President said I'm not ready to lift the aid and they had this Senator Johnson I mean he writes a 10 page letter. Very detailed and he each have some some remarkable detail. And I'd like to read it it's on page 6. This is Senator Johnson speaking he said I asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the hold 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 the 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 you're going to like my decision in the end 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 aid would eventually be released after the 55 day pause Yes Right absolutely yes. 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 Callen 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 fat the American people have not heard and there's a lot of contradictions in certain people's testimony is that fair to say Mr Caster . And I'd like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts we have Ambassador Volker ambassadors on land and Secretary Perry you had the opportunity to talk to 2 of those 3 people is that correct. And. The Democrats report would like us to believe that these 3 individuals were engaged in some sort of Cobol or some sort of nefarious venture but that's not true is it in fact these 3 people were at all relevant times and even today acting in the best interest of the American people is that true and with the highest integrity that's right I think everyone testified that Ambassador Volcker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service to all the witnesses including about Souter you Vonnegut's talked about integrity that Ambassador Volcker brings to the table but there's a lot of people with firsthand knowledge that we didn't talk to is that correct. Now I want to talk about. The president's skepticism of foreign aid the president is very skeptical of foreign aid is that correct. Deeply skeptical of sending u.s. Taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt because it is good it is kissing it goodbye and is that something new that he believes or is that something he ran on something that he has run on something that is implemented policies as soon as he became president Ambassador Hale the 3rd ranking State Department official told us about the over you know overall review of all foreign aid programs and he described it as almost 0 based evaluation right and you had the opportunity to take the deposition of Mark standing who is the career official at o.m.b. Is that right correct. And he had some information about the reason for the pause is that true I think that he had a conversation with an individual name Rob Blair and Mr Blair provided some insight into the reason for the pod is this it seemed he was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us a firsthand account inside of o.m.b. The reason for that for the for the pause related to the president's concern about European burden sharing in the region and he in fact in his conversations the president's conversations with Senator Johnson he mentions his concern about burden sharing. And I believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chancellor of Germany. And in fact the whole 1st part of the July 24th transcript he's talking about burden sharing and wanting the Europeans to do more. But you know that I mean Senator Johnson was and President dropper. They're pretty candid and you know they believe the. Allies like Germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the right. Now oddly you know there's been a lot of. Allegations that it's president's Alinsky is not being candid about feeling pressure from President trouble. And isn't it true that he stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Tom is that true he said it consistently said the United Nations September 25th he said it. You know in 3 more news availabilities over the course of the period including last week. I want to change the subject and talk about something that Professor Turley raised last week and that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And your inexperience congressional investigator and Professor Turley I mean these no trumps of water that's right is a Democrat right. And but Professor Turley caution and a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned is that correct correct. First thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rancor or because nobody's going to accept the result on the other side and our Democrats friends have all the sudden become originalists and are citing the founders and their intent routinely as part of this impeachment process I think there goes the. This this whether this constitutes. Bribery. You know there's there's there's case law on bribery and I'm though on the Supreme Court. Scholar lawyer advocate. You know there's new case law with the McDonald case about what constitutes an official act and that certainly hasn't been. You know addressed in this space and I think Professor Turley mentioned right and I think Professor Turley said that a meeting certainly does not constitute an official act I think it's the McDonald case right goes to Professor Turley pointed out for us last week yes. Since this inquiry is unofficial and unsanctioned start in September the process has been hardest and biased unfair. Republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely I think we saw that. Lieutenant Colonel Venu deposition there was. You know we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to right very basic things like who what when where. And instead and I would say this is rapid You know we're in days 76 and it's almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly especially when the stakes are this high because any congressional investigation of any consequence. It does take a little bit of time for the 2 sides to. Stake out their their interests and how they're going to respond to them you know we learned with the good luck daddy probe you know the 1st letter I think went in October of. 2017 and you know in December we finally got a witness and it was the following spring would get in the good luck out a probe after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war we reached a deal with d.o.j. Where we went we went down to d.o.j. And they gave us access to documents they gave us access to I think you know north of 800000. Pages but they made us come down there they made us go into a stiff and these documents were classified. And it you know wasn't until May and June of that year that we started this process when the investigation had been ongoing and that is disappointing obviously we all wish there was an easy bottom. But congressional investigations of consequence take time right and it took I think 6 months before the 1st document was even produced and like you said you had to go down there and overview it in camera and then going back even further to Fast and Furious the investigation of the death of a Border Patrol agent I mean 1st of various We issued subpoenas to Mr Rice to. Send some subpoenas I think in February of 20. 2011 and we we had a hearing in June with experts about proceedings of contempt you know what does it take to go to contempt and that was the 1st time in June when we got any production and the production was largely publicly available information and we went we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the Justice Department at the time we were also working. With whistleblowers who were providing us documents and. At the time then in October issued another subpoena that was. To the Justice Department and so the investigation had been ongoing most of the year we're talking the whistleblowers we're doing interviews and we're doing our best to get documents out of the Justice Department through that channel but. These things take time right I mean we know it's 76 days and if you truly want to uncover every fact as you should in an impeachment Do you agree you have to go to court sometimes and force your subpoenas and here my understanding is we have a lot of requests for information voluntary information you know will you please provide us with documents on x.y.z. And I think and I think that's great but you have to back it up with something isn't that correct there's a number of ways to enforce your requests I mean the fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is. You really get which are asking for less until the alternative is less palatable for the respond. So you know Yeshua subpoenaing you're trying to get documents you know one technique you can use is to try to talk to the you know document custodian or somebody and let you know the ledge affairs function about what documents exist chairman shape it during his era had a used to have these document productions status hearings where you bring bring in legit fairs officials and try to get the lay of the land because the alleged affairs officials at least nominally are supposed to be. Directly responsible for serving interests you can saber rattle it's legal to saber rattle about holding somebody in contempt oftentimes witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you when you attach a contempt proceedings or a prospective in temper seating to their name a lot of times that changes the outcome and with the contemporary you've got a couple different steps along the way you could raise the prospect of a contemporary you could schedule a contemporary eating after you schedule a contemporary being you could you know hold the door open for documents or interviews and then you could push it off you could go through at the committee level and these are all sort of milestone of vents which historically are unpalatable or less palatable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle and with these types of disputes once you get the ball rolling you know it's good like Audi pro We didn't get a witness and it was deputy director Andrew McKay been for you know it was a couple months but once we got Betty director McCabe in. Couple weeks later we got . Chief of Staff a couple weeks later when the witnesses start once you get the ball rolling. You again you don't always like 100 percent of the terms sometimes you have to deal with agency counsel sometimes you've got to go look in count in camera but once you get the ball rolling Usually it leads to the results and historically has allowed the Congress to do its work and were any of those things done here no. In fact they decided we're not going to we're not going to subpoena certain people that are important. And we're not going to go to court and enforce them so these people have you know these folks that are common enter branch struggle. And that's that's an unfortunate position for any employee if one of the concerning things is Dr Copperman who has been described by Dr Fiona Hill. A number of witnesses is a. Solid citizen a good witness he filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena and a judge was assigned to a Judge Leon and the issues the government raised were slightly different than the Don McGann issues because you know Don again is the personal or the White House counsel. Of course is a national security official. Government you know filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Wasn't asking the court to tell him not to come testify to the contrary Cupper mainly seeking the court's guidance to facilitate his cooperation and ultimately this committee with withdrew the subpoena. Yes Which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues right. Instead the committee's chosen intelligence committee has chosen to rely on Ambassador Sonly. And his testimony I think they rely 600 times in their reporting what I did I I. On this point I. Yesterday I opened the Democrat report and I did a control you know control that yes in someone's name shows up I think 611 times. In fairness it's going to be double counted because you know if it's in a sentence and then it's in a footnote to. What a relative comparison to the other witnesses. Someone's relied on big time. And I think Dr Phil testified that. Point confronted him about his actions and the record is mixed on this front. Dr Hill talks about raising concerns of Psalm one and so on when his deposition at least doesn't. You know he didn't share this interview. And there's a lot of instances of that where investors online recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another is that correct someone is a witness is a and he's a bit of an enigma let's just say the way. He was. You know he's pretty certain in his deposition the security assistance wasn't linked to anything. And then he submitted a he submitted an addendum Yes I call that a pretzel sentence. And even in that den them or. Supplementary or whatever it's called. You know it's up to him and her and anyway. You know I presume so wasn't really any firsthand information. We don't have a lot of 1st hand information here is that correct on certain facts we don't I mean we have 1st hand information on the May 23rd meeting in the oval office we've got a lot of 1st hand information although all conflicting. On the July 10th meeting. There are you know episodes I think during the course of this investigation that we haven't been able to at least get everyone's accounts. But. The investigation hasn't hasn't been able to reveal you know firsthand evidence relating to the president of. The call transfer. And I think we've already talked about this that Ambassador. Would. Assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as 1st hand is that correct. You know it started with his role with the Ukraine portfolio a lot of people at the State Department were wondering why the ambassador to the e.u. Was so engaged in. The Ukraine and. You know there are answers for that the Ukraine is an aspirant to join the e.u. . And there's a lot of other reasons and Mr Turner I think explored this really well at the at the open hearings. But we asked the bastards on he said he did a t.v. Interview in key. On the 26th of July where he said the president's given me you know a lot of assignments and he's the president's assigned me Ukraine and so forth but then when we asked him in his deposition he conceded that he was in fact spinning. That the president never assigned him to Ukraine that he was just. You know he was exaggerating. And I think at the public hearings you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses ambassador Seidlin isn't a note taker. He. In fact he said I do not recall. Dozens of times in his deposition. Say this where you know Master Taylor. Walked us through his is. Standard operating procedure for taking notes he told us about having a notebook on his desk and a notebook in his coat pocket of his suit and he brought it with us and he showed us so consequently when Ambassador Taylor recounts to us you know what happened it's backed up by these contemporaneous notes. About your song on the other hand was was very clear that you know one firsthand he said that he did not have access to State Department records while he said that at the public hearing simultaneously the State Department issued a tweet I think or a statement at least saying that wasn't true nobody is keeping ambassador silent from his e-mails you know he still State Department employees he can go. You know he does have access to his records but he didn't. And he stated that he doesn't have any notes because he doesn't take notes and he can see that he doesn't have recollections of on a lot of these issues and you know we sort of made a list of them and I think at the hearing I called it the trifecta of reliability. And you're not the only person that has concerns about. Testimony Conda. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct is that correct you have to Marson. Talked about instances where an ambassador sonne. Showing up on invited Marson didn't understand why Saddam was trying to get into the Warsaw meeting September 1st. And Dr Hill Fiona Hill to thought us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses you're correct and Ambassador recurrent ambassador Sandlin to crack I believe. That he was a prime is a problem now. And Dr Hill raise concerns about his behavior that he might the intelligence risk is that correct. She did she. She she had issues with is a tendency to. His mobile device and make telephone calls and which obviously can be monitored Yes. The bad guys and we talked about how he was. You know certain things and he admitted that he was spending. Minute he graduated Yes And also you know when it comes to his communications with the presidents we tried to get him to list all the communication of the president I think he gave us 6. And then when he was back at you know he walked us through each communication with the president by the way it was about Christmas party was about when the president Finland was here and then. Congressman spear asked him the same question the open hearing anything he said that he had talked to the president like 20 times so. The record is mixed I think my time's up thank you both. Gentlemen Mr Chairman Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman Mr Chairman I Ruth to recess for 30 minutes pursued because one of the rule of. Gentleman. So are the general is moved to recess for home for 30 minutes or 30 minutes it is a privilege motion it was not debatable. In favor say aye. No no no those have it the motion is not agreed to call them please as requested the clerk will call the room Mr neither No Mr neither This is a question of whether there should be a 30 minute recess now even if they both is down which sounds like you guys are they feel the nos have it they may take a recess soon anyway when we've been listening to the testimony of the attorneys for both the minority and the majority on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee the witnesses have been taking questions from other attorneys who are representing the chairman and the ranking member of the committee as we continue to follow the Pietschmann hearings here in the House Judiciary Committee I'm Jeremy Hobson along with Ron Elving here Ron why are they saying no to a recess right now do you think because the chairman wants to keep control of the timing and because the chairman would like to move to the questions from individual members perhaps a little sooner. So I think the chairman probably had a little different schedule on in least his own mind and he's obviously got sport of all the Democrats on the committee so that will probably prevail and there are 24 Democrats on this committee 17 Republicans and next step in what will here today is all of those members are going to have a chance to have a 5 minute question round for the witnesses every last one of them and they will probably all want to use it because even if they don't have something new to add they would like to be getting their opportunity to speak to the people back home and to speak to the country as a whole to have their views aired and so even if they don't have something new to say well as the old saying goes there's everything has been said but it is not yet been said by everyone Ok well now that let's see they're going to have the roll call vote here find out what what the numbers are now the other members. Of those who have not. Clear group board. Mr Chairman there are 15 eyes and 24 and. The motion is not agreed to now we will gauge in questions under the 5 minute rule I yield myself 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning witnesses this is the chairman and he'll start the question here you please explain the difference between Vice President Biden's request Ukraine a few years ago and president. To Ukraine earlier this year yes when Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian president to remove the corrupt prosecutor general he was doing so with an international consensus as part of u.s. Policy the entire European Union supported that the i.m.f. Supported that the i.m.f. Which also gave the loans that that he was referring to and so he did that is part of the entire international community's consensus and when President Trump is asking for this investigation of Joe Biden all of the witnesses every single one testified that had nothing to do with official u.s. Policy and President and Vice President Biden's request had no personal political benefit whereas as in terms requested yes in fact if the witnesses testified that if that corrupt prosecutor general were actually removed it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption so the witnesses said that by removing the prosecutor general and adding a new one that there was an increased chance that corruption in Ukraine would be prosecuted including as it related to the barista a company which is son was on the board of Thank You know Mr Goldman can you please explain exactly what happened with the phone records obtained by the Intelligence Committee thank you I would like to set the record straight on that this is a very basic and usual investigative practice where people involved in a schema wars. Suspected to be involved in a scheme investigators routinely seek their records and just to be very clear this is metadata it is only call to call from and length it is not the content of the calls or the text messages so there's no content there's no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or attorney client that none of that exists and there are no risks to that and so what we did is for the people that several of the people that we had investigated and subpoenaed and who were alleged to be part of the scheme we got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out maybe there's additional communications that we were unaware of what we then did is we took the call records and we match it up with important events that occurred during this scheme and we start to see if there are patterns because call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evidence in this case it just so happened that people who were involved in the President Trump scheme were communicating with the president's lawyer who was also involved in the scheme a journalist a staff member of Congress and another member of Congress we of course did not at all seek in any way shape or form to do any investigation on anyone a member of Congress or staff member of Congress it just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president's scheme and everything you did was basically standard operating procedure for an investigation every investigation and 10 years that I did probably we got call records Thank you Mr Goldman did White House counsel make his view clear about witnesses and evidence requested by the investigating committees and what was that view we never heard from the White House counsel they we other than the letter which basically just said we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in any way shape or form they never reached out to engage in this accommodation process it was a complete stonewall not only will the White House not. Participate in not cooperate and not respond to the duly authorized subpoenas of Congress but we are of the White House says we are also going to direct every other executive branch agency to have a series of questions and please keep Prince's reach if you can during last week's hearing my Republican colleagues say the Congress has not built a sufficient record to impeach the president at this stage is former prosecutor you spent years building substantial case records what is the strength of the record here. I think we have moved fast and I think that the evidence is really overwhelming and we have 17 witnesses with overlapping and consuming statements and the committee managed to collect said 2 compelling wreck in the face of a president of obstruction by the president correct yes and was the obstruction so pervasive that the evidence pointed to a course of conduct or play and cover up any presidential misconduct we did find that there was an effort to conceal the president's conduct Yes And I understand that Toby ate the White House wrote a letter explaining the president from a direct It is in this situation not to cooperate with the White House's impeachment inquiry led to the White House counsel wrote quote President Trump cannot permit his in this race to participate in this partisan inquiry under the circumstances now the investigative committees try to interview dozens of witnesses and including current and former musician officials and was stymied with respect to most of them is that correct there were 12 witnesses who were directed not to appear and ultimately they did not appear thank you very much my time has expired heels to the ranking member ranking member Mr Jones thank you Mr and Mr Gomes the misting think this is Doug Collins Republican the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee speaking live on special coverage from n.p.r. News as we get enough people to think we're Ok I can then go explore anybody I want to as long as enough people think it's Ok that was in essence what you just said whether you believe it or not that's what I copied the notes but I want to go to the phone records. It's a novel approach the phone records issue and I'm not. Hear me clearly I have no problem with the subpoena as far as a subpoena power from Congress not a problem my problem as you did not answer in the previous though is taking them out of that is numbers I did not say anything is interesting you had to go as I will there's no continuity as we've had that debate in Congress now for the last 2 years on the program another time which by the way this committee should be hearing positive report just came out and we're doing this it's interesting to see to me that they. Calls in the metadata not the content what the problem I have here is this is if Rudy noon is. New Year's Harvey where the only phone records returned from the Spain. Why these released here's the problem you took the committee and this is why I want to know who ordered it the committee made a choice chairmanship of who I'm assuming because he's not here or you who did get to come at least thank you for showing up made a conscious choice to put these records into the report it was a drop. It was a gratuitous drop by if you wanted to smear the ranking member or smear these others because they were in those numbers they were connected to that I'm not saying you knew the content not saying anything else in fact you just admitted just a 2nd ago it was simply they were contacting these people the problem I have with that is is you could have just as easily put if you are really wanting to do a professional non smear report is that Congress person lawn or congress person to reporter one reporter to because if they did not actually contribute to your report it is nothing but a drop. That's the problem I have here I'm no problem with you working I have no problem with the report have no problem with a subpoena and you can pretty it up all you want that was nothing to show the American people that at least for a moment this report became a partisan smear against other members we don't like because there's other alternatives for you to do I have no problem as I said with you doing proper oversight I have a lot of issues with how this oversights none but don't make it up and don't not tell me or the rest of this committee who ordered that that was nothing more than a smear campaign and just say it's not is being disingenuous with this committee the chairman gave you a chance to actually rehabilitate and you made it worse because at the end of the day those got put in by the way it also a fuller record got leaked to the from executive session got leaked to the last imposed. And I don't understand you know except how we can say this is Ok how do we say this is fine this is how we have devolved in the Members Only majority now may be members of the minority at some point and if we're setting the standard for this is where we're going with these kind of investigations then we're in trouble we're in deep trouble because this is another thing that the Founders you and others today Mr Burkett said earlier the founders were deeply concerned about a lot of things one of the biggest things they were concerned about is opposing or now I'm glad that most everybody in the diocese now in originalist except this they also were concerned about a partisan impeachment a partisan impeachment is you don't like his policies you don't like what he said you don't like guys that it I don't like the way Joe Biden said it but you blew that off as everybody has the backing of the international community what will become is a perpetual state of impeachment and that is the problem that everyone on this diet should have but don't come here and be a person who is a witness one witness and not answer the questions Adam Schiff knew in that fine without you but don't come here and say I'm not going to say because you know good and well some time it's some conference it's some committee room in some little room somebody said hey this is actually because I haven't given in years this phone number that number matches. And we're going to put it in the report not because we're think Devaney is a part of this because he had a phone call with somebody that we were investigating that's a drop off and it's beneath you and it's beneath this Congress. And that is why I have such a problem with this and then you leak further information this is the problem here and we can be righteous about trying to get this president not but when it comes to this this is why people are getting so just just turned off by this whole thing. We understand that that is the problem I have because you could have handled this different you Mr ship I don't blame the chairman because I hold the member the one with the pan responsible so I'm going to certain he ordered this and he was the one who said put their names in here and he was the one who can't come and defend that unfortunately he senshi and you had to take it that's wrong and this committee deserves better with you about. Gentlemen years back and away from California is recognized Thank you Mr Chairman the gist of the. California Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee the president's power to benefit himself in the next election now America's is based on free and fair elections and after Russia interfered in the 2016 election the American people are rightfully concerned about ensuring that the next election of free of foreign interference and keeping that in mind I'd like to ask you Mr Goldman the following question and basters on Lynn testified that according to Rudy Giuliani quote President Trump wanted a public statement from President Selenski committing to investigations of Bristol and the 2016 election isn't that correct yes and a bastard son of an testified as this screen in front of you shows a presence Alinsky quote had to announce the investigations he didn't actually have to do them correct Mr Cole Goldman you're a experienced former prosecutor is it common to announce an investigation but not actually to conduct the investigation no usually works the reverse Normally you don't announce the investigation because you want to develop as much evidence while it's not while it's not public because if it's public venue run into problems of people matching up testimony and witnesses tailoring their their testimony which is part of the reason why the close depositions in our investigation were so important so what did that evidence is the evidence about the announcement tell you about why a present or drop would only care about presents Olinsky announcing the investigations but not actually conducting them there were 2 things that it said one is whatever he claims the president claims about his desire to root out corruption even if you assume that these investigations. Are for that purpose as he has stated it undermines that because he doesn't actually care if the investigations are done so even if you assume which I don't think the evidence supports that it's a corruption that he's still not doing the corruption investigations and the 2nd is just one of the public announcement the private confirmation was not enough and that's an indication that he wanted the political benefit from them yet looks to me that the announcement of the investigation could benefit the president politically because the announcement alone could be Twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival that's consistent with the findings you know President Nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election and then he tried to cover it up just as we've seen some obstruction here but even more concerning in this case President and Trump not only appears to have abused the power of his office to help his own reelection campaign used a foreign government to do his bidding and he used military aid as leverage to get the job done now this aid was approved by Congress that was appropriated on a bipartisan basis for Ukraine to fight Russia who'd invaded them and well. Aid this aid was withheld people died while this aid was being withheld and some you know have argued since ultimately the aid was released that there was not a problem Mr Goldman isn't it true that the aid was released only out that the president got caught and only after Congress learned of the scheme to make this life or death aid conditional on this announcement of investigation of this political rival There were several things that that made the president realize that this was coming to a head. Could not be concealed the whistleblower complaint was circulating around the White House the congressional committees announced their own investigation and then the perhaps the Washington Post op ed on September 5th linking the 2 and then the inspector general notified the committee that there was this whistleblower complaint that was being withheld by the Trump administration correct Well I made it clear throughout this investigation that I don't want to be part of a 3rd impeachment inquiry but the direct evidence is very damning and the president hasn't offered any evidence to the contrary we've asked was subpoenaed we've invited the president and nothing has come forward if he had evidence of his innocence why wouldn't he bring it forward now this is a very serious matter that strikes at the heart of our Constitution and it's a concern that we are here but I've heard over and over again that this is too fast will Miss Jackson Lee and I were talking we were both members of this committee during the Clinton impeachment that took 73 days were here on the 76 day we need to proceed and I thank you Mr Goldman for your hard work and for your presentation I yield back Mr Chairman to you without objection the hearing will stand in recess for 15 minutes. Ok we are going to a recess in this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee as that the Democrats make their case present their evidence for the impeachment of President Trump I'm Jeremy Hobson You're listening to Special Coverage from n.p.r. News. And I'm joined by Ron Elving n.p.r. Senior Washington editor and correspondent as well as Susan Davis n.p.r. Congressional correspondent Ron we just heard their questioning from so grand of California who not only was involved with the Clinton impeachment by. Also was a staffer during the Nixon impeachment This is her 3rd impeachment proceeding what do you make of what you've heard so far today what stands out to you are the Democrats making the case that they want to make are Republicans doing a good enough job in raising questions about the process in the speed of this impeachment inquiry this is a lawyers war I mean it's just a collision of a lot of councillors who have a different views of the fact different views of the process obviously different views of the president's culpability and we have seen a lot of effort on the part of the Republicans a diligent a minus the entire enterprise what I would call a point of order defense where they again and again come back to saying we shouldn't be here this shouldn't be happening this is just all outrageous and it shouldn't be taking place at all and if it is going to take place we want to have Adam Schiff who was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee come before us and act like Ken Starr did back in 1980 why did they want that window badly Adam Schiff to come and testify partly I believe it's because the president has focused on Adam Schiff and tried to make him his lead torment or true try to make this all about some sort of personal vendetta between Adam Schiff who had previously been the the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and involved in a lot of back and forth with the White House for during the 1st 2 years of the Trump presidency and of course Devon newness who was then the Chairman it is now the ranking member that the parties have switched roles he who has been very much a personal part of this and the president would like to put it on that level and not have it be a case of multiple witnesses coming forward from the administration from the State Department from the National Security Agency from his own list of ambassadors including people of his own appointment to say this is what happened and this is what the president did and that's really what's driving this impeachment process so Davis you're on Capitol Hill what has stood out to you so far today we been listening to this for. About more than 5 and a half hours now 5 and half hours just now starting lawmaker testimony one of the things that has struck stuck out to me is just how unusual it is to watch staffers question staffers for hours on end it is the nature of this hearing we knew this is what it was going to be but it doesn't happen very often generally if you tune into Congress and you're watching a congressional hearing you'll see lawmakers being the ones in gauging in the questioning it is also clearly a point that Republicans have sought to focus on to say that it's not fair that they're not hearing from lawmakers that they're only hearing from staff counsel they have repeatedly requested both at this hearing and in the run up to this hearing they wanted to hear House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff be the one to offer this testimony we should note however that Republicans did not choose to send a lawmaker of their own they also sent staff counsel to present the evidence so if they wanted to make a bigger point here they could have of course and Devon Una's the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee they chose not to do that will soon let's take a step back for a 2nd here because this hearing today is the presentation of all the evidence that has been collected then the Democrats would start drafting articles of impeachment with maybe a vote in the committee on those articles later this week and then maybe a vote in the full House next week is that still the timeline it is still I mean they have never put hard dates along these timelines but the expectation that they would want to wrap by Christmas they are moving at a pace that would allow them to do that the reason part of that reason is having this hearing on a Monday that is possible is we don't know for sure but it is possible that we could start to see the 1st drafts of possible articles as soon as the latter part of this week you're right that did you just your committee will be charged with writing those articles of impeachment it's possible they will have hearings on possible articles where members can offer amendments or ideas of their own that is going to be actually the most challenging part here for Democrats if anything this road to impeachment has been far less rot. He than you might actually believe it from the outside when you hear about how partisan It has been and that is absolutely true but Democrats have largely been on the same page here and where you might start to see some internal Democratic Party strife is when they actually start to outline the articles of impeachment for what precisely they believe President Trump should be removed from office for run one of the things that we have not heard much today is about the Mahler inquiry in the Muller report does that suggest to you that as Democrats decide which articles of impeachment to draft that they are really going to focus on Ukraine it does and when we did hear about the Miller report it was more because the Miller report is in a sense a predicate for a lot of what has happened here with Ukraine remember that it was the final Robert Mueller report that he delivered in person or took questions in front of a congressional committee this summer that predated by one whole day President Trump calling Selenski on the phone and saying you know like Iraq or who is going after stuff well he failed he failed and now we're going to talk about something else clearly the implication of that that the Democrats would like to put on it is that as soon as he had a a essentially green light from this long investigation by Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice is authority that he could go back to cultivating sources of assistance around the world wherever and in this particular case Ukraine and he could go back to pursuing a theory of what happened in 2016 and also a strategy for what might happen in 2020 that's the Democrats' interpretation of all the facts but it's interesting that who however you interpret those facts Moeller reports on 24th of July and the very next day the president is on the phone to the Lenski going back at what looks a lot like the let us say back and forth between Donald Trump and his campaign and various elements of the world that were interested in perhaps helping him get elected back in 2016 and perhaps. Reelected in 2020 so as Democrats try to decide which articles to put forward how do they make that calculation I was looking back at the Clinton impeachment there were 4 articles that the Judiciary Committee passed but only 2 were actually passed by the full House that's right because the House Judiciary Committee then as now was somewhat more partisan than the body as a whole this is a committee that is known for attracting people from both parties Democratic and Republican parties who tend to be the harder edged more driven more partisan individuals in their parties so whatever the Judiciary Committee might pass might very well embarrass or strain a lot of say stress some of the Democratic members who are not on this committee but do have a vote on the floor so is there any chance that any Republicans would support any articles of impeachment no matter what they are in this case or that or that Democrats would vote against them well we certainly can't say for sure because it's hypothetical still we don't know exactly what they're going to say but we do have a fairly reasonable degree of certainty that Republicans are unlikely to break with the president here we saw that in the House Intelligence Committee where you had Republicans like we'll heard a Republican from Texas a moderate retiring someone who's been a critic of the president the past the exact kind of lawmaker you look to to think hey maybe this is a possible swing vote on the question of impeachment and he made very clear publicly that he's not there that he does not support it so if you don't have even the potential of support from Republicans like we'll heard you probably don't have many other Republicans willing to cross cross party lines it is far more likely that you will see Democrats vote against combinations or all of the articles of impeachment just 2 Democrats voted against authorizing the Judiciary Committee hearings that we're watching play out today with Collin Peterson a Democrat from Minnesota and Jeff enjoy a Democrat from New Jersey. Both good come from relatively conservative dist districts Collin Peterson 1st Sure represents a ruby red district in Minnesota one of the last lawmakers who represents a district that is sort of far misaligned with the party he represents in Congress and Jeff Andrew also is one of these freshmen that one Republican held seat in the 20 midterms and he's been very clear that he doesn't think the evidence is there so you're more likely to see crossover votes on the Democratic side than the Republican side when it comes to the actual vote we have to talk about something else that's been happening while we've been listening to the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee ran a long awaited report on the origins of the f.b.i. Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election came out today that's right say that's right and this is the report of the president has been saying is going to tear the top off you know expose the worst political scandal in American history well what it actually says is that there were some mistakes made many mistakes made with respect to an application to surveil a particular minor official of the trumpet ministration but that there was no evidence that the f.b.i. Was politically motivated at the top or among the other people who were involved in the investigation and that they did their jobs and they did their jobs as they should have but there were some mistakes made along the lines of going after a minor official named Carter page whose name we've heard many many times and that the application to tap his phones or to surveil that person was not properly made out this is something that has taken up probably over a year's worth of time and conservative media in this country saying that this was all a plot the deep state plot to overthrow President Trump before he even came into office and to be sure the inspector report the infector general of the Justice Department's report which is very official and very important to the Department of Justice done by a man named Michael Horowitz long time profession. Is not going to satisfy everyone we've already heard from William Barr that he feels that there were things done here that really were not right and he has been responsible for tasking another u.s. Attorney up in Connecticut man named John Durham with a long track record of investigating tough cases and he wants that person to look further at what's going on in addition to this inspector general report so there's been a great deal of interest in it from people who think they can discredit the entire Robert Mueller investigation and from people who think that Donald Trump has been a victim of implications over the last several years that somehow he was assisted by this Russian intelligence operation that it's assisted in his election in 2016 which of course has been the consensus just the consensus judgment of the entire u.s. Intelligence community but there are others outside of that community particularly in the Department of Justice who feel that that was not the case and that this is all been mischaracterized and that it has all led to this Ukraine matter that is now the impeachment subject when you say that William Barr the attorney general has already raised questions about this President Trump has also responded I guess he's also about to speak and he has said that the findings were far worse than what I ever thought possible that's his quote that is remarkable. That is n.p.r. Senior Washington editor and correspondent Ron Elving and you're listening to Special Coverage from n.p.r. News. This is k.u.n.c. Thank you for listening to the special coverage of the House impeachment hearings from n.p.r. Did you know that Colorado Gives Day is tomorrow it's a great opportunity to do all of your holiday charitable giving on one super easy to use website so support all sorts of nonprofit organizations just like a un see by going to Colorado gives dot org to schedule your holiday giving now support for the special coverage on k.u.n.c. Comes from the Greeley corral joining Toys for Tots for the holiday cheer for children toy drive excepting unwrapped toys at a holiday concert featuring seasonal favorites and holiday classics Saturday night at campus Commons performance hall info at Greeley chorale dot Forgue support also coming from Plymouth congregational u.c.c. In Fort Collins a progressive faith community where all are welcome Advent services on Sundays at 9 11 am and 6 pm Christmas Eve services at 35 and 7 pm more information at Plymouth dot org And from seniors helping seniors a way to give and receive a Northern Colorado home care agency and now hiring care providers to make a difference in someone's life with companionship and personal care services flexible hours and training provided home care in northern Colorado dot com We now rejoin analysis from n.p.r. Of the House impeachment hearings Thanks for listening it's 1256. Testify in a Senate trial because the Senate is controlled by Republicans as 2 Republicans have been saying they want to hear from Adam Schiff they've also been saying that they want to hear from the original whistleblower Why do they want to hear from the whistleblower given that there have been so many other fact witnesses that have substantiated just about everything that the whistleblower initially said you know I asked Ron Johnson he's a Republican from Wisconsin that very question last week because he is one of the people on the record saying he wants the whistleblower to testify in the Senate proceedings and I asked him what do you think the whistleblower knows that isn't already known based on all this other testimony what can he testify to that Republicans want to hear and his answer and I'm paraphrasing was essentially that he believes that the whistleblower could speak to the fact that a lot of the people that testified to the about this recall and about the president were politically motivated against the president that this is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Republican defense is that people inside the government were against the president and were acting and advocating against him just because they didn't like his policies not because he was doing anything wrong I think what is the word of the outside the Beltway diplomacy as it was described in one case so they think that the whistleblower could present a case to the public that this was all politically motivated Of course as he said the facts of the case are everything that was detailed in that was a blower complaint has only been backed up by public testimony and by fact witnesses and shift Democrats have said it's a distraction it's a red herring to say you need to hear from the whistleblower the facts of the case or no one isn't Ron Johnson also tied up in this in a way to run yes because he's been a person who's been back and forth to Europe to talk to various people about the aid and the money that was going to go to Ukraine something like a substantial fraction of their total military budget to defend themselves against the Russians who are currently making incursions on their eastern frontier.