is and he can ask the questions and everyone and you question you have the same rules and Mr Caster in fairness you'll be out you'll be able to answer questions asked by a minority counsel when it's their turn even if 45 minutes and let me ask you let me ask you one Barry in fairness here President from talks about a very bad people is Mr Nestor if I can finish and that was let me finish sir it's let me let me ask you this are. Sir there were 2 lawyers mentioned on the call Mr We've heard testimony her testimony already Mr Trump said to President President President Trump said the president's Olinsky that he should speak to 2 people his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and the attorney general Barr correct Ok immediately after this call memorandum was release is it the case that Attorney General Barr the department a judge of Justice issued a statement about his role in all this. He did let's put up the statement Slide 13 please of the pardon to justice the president. As not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son the president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine on this or any other matter the attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine on this or any other subject so Mr Goldman is it fair to say that the attorney general didn't want anything to do with these investigations that President Trump had raised with President Selenski on the call I think it goes actually even a little further I think. Tourney whether the attorney general wanted anything to do or not is in addition to the fact that the attorney general said he had nothing to do with Ukraine and in fact that there were no ongoing investigations at the time of this call or in August and that became a became an issue in the investigation there is a formal channel that the Department of Justice has in the United States government has to obtain evidence related to an ongoing investigation that is generally the proper way to engage a foreign country through treaties to get in from ation but several of the witnesses testified that they looked into that at the urging of the Ukrainians and they determined that there was no formal ongoing investigation nor any formal request on these topics now the other lawyer on the call Rudy Giuliani he however he was more than happy to continue to be involved in trying to get Ukraine to investigate. President Trump's political rival Joe Biden correct Mr Giuliani was very active and involved in pushing for these investigations for several months before the July 25th call and then for a couple several months after including apparently 3 days ago and Sir Mr degree you wrote in your report there Rudy Giuliani that the Ukrainians themselves knew there Rudy Giuliani the president's personal lawyer was a conduit to convince President Trump that presents Alinsky was a serious reformer correct. Ukrainian's knew that. There isn't that what you said your report Rudy had the president's ear and he was a conduit there you can let me put up a slide 14 if I may and we actually have your report here and it says the Ukrainians knew that he meaning Rudy Giuliani was a conduit to convince President Trump that presidents Alinsky was serious about reform is that what you wrote your reports are Ok and. And in fact during the call President trawl past presidents Alinsky to speak directly to his personal lawyer about Ukrainian matters that President Trump was interested in correct. Yes. And in fact presents a list he said oh we already knew that and he's been in touch with my aides correct . That's right and in fact I mean Ukrainians are the ones that 1st president's Lenski is the one who 1st brings up Mr Giuliani on the call right because they knew that Mr Giuliani was a conduit to the president and if they made Mr Giuliani happy they make President happy imaginer Volcker testified that Mr Giuliani had a negative impression of Ukraine and he was possibly fueling. The president's views and so they had there was some discussions about it hey if you can convince Rudy that president's legacy is a true reformer the real deal that that would be a beneficial beneficial link well so you agree that President Giuliani before July 21st the judge July 25th called after was pushing for the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Joe Biden in their correct I don't know yeah I mean do the record is somewhat spotty with Giuliani I mean I know the New York Times reported in May ambassador Volcker gave a pretty detailed account of his meeting on July 19th Well let's let's take a look if we can put up Slide 16 the New York Times article you referred to. Right and the article says I'll read it Mr Giuliani and this is dated May 9th 21000 before the call Mr Giuliani said he plans to travel to the Ukrainian capital in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation's president elect to urge him to pursue inquiries and then it continues that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about 2 matters of intense interest to Mr Trump One is the origin of the special counsel's investigation goes on to describe it new sense the other is the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden's son Ok and now that was in the New York Times article and we talk about the breakfast with her we could if we could yet if we could continue the rest of the article to the next slide which is Slide 17. This is the same article and Mr Giuliani was very explicit when he was interviewed he said and this is in foreign policy now quoting with the words that are highlighted says will be very very helpful to my client my only client is the president United States he's the one I have an obligation to report to him what happened we're going the Ukraine now surreal where on that same day Mr Giuliani gave an interview about what he intended to do and let's go to Slide 18 this is from rear Real Clear Politics and it should be on the screen in front of you as well and what he said what Mr Giuliani said about the Ukraine he said it's a big story it's a dramatic story and I guarantee you Joe Biden will not get to election day without this being investigated not because I want to see him investigated the collaterals to what I was doing so sorry you agree Election Day refers to the 2020 election where President Trump will be running against will be running for reelection I'd like to know if you and I don't know him but I guess you're right Ok So that was my only question to you you'll have a chance answer questions the minority counsel. Now and President Trump let me show you 7 we're going to sidestep the Volcker meeting on July 19th so you'll have an opportunity to talk about that when minority counsel questions you let me go to Slide 19 please. And the president says he's being interviewed now the same day in a Politico and he's asked about Mr Giuliani he's leaving soon I think in the next couple days Mr Trump says I see well I will speak to him about it before he leaves now let me go to Slide 20 Mr President excuse me Mr Giuliani continued his pressure on President Alinsky in this one it's actually a tweet that he put out on June 21st the $21900.00 roughly a month before the call he says the new president of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in $26.00 election and alleged buying bribery of the prior president and again sir as you said the Ukrainians knew that Mr Giuliani had the year of his client President Trump isn't that correct sir. That correct sir yes or no he. You know Giuliani was doing some things in you know out here and then he became involved with the official channel with bulk or with Sohn land and at that meeting on July 19th Volcker you know counseled against the perspective Giuliani was taking So my question to her is this tweet what they're talking about let me ask you Mr Goldman you've had that chance of all this tweet is that referring to a personal political issue. President Trump or official u.s. Policy. That's a that's a personal political issue if you don't mind I'll just take a moment to respond to Mr Castor because Please do on July 19th meeting between Ambassador Volcker and Rudy Giuliani and Bassett or Volcker told Mr Giuliani that the allegations about Joe Biden were completely bogus and wrong and Mr Giuliani actually told according to Ambassador Volcker is testimony Mr Giuliani said that he knew that and yet for the next 2 months he continued to push for that same investigation at the direction of President Trump who had also directed president Selenski to contact Mr Giuliani so that July 19th meeting that Mr Custer brought up is actually quite important to this investigation and so you are to explain that on May 23rd when the official folks who went to the inauguration of President and see came back to tell the president well impressed they were the only thing he had to say to them was talk to Rudy he was taking his official government people responsible for Ukraine and handing them over to Rudy Giuliani so that they could work with him for the issues that he was focused on from the president as evidence in the tweet is that fair I agree with Mr Custer I think that's that's what the evidence shows that at that May 23rd meeting President Trump directed and delegated authority over Ukraine matters to investors Sunline Volcker and Secretary Perry and told them to work with Rudy and then over the next 3 months that's exactly what happened at the president's tour. Action Ok and fact let me show you what is Slide 22 if I may that you understood the Ukrainians recognized how important Rudy Giuliani was and satisfying him in order to stay on good terms with President Trump Yes they quickly realized it I think from their own internal conversations because Mr Giuliani had backed channels to getting to to the Ukrainian officials and Ambassador Volcker told the Ukrainians as well that there was this quote Giuliani factor that President Selenski actually told the 2 presidents a lengthy that there was this Giuliani factor that they needed to deal with with the president and in fact this is the senior aide to president. Saying to Vassar Volker on August 13th which is obviously after the July 25th call Thank you for meeting in your clear and very logical position will be great meet with you before my departure and discuss I feel and think he for many things is Rudy and I ready to talk to him with him at any point please let me know when you can meet me again that's rooted the my right that's the Ukrainians recognize that Rudy Giuliani is demanding the investigation of political rival was key to getting anything done I don't mean to be a stickler but I believe this text was actually July 10th and this was a critical text because what it is saying is Mr year moch after having spoken to Mr Volcker a week before in learning about the importance of Giuliani requested to Ambassador Volcker to meet to set up a meeting with Mr Giuliani that then proceeded to this July 19th breakfast that Mr Castor said and then in July 22nd phone call and then ultimately they met in Madrid on August 2nd Thank you Mr Goldman further evidence of the meticulous investigation that Chairman Jeff and his staff of you directed We will stand corrected thank you and I will take that and ask that the record reflect that that is the correct date and either case Rudy was key whatever was said correct certainly and that. Now let me ass or let me put up slide 24. And Mr Goldman am I correct that there came a point in time when President Trump through his chief of staff Mr move all Mick Molloy Mulvaney ordered that the approved military aid to Ukraine be withheld as you previously indicated correct yes and this is the testimony of the people who were involved Mr Kent said when this happened there was great confusion among the rest of us because we didn't understand why that happened since there was unanimously that this aid was in our national interest it just surprised us all as your homes and then you had the additional hold of the security assistance with no explanation whatsoever and we still have an explanation and we still don't have an explanation for why that happened or in the way that happened Miss Croft The only reason given was that the order came in the direction of the president so sir. Let me ask a question did all the agencies involved believe that the age would be given Yes it was the unanimous view of all of the agencies Secretary of State Department State Department Defense National Security Council literally every one of the interagency . Agencies that believed that the aid was vital and had already been approved and should be released immediately and in the minority staff report and in Mr caster's testimony earlier he said the u.s. Government did not convey the pause to the Ukrainians Well that was incorrect was it that Mr Solomon. Convey that according to Mr Sahlins affidavit in testimony Mr song that ultimately conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the announced public announcement of the investigations and if we can put up slide 26 from the afternoon you have what he said well if I may just didn't respond put up the slide or we could put up that the actual affidavit that Mr Ambassador saw and then the president trumps ambassador to the European Union and he swore to under penalty of perjury and he says if we don't read the highlighted which is also in front of you I now recall speaking individually with Mr your mac where I said that where I said that Mr Your met the Ukrainian aide going back to the quote that resumption of u.s. Aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks Zakhar xor Yes he said that on at a meeting on September 1st with Mr Yamaka in Warsaw and the statement that they had been talking about let me put up a slide that we put together Slide 27. And you recall sir that in the draft statement that the Ukrainians were going to have President Selenski give so they could it was that statement in their minds so they could get a White House meeting and satisfy President Trump and the aide released yes investor Sunland testified to that and Ambassador Volcker also testified to that and am I correct that Mr Your met gave a statement where he did not make any reference to Vice President Biden Correct correct and then was that Rudy Giuliani who said in the 2nd one that it had to include a reference that they were going to investigate Bree small in the 2016 election that's right and what did the stand for that was that was that view of the all your witnesses say they had an understanding with that met or did the witnesses say that so every single witness said after reading the phone call on July 25th that it was clear by recent equaled Biden that they were one in the same there were only 2 witnesses who said that they did not know that until that time and there was ample testimony there's 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 did not would not know that did the recent investigation related to the Bidens and is that why that's how Mr Giuliani publicly referred to it often as briefed and Vice President Biden correct and did the Ukrainians complain repeatedly we talked a little bit about it that they didn't want to be a pall on and u.s. Democratic politics by helping President Trump's reelection campaign by making such a statement they they said that in July and in August ultimately they didn't give the statement in large part because they had reservations given the president's Alinsky was an anti-corruption reform or they had reservations about engaging in u.s. Domestic politics that's right I want to go back to Mr Castor. You said that when President Trump said to Mr saw Ambassador Saddam on September 17th that he had no quid pro quo you said he had no reason you said 9th September 9th you said he had no reason to be any less than candid that's what you said No reason being less than candid Let me show you sir what happened though on September 5th Let me show you 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 Alexion and goes on to describe some of those efforts and certain Let me show you whether President Trump was aware of that article before he volunteered no quid pro quo as a defense let me show you a tweet by President Trump on Slide 53. Now. And again this is he is putting out a tweet that is essentially saying the Democrats are based on following up the article that they are pursuing impeachment again and showing awareness that this has now been reported on so Mr Goldman is it fair to say what Mr Caster said that Mr Trump present Trump had no reason to be any less than candid about saying no quid pro quo no no I think the President Trump had every reason to try to put out that message at that point as ambassador song Lynn said even when He even if you credit ambassador songs version of the testimony which is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes and were far more credible than Mr Sunland who had to amend his testimony a couple times he said even in that comment he said no quid pro quo out of the blue without risk without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. You know his time is expired. Chair now recognizes the ranking members 1st for his 1st round of questions to soothe the House Resolution 660 the ranking member or his counsel and 45 minutes to question the witnesses Thank you Mr Chairman Well it's become very evident while this hearing is Doug Collins the Republican ranking member the witnesses are Daniel Goldman the majority Stephen caster for the minority I have no idea what number it is not as good counsel I think it is. It we cut it off after they got the. All of them was Ok Will our learn this I mean I think it's just that the most amazing statement came out they were proving their to we this is that he thought that he was going the Democrats are concerned about impeachment there's nothing the Democrats have not been concerned about for 2 and a half years since August of this is nowhere 26 thing the president saying nothing new in it we this is now back up he's known that they have been after impeachment that's why Mr Goldman is here that's why Mr Burke is here that's why we're going through the charade of staff having to answer staff questions and basically when we don't like how it's going we start asking staff and staff and getting into a staff are going where is Adam where is Adam his report his name is to go when you're right attorney but you're not an issue and you don't wear a pin it's true. We've got a problem here and the problem is developing as you said you're an attorney you're a very good prosecutor I believe in average your bio you are a good attorney you understand what quid pro quo is correct do you understand what I'm asking for something in exchange for something actually means correct do you know about the conversation of Mr when he asked he said I'm not going to give you the $1000000.00 you know about that conversation correct. The you know me to read it to your. Comment in 2015 No I'm talking about the one from the National where he did the I'll read it to you since you're having trouble as I remember going over to Ukraine convincing our team our leaders convincing them that we should provide for loan guarantees that went over I guess the 12th or 13th time to give us supposed to announce that there was a $1000000000.00 longer entity and I got a commitment from go in there sent that I would take action against that they would take action against a prosecutor they didn't so they said so they said they had their walking out of the press conference I said I'm not going to or we're not going to give you the 1000000000 dollars They said you have authority you have no authority you're not the president the president said I said calling laughter I said I'm telling you you're getting you're not getting the $1000000000.00 I said you're not getting the $1000000000.00 I'm getting getting ready to be leaving here and I think about 6 hours I looked at them and said I'm leaving here in 6 hours if the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money well son of a bit she got far he asked for something request something hold something of value you did George can't testify that I think I'll do what you did George can't decide if I'm asking about not George can't I'm asking about this record it's important comes not answer this question Did your dating not easy either Joe Biden is a liar telling a story to make people embarrassed or he actually did this which is he did it pursuant to u.s. Official policy so he did it in holding with holding actual dollars actual thing holding this out there so to Joe Biden of everybody that we discuss that is the only one has done a quid pro quo is only one is used taxpayer dollars to actually threaten a foreign government and yet we're sitting here pretending that this is not happening we're seeing here pertaining to the present United States now would not be concerned look you look at this late Joe Biden's a terrible can he can destroy himself on the campaign trail but he can't get this and it doesn't matter who brings it up it doesn't matter who does it because this is what happened. And you can why law should all you want you can go over whatever you want but that's what he's either a liar or he did and he did only continue on question is a question that you had earlier you rule out how many approximately how many times do you Gordons onless just a moment in your report. Nearly a $300.00 page report would you be amazed going to $600.00 times or better. I you would have any idea or not I've no idea you did over $600.00 times would you also understand if you do a simple check of your report that over $158.00 times Mr Solomon said no not knowing something to the best of my knowledge or I don't know but that surprise you or your time of the reporter his deposition that the deposition and the closed door testimony yes and over time he remembered a lot more as he was refresh by other people's testimony is the question we're having here though is Mr Saddam also said it many times he said he presumed what actually happened let's go back to something else we're going continue this in just a moment according to your report it seemed would classify that more determined not to be the Intelligence Committee and the other investigation with the other 2 committees we're Ok with certainly that issue does a subpoena is that right. I'm not certainly over a dozen Yes some of those subpoenas were not publicly reported until the hips issue does majority report correct. Most of the subpoenas answer the question is Mr Burke had so much free running Let's go ahead either answer the question or elaborate one of the other so I'm trying to answer the question Did you or didn't you did it come out or not did what come out outrated again some of the Spanish were not publicly reported until the hips he issued his majority report correct yes they were given to the minority but not pub the public leaving aside the witnesses who have publicly been identified Did you shoot any other subpoenas for testimony other than the ones publicly identified. I don't I'm not sure I don't think thank you and I'm not sure how many subpoenas were issued for records Well we issued an. Number of subpoenas of for records which we did issue 6 subpoenas to executive branch agencies and they all defied our subpoenas and this moving on to other car issues here the Wall Street Journal reported that the committee issued at least 4 subpoenas to Verizon and for call records is that correct. We are we wonder yes yes we are because. There are multiple numbers. We only issued subpoenas for call records for people who were involved in the investigation and who had already been subpoenaed by the Committee for documents and testimony of their own absolutely wonderful. Thought but asked my question for. Well I am trying to answer a question it wasn't at least for yes thank you good to save us a lot of drama I mean these subpoenas were issued. I don't know if they're telling you check your records this is important because we just found out about this all week and we got a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing which the chairman admitted there and the staff it needed they're not going to read it all anyway so for all of you writing of course that is all that massive document dump were just simply going on a shelf report where she refuses to come testify about the sins of staff so this is important that we just found out about this so how many subpoenas were issued a d.n.c. I don't know if you like me to 53 happy and then again maybe your chairman could be here to actually answer this was it targeted a single telephone number or numbers. We we subpoenaed for call records multiple numbers how many I don't know none none of this is very important up you know one of members of Congress none of staff of Congress were getting to the end of germinating that we only did it to the subjects who were involved in the investigation which is a very routine and standard investigation practice in you're not going hear anything from me about a subpoena and elite legality was made of my problem is this who asked who on the committee asked that those numbers that you actually did put into the room into 4 subpoena and get those numbers back who was it that asked that they be cross-checked for members of the median and members of Congress who ordered that I don't think that's how we did it so what you came out with or that actually show these people such as Mr Chairman is another or actually only Scott Yes Now someone and you're not that window and I don't play q. Here somebody took the 4 records that us for at least 4 so those numbers and then said hey let's play a match game. Who ordered the match game for members of Congress and the press with the cheesy I don't think anyone gets or then how did you get a couple that's most ridiculous I've ever heard you don't just all of a sudden pick up numbers in which you have to match those numbers actually show where they are and you don't come up with them order them to actually match for members of Congress and the press that's actually would you just described is exactly how it happened you have you couldn't afford to find out if New Year's number was on those calls if I can just explain serve you pick an event of significance in the investigation 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 case it's this point that's a wonderful explanation but not an answer to my question those are you looking for the 4 numbers you asked want to see how they are connected I understand the something that you issued my question directly it was that you know that chairmanship they said while we're doing this list see if this match is chairman in years number let's see if this match is a member the president or somebody along the way just didn't all of a sudden have an epiphany unless you're getting ready to throw a low level staffer under the bus that these numbers might match so who did it was it chairmanship or was it easy be careful you're under oath I know I'm under oath sir then answer the question or and I will answer the question if you give me a 2nd here it's not a simple same 2nd it was not afforded to my witness by the way. I think he was allowed to cite it to lead you by the way if you want any other sort of way while you're thinking about how you going to ask that question who decided to leak it the information why did you include it in a report it's not a Leaks or how did you include in the report after not saying anything else about this not publicly now so 2 questions are hanging out that everybody's looking for an answer for including me who ordered it was it you or was it chairman c.e.o. Of. And then why was it decided except for nothing but smear purposes to be including this year for well I'm 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 it calls were surrounding important evidence to our investigation and I think that your question is frankly not better directed not at me but at the people who were having conversations no no no no we're not going to lay that all of that we're not going to play that game you're as good as Mr Berg You're not to play the game you're not answering the question and every member the media everybody here when you start going into the core of this house when you start looking at members telephone numbers you start going to voters telephone numbers which they ought to be scared about you took over subpoena for 4 and then you decided to play match game you found numbers that you thought like you some of them actually didn't exist because they claimed that they were for the White House budget office and they were not so we're scrolling stories out there because nobody was nobody was out there actually so I'll go back to my question are you going will record in front of everybody here today and say that you will not sale who ordered this you are Mr go Mr go when you are Mr I am going to go on record and tell you that I'm not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation and that's the problem we have in this entire thing Mr Schiff said behind closed doors tell you what the intelligence is I'm done with you for us now we're not you're not answering the question you're not being honest about this answer because you know who it is you're just not answering . This question I have some information on the subpoenas Let's go. We did receive copies of the subpoenas and we. We we tracked this that there were 6 as I understand it and let me just say at the outset our members have concerns about this exercise for 3 reasons. Your. The subpoenas yielded information about members of Congress. Or their subpoenaed the members from records or not it's a concern when the information yields member of Congress is own records and then the information is publicized 2nd is with journalists it's just done generally a very tricky area to start investigating journalists all wreckers and the 3rd is is with regard to Mr Giuliani was serving as the president's personal attorney but there are 6 subpoenas as we understand it. The 1st went to 880 for the Giuliani numbers the 2nd was in regard to Igor Freeman. To company c.s.c. Holdings the 3rd was related to Mr SAGAL And. That was off the horizon the 4th was back to 80 and t. . Seeking information on a certain number the 5th was back to 880 and the 6th was seeking subscriber information. Which impacted the veteran journalist John Solomon and also involved with these are are some you know some of the attorneys involved such as you can ask your question is time saying in gen of this case you've been a veteran of the hill investors for 15 years and this is crazy I've never seen anything like it you never have a that would even be interesting to know because Mr Goldman chooses not to answer because he doesn't want to incriminate I believe either himself or the chairman or somebody else would it be interesting to you to find as you've dealt with Committee staff for a long time somebody to just have a appear to me just to do those match records on they're all all they under direction by somebody to do that. It's obviously a we're trying to figure something out. One last one I'm going to tread lightly I have one thing for Mr go let's go we're used to committees and people and when this is coming taking gratuitous shots at people they don't walk and earlier today in your testimony you made a comment that really goes to an interesting thing and I'll even go back to the chairman questioning motive when your testimony you said as you were discussing Mr Sonner when you made a very snotty comment you're actually your facial expression showed that he was a $1000000.00 donor to the president the implication being he got his job because he Balder is implication was he was loyal to the president say anything about it be very careful about how you throw around dollars and giving because you and Mr Burke are real heavy donors to the Democratic Party and I'm not going to question your motives or your position here today but we need to make sure that this thing is already blown out of proportion we're already not answering questions and you are here without a plan because you're chairman will not testify that says all we need to hear he don't need to stand behind his own report and he sands you I hope it works out for you at this point to turn it over to Ashley correspond are you trying to say that that I What are you trying to say what is the implication here but by the way I mean give anything close to a $1000000.00 remotely so I don't know it's not implication is we want shift in that share not you the implication is the person that wrote the report is the person to come in for Senate and you want to like to buy anybody you're here to see an estimate in place of the Chairman is that out that clears up the implication of that is that at that time the gentleman has been warned before you cannot simply yell out in destruct the committee the gentleman you see Collins's the time. I think you understand exactly what you did and I called about for just the way you did you thought you don't get with it and you did that's all I'm saying is go well I would like to just say one of the things yeah I'm done you've ordered this I'm not sure if this is going to come to I mean you're you're up you're casting that you're asking aspersions Now as you did most and as you did Mr Goldman of orders you did Mr Stanley Now according to the chairman's own what ruling just a few minutes ago I'm done asking questions and I'm not asking you to real average because I'm not asking any more questions I ask all you all answer the question who told the committee to actually check these numbers you also have as you or if as much as you want to answer my questions so we're not going to ask out your how as as well as Mr Parks that you'll have plenty of time with helpful majority will also vastly gentleman yield this time to Ms Cohen. Gently gently these witnesses Thank you Mrs Gowan if I may yes certainly I have a master I have a number of things I think I need to clear up. If I may Yes certainly. Stephen Castor the one of the witnesses minority counsel a number of them here. First of all on the on the call. To Morris and General Kellogg have a totally different view of the call than we had a colonel demand and Jennifer Williams Going to the point that the call is ambiguous so that's the 1st thing to Morrison testified. That he went to the National Security Council lawyers for a very different reason he did not say he went to the n.s.c. Lawyers because he was concerned about the call he went to the National Security Council lawyers for 2 for 2 reasons and one they were on call so we wanted to update them about it but number 2 he was concerned about leaks and he was concerned that if this call leaked out how would play in Washington's polarized environment which is exactly what we have here. He was also concerned that if the coal leaked that it might affect bipartisan support in Congress he. You know issues of Ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where Republicans and Democrats share. Interests and the 3rd reason was that he didn't want the Ukrainians to get a distorted perception of what actually happened on the call because on the call we're talking about 8 lines of concern. And a lot of ambiguity. This. Oval office meeting on May 23rd there is this question I guess it's ambiguous I don't think it was empty it was a question of whether when the president referred the delegate allocation goes to the inauguration May 20th they come back it's on it's Volcker. And it's Secretary Perry and Senator Johnson and they're there briefing the president and the president is having that he says Ukraine is concerned are corrupt and he doesn't want to invite Selenski to the White House. And the the president Volcker testifies to this pretty definitively the president essentially he doesn't work for anybody to do anything the president says talk to Rudy and Volcker testified both at his deposition and at the public hearing that he did to get his direction is just like look if you if you guys if you guys think this is important and you want to work it go just go talk to. A very different then than a direction it's very different than the president ordering a scheme. And it's very very different from the president sort of collecting up a bunch of agents to go do something because he simply according to Ambassador Volcker said Go talk to Rudy. Now whether the Ukrainians knew of the aid pause or was pause for 55 days whether the Ukrainians knew about it or not has been you know Laura Cooper from d.o.d. And you know some State Department witnesses testified about light queries that they had received. There was an article on Nov 22nd in Bloomberg and this is Lewinsky administration said they never knew about the hold in the 8 until August 28th Politico article and they said in the article on your Mac. Is the principal person there relying on your arm access that they believe the embassy was keeping information from the other interesting thing Mr Garment says in that November 22nd Bloomberg are you're listening to live special coverage of the impeachment hearings from n.p.r. News live here on 91.7 k. W. San Francisco it's a minute before 10 o'clock. In the Pulis I'd meeting he says he doesn't recall it the way Ambassador Sunline recalled you know keep in mind invested in Mr Yarmuth speaks English but it's not his 1st language. And so he does not recall the policy meeting which by the way happened on the way to an escalator. After the meeting of the vice president so he recalls a very differently so the question of the facts of what happened between Ambassador SAGAL And Mr yarmulke on the way to the escalator remain in dispute. Now turning our attention to the Ron Johnson letter if I may. On August 31st Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to Ukraine on September 5th there's a special coverage of the impeachment hearings from n.p.r. News you're listening to Stephen Castor counsel for the minority on the House Intelligence Committee and you actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news right. Present said I'm not ready to lift the aid and they had this Senator Johnson I mean he writes a 10 page letter very. Very detailed and he gives them some remarkable detail. And I'd like to read it it's on page 6 I and this is Senator Johnson speaking said I asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the whole would be lifted without hesitation Senator Johnson says President Trump immediately denied such a new arrangement existed. And he started cursing. And he said no way President Trump said no way I would never do that who told you that and Senator Johnson goes on to say that president trumps reaction here was adamant vehement and angry Senator Johnson goes on to say that as of August 31st the president told him but I'm going to like my decision here so I think that's very important context on what the president's state of mind was at least as of August 31st right he fully expected do you agree that if aid would eventually be released after the 55 day pause Yes Right absolutely. I want to thank you all for your presentations. Mr Castor I believe you've been talking for approximately 75 minutes today this is actually her Helen who is asking questions on behalf of the Republican minority the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee . Time permitting today I'd like to cover 4 or 5 areas distinct areas there's a lot of facts the American people have not heard and there's a lot of contradictions in certain people's testimony is that fair to say Mr Castor . And I'd like to talk about. Some of the people.