Sm he20 didnt talk about 2020. Would you agree President Trump was acting wrongly and corruptly that he was askingee r the investigation explicitly to help his 2020 election prospects . Yes, my experience as ten years as a prosecutor, you never have a defendant or someone whos engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say in this case, president zelensky, i am going to bribe you now or i am going to ask you for a bribe, i am going to extort you, thats not theto way these things work. Mr. Castor. You said about hunter biden going back to 2014 for burisma. Yes. President trump supported ukraine with aid and otherwise, 2017 and 2018, correct . We are going to keep an eye on thatee testimony in todays impeachment before the house judiciary. We have some Breaking News for you on that other story we have been monitoring. A long anticipated Justice Department Inspector General report on the investigation into the origins of the russia probe, the conduct of a career long Law Enforcement officials who President Trump has maligned and attacked. This report was expected to flatly t refutes of the president s alarming claims about a deep state conspiracy that undermines his presidency based on what i have read so far. It does just that. Julia ainsley is live for us at the department of justice. What are you learning of this report . Nt so nicole, this report just came down from the Inspector General here at the Justice Department here, it is over 400 pages. I had a chance to leap through
this and pulled out some of the headlines. You are absolutely right. The in speck sor Generspector Ge was no evidence of political bias by the fbi and their decision to open the investigation into the 2016 meddling of russians into the president ial campaign. He did however say that this was not, they did not follow the chain of command, throughout the chain of command, there were a lot of mistakes made that initially this investigation was opened because of attempt from a Foreign Government that being the australians and not the infamous or Uncrorroborated Steele dossier. He said the steele dossier played outside an impact of carter page. He called that inaccurate. They were not getting that much material. It was not that useful to the overall investigation. Some news for you here nicole. The Inspector General is opening another investigation into how the fbi uses warrants and how they apply and whether or not more protocols should be put in place as the fbi seeks to surveil them through these court orders. Thats what we are c following here now. Overall you can say the Inspector General found no evidence of political bias on the fbis decision to open that initial investigation. Julia, stay with us. I got some more details coming out of this. What i think we should be focused on is this finding of the cross fire hurricanes, the intelligence investigation of the russians led to the Special Counsel was found to be properly
predicated on facts. Explain that. That means the fbi actually had the legal bases to properly open this investigation. Hi is predication probable cause, it is like a standard for opening the investigation . It became a full. The advantage used for a full investigation is specific that a foreign power power was involved. The ig is saying you properly opened this case and you open four related cases. The populaapadopoulospapadopoul manaforts case, all properly opened on facts. If you were to put a report on the timeline, all of the conduct that the fbi engaged him when they opened up the investigationy into Donald Trumps Campaign Staffers and associates tied with russia including carter page, manafort and papadopoulos and who was the
fourth . Flinn. All the conduct in opening those investigations and conducting them of whats proper and the problem happens here . After they were ongoing . The initial report was saying after those cases properly predicated and open, there were some Policiy Standards and protocol violations by some personnel. Also there is a rulely important finding here. For people like chuck and myself, we care deeply of the brand and rep repation reputat. And to include Human Sources under cover agents and the technique all being found to have validly used in this case. I guess it is extraordinary
to have found wrong doing sort of downd the timeline after al these investigations were properly opened and there was cause for investigating all the connections to russia. Thats how it is supposed to function. Su what about the three years of smears on people like Andrew Mccabe who was called a traitor and people like jim comey for things that the ig found is lawful. I want an apology from the white house but an apology is due because thats all we have been hearing for years, this was a hoax and conspiracy by a deep state and the intelligence km t community and whatll we are hearing from the in spspector
general, i didnt not found any hoax. I found properly predication. Let me put you on the spot. T opened and conducted Good Housekeeping seal of approval from the ig properly predicated investigations. Would those people carry out the same reforms that we understand, maybe put in place today based on the findings of wrong doing . I believe the way Inspector General describes them is a low level fbi lawyer. No doubt. Anybody would have carried out these reforms. There are two things that did not surprise me at all. The firstri one that frank articulated so wellth that ther was no political bias and no political motive and the case was properly predicated or founded on facts. It dmou it does not surprise me at all. When ever an Inspector General looks at anything and any department carefully and closely, you are going to find procedural flaws. I have never seen an ig report that says no problem here. Sorry to waste your time. If you work in the government, it says everything right up close. What the ig is about, the in speck s inspect inspectorgener general. The department of justice, Inspector General looked at a wholel bunch of important thin including the process that we obtain fungicid
obta obtain warrants. In any big complex organization, the fbi is a big complex organization, there are going to be procedural flaws, sometimes it is people acting rationally or sometimes people with bad purpose or just people falling to follow complex regulations. Inspector generals always find something toay criticize. I dont mean it as a criticism. It is a fact. Let me ask you on a personal level, you know the men and women who havew been maligned,e have been covered on this show on a daily bases. He attacked Rod Rosenstein and jim comey, how does it feel for the leaders of the fbi to be exonerated from the central attackro from this president th the fbi set him up and spied on
h him . They know what they did and they know what they did not do and howdi they were motivated. These are good and decent people. It does not tell them anything new. On the other hand, it feels pretty good. Because now you have an independent Inspector General who has come to the conclusion that we all suspected all along, right . If you spend any time watching fox news, claire, Michael Harwitz was the right answer. The report i am waiting for is harwitz. There is a lot of eggs in the basket. Is among what he describes as a low level lawyer but the attack from the man in the office with no corner has been about treasons and traitors. Harwitz has one of his witnesses, mr. Durham. The republican senators who have been all in, the only hoax here is the fbi had corruption. In january of 2018, the chairman of the Homeland Security committee in the senate said this is all about further evidence of corruption more than bias. That chairmann issued an apolog this afternoon and any of the members of the Republican Party on the hill and reestablished that we do not make reckless accusations about Law Enforcement in the world. It is stunning to me because
no s matter where you stand on e question, you should be cheered today, Inspector General found no bias or corruption, it was properly predicated and conducted until the point when it was not. That person will be under investigation. What do you think about the fact that even some one heard from within who looks at the agency with a critical objective eye. Thats the thing. It is not only we are not going to get apology or the people thats o exonerated. This is an example of donald trump over promising. He set the bars so high for what we had to find that no chance republicans could have
established. Establ accomplished. That was never going to happen and occur. And so theha report not only validates the hard work and legitimate peopleha of working t it shows the president continually overnt promises and creates insane Conspiracy Theory that wellon dedicated people wh may be loyal to him cant backup. Heidi, i keep thinking about to jasons point, the moving of the post. Now we are hearing around the right wing, wait for durham. Hell get them. What do you make following the facts and the evidence, good news for all americans of any political persuasion of any opinion of donald trump. Very good news that the doj cleared all the leadership of
any political bias and any wrong doing in the opening of the russian investigation. Thoroughly eviscerate our Law Enforcement officials, a coup if you will, it was used to bring down the president of the United States that it may play into thisla whole debate, nicole, Abt Whether Thereic should be a thi count on obstruction. What we are talking about right now in terms of the shape of articles against President Trump, you have this debate raging about whether there is enough to bring a third or second article on obstruction or whether that he just be folded into the broader abuse of power. Well, now you have the president s ten potential counts in the Mueller Investigation trying to obstruct these officials who are now exonerated
of anything and proven to do thispr Investigation Complete completely now over whether there should be a solid third article on obstruction. Some reaction from some of the people who are on the receiving ends of Donald Trumps attacks and smears about the predication, former Acting Director of the fbi, Andrew Mccabe has reviewed the Inspector Generals report and says this. They also found personnel, not doing so would be the duties of the fbi. Those are strong words from Andrew Mccabe. Andrew mccabe and his wife were cascaded on twitter and we are now finding that Andrew Mccabe had it right. He saw threats and he addressed by opening the russian intelligence case bysi putting trumps name in the title of that case and the ig saying he did it right. Julia ainsley, any action coming in from william barr is really taking the 23month long Mueller Investigation and prespinning it asn it came ou and i afterwards being derogato about its fiendings. Strong reaction from the Attorney General. Hes already saying this report really questions the legitimacy of the investigation which is not what the in spespector says. Spstop, stop, where does it come from . I will read you his words. The Inspector General reports now makes clear that the fbi launched the intrusive investigation of the u. S. President ial campaign onof the thinnest ofn suspicions that i my view were insufficient to justify the accepts taken. The Attorney General disagreeing with his Inspector General. There was no evidence of political bias and opening of this investigation and the only area where Inspector General is questioning the mistakes that were made have to do with the warrant that was not critical to the investigation in the first place. Can i just read though the first page of the report put out by his justice represent says this, the decision to four individual cases on current members of the Trump Campaign,
papadopoulos he finds no wrong doing that. I guess whats so stunning is to stand in front of that building and read a statement from the Attorney Generalnt refuting a document from his own department . What explains that julia . Well, you have to think about where the Attorney General stays now . Heto is someone that appointed john durham to do a criminal investigation into the same matter, nicole. The Attorney General wants to look at whats being exposed today as something to justify that investigation and to try to build a case for what he has said. This is a same Attorney General who said he believed there may have been spying. Thats not anywhere in the Inspector General report. He keeps on making this case, he says it is also clear that from
its inception, the investigation, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. It was not all exculpatory evidence. The Attorney General is making no lines blurred when it comes to how he views this Inspector General report and how he views this entire investigation from the fbi through muellers collusions. Help me understand this, frank. The Attorney General Disparages Andne does not belie in the Robert Muellers investigation, 23 months long. Guilty convictions and guilty pleas by mike flynn and manafort and roger stone. The american Attorney General does not believe his own Department Inspector generals report. If there is reasons for concerns today, whats the evidence that hes looking at the facts . Hes choosing to ignore the facts. Hes looking at possible necessity of policies and procedure changes. Is it in here, too . What i am seeing here for example in the report is to the fact that wow, the fbi does not have any written policy on the president and his campaign so they went with a policy they had and he complied with it. So what i think you are going to hear is a steady drum beat now saying oh, the fbi got to rewrite their policy, they should not be looking into the campaign, it is intrusive. Yeah, it is intrusive but they followed the rules. There was not a misconduct in opening and conducting the case. One instance i am reading. The fbi went above and beyond. Cooperating source were wired in thisce investigation. Fbi policies said a Field Supervisor can approve that. They went all the way to the
assistant director to approve wearing a wire. You will see evidence in here of extra ruling following. You will see the white houses ig saying i dont like this. If it was obama being investigated, did you not like the policy because it is your guy . I am old enough to remember the investigations of Hillary Clintons emails. I dont remember a single republican supporting the idea of investigating a president s. How do you investigate a campaign where there are suspicion of wrong doing. It is mind boggling that this is the second years long investigation into the president s campaign that barr does not believe. Well, the Attorney General characterized thera standards a insufficient in my view. To franks point, it is not that
they did not comply with their guidelines, it sounds like the Attorney General does not like the guidelines of which they complied. Did he complain about them when they replied to the Hillary Clinton campaign . I dont know him to ever comply to guidelines. This is an important point. I will read it from the report. The fbi has a domestic investigation operation guide. Thats one of the two Main Operations that tell the fbi what it can do and cant do. It has guidelines with the same purpose. Th using those two documents to T Togeth Torgt Document a preliminary investigation may be opened based on any allegations or
information indicative of possible activities or threats to the National Security. It is set low. Why was it set low . Because you cant investigate a case before you investigate a case. You open the case. I should better say it. You cant no the results of the investigations before you open investigations. You set the threshold low. You use all the lawful tool of your disposal and you make the investigation where you have Counter Intelligence matter that you have to act upon. It is set low for purpose. The Attorney General apparently does not like that. He has the authority to change it. You cant criticize the fbi for falling in skylines. You cant criticize the fbi for following guidelines. Iow agree. We are covering the breaking
news, in Spspector General repo he has found on the smears repeated by donald trump of a political bias and insufficient predicate for opening an investigation into theic Trump Campaign and their ties to russia complete exoneration of the fbi former leaders. Well be hearing from jim comey later as part of our coverage. Well dip back into the hearing underway. The record is some what spotty with Rudy Giuliani. I know New York Times reported in may, ambassador volker gave a detailed account of his meeting in july 18th. Lets take a look if we can put it up july 18th of the New York Times you are referring to. The article says and i will read it. Mr. Rudy giuliani and dated may 9th, 2019 before the call, mr. Rudy giuliani said he plans to
travel to kiev, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nationsth president elect urge him to pursue in queries and it continues, allies of the white house can yield information about two matters of intense interests of mr. Trump. One is the origin of the Special Counsel investigation, goes onto describing it. The other is the involvement of former joe bidens son. That was in the New York Times article. We are talking about the breakfast of volker . Notkf yet. If we can continue the rest of the article to the next slide, slide 17. This the same article. Mr. Rudy giuliani was explicit. This was not foreign policy, well be quoting with the words that are highlighted. It will be very helpful to my client, my only client is the president nl of the united state hes the one that i have an obligation to report to. Were you aware on that same day mr. Rudy giuliani gave an interview about what he intended to do and lets go to slide 18. This is from real clear politics. It should be on the screen in front of you as well. What mr. Rudy giuliani said about the ukraine, it is a big story, a dramatic story, i guarantee you joe biden will not get to election day without this being investigated, not because i want to see an investigation, you agree election day refers to 2020 election where President Trump will be running for reelection. I guess you are right. That was my only question to you. You will have to answer questions from the minority council. Now and President Trump show you well sidestep the volker meeting in 2018 . Let me go to slide 19, please. The president is being b interviewed the same day in politico, hes asked, i am leaving soon. I will speak to him about it before he leaves. Now let me go to slide 20, mr. Rudy giuliani continued0, his pressure on president co zelensk. In this one it is actually a tweet he put out on june 21st, 2019, roughly a month before the call. New president of ukraine still silent on investigation of interference of the 2016 election and alleged Biden Bribery of the prior president. Again, sir, as you said the ukrainians knew that mr. Rudy giuliani had the year of his client of President Trump, is that correct, sir, yes or no . Rudy giuliani was doing some
things out here and then he became involved with the official chairman with volker and sondland and at that meeting on july 19th, volker counseled against the perspective that Rudy Giuliani taken. Let me ask you mr. Goldman, are they referring to a personal political issue of President Trump or officially u. S. Policy . Thats a personal political herb. If you dont mind, i will take a moment to respond to mr. Castor. On c that july 19th meeting between ambassador volker and Rudy Giuliani, ambassador volker told Rudy Giuliani of the allegations of joe biden were bogus and wrong. Mr. Rudy giuliani said he knew that and for the next two months
he koncontinued to push the investigation at the direction of President Trump. So that july 19th that mr. Castor brought up is quite important to this investigation. Sir, you explained on may 23rd where the official folks who went on the inauguration to tell the president how impressed they were, the only thing head to say to them was talk to rudy. He was taking his official government response for ukraine and handing them over. I agree with mr. Castor. What thats what the evidence shows. President directed and delegated authorities over to sondland and perry and told them to work with rudy and over the next three months thats what happened at
the president s direction. Let me show you slide 22 if i may that you understood the ukrainians recognized how important Rudy Giuliani was and Satisfying Himrt in order to st on good terms with President Trump . Yes,rm they quickly realizedt from their own internal conversations because mr. Rudy giuliani had back channels to getting to the ukrainian officials and ambassador volker told ukrainians as well that there was this asquote, Rudy Giuliani factor that president zelensky, there was this Rudy Giuliani factor that they needed to deal with the president. And fact, this is a senior aid to president zelensky saying to ambassador volker on august 13th, which was obviously after the july 25th call, thank you for being clear and in your logical position, well be great to meet you before my departure and discuss. I feel the key for many things is f rudy. I am ready to talk to him at any point, please let me know if you can meet. Thats the ukrainians recognizing that Rudy Giuliani was demanding the investigation of mr. Trumps political rival was key to get anything done. I believe this text was july 10th, this was a critical text because what it is saying mr. Ye yermak requested for ambassador to meet to set up a meeting with Rudy Giuliani. That directed to the breakfast of whether what mr. Castor said and ultimately they met in madrid on october 2 ndnd. Thank you, the record reflect that is the correct date. Rudy was key when it was sent. Certainly. Now let me ask you, sir, let me put up slide 24. Mr. Goldman, am i correct that there came a point in time when President Trump through his chief of staff, mick mulvaney, ordered the approved military to ukraine be withheld as you indicated . Yes. Mr. Kent said when this happens, there was great confusion among the resthe of u because we did not understand why it happened since there was unanimousty. We still have dont have an investigation. Mr. Croft, the only reason given
that the order came at the direction of the president. It was the unanimous view of all the agency, Secretary Of State and department of defense, National Security council, literally everyone of the agencies that believed that the aid was vital and had been approved and should be released immediately. And in the minority staff report andff mr. Castors testimony earlier, he said the u. S. Government did not convey the pause of ukrainians. That was incorrect . Did mr. Sondland convey that . Mr. Sondland conveyed the release of the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the
investigation. If we could put up slide 26. Well put up the slide. And he says and well read the highlighted which is in front seat front of you. I now recalled speaking to mr. Yermak, going back to the quote that the presumption of u. S. Aid would not occur until ukraine provided of the staples we have been discussing many weeks. Is that correct . Yes, he said that at a meeting on September 1st with mr. Yermak. Did you recall sir in the draft statementsi that the ukrainians are going to have
president zelensky, ambassador sondland testified to that and ambassador volker testified to that. Mr. Yermak gave a statement where he did not make any reference to Vice President biden, correct . Correct. Was that Rudy Giuliani who said it had to include a reference theyre going to investigate burisma in the 2016 election . Yes, what did burisma stand for . All your witnesses say, did the witnesses say that. Every single witness said after reading the phone call on julyph 25th that it was clear burisma equalled biden, they were one and the same. There were only one or two witnesses who said they did not know that at that time and there was ample testimonies, a lot of people involved of all aspects of ukraine policies who indicated it was unrealistic and unlikely that anyone who had
anything to do with ukraine would not know that burisma investigations related to the bidens. They said that in july and in august ultimately they did not give the statement in large part because they had reservations given president zelensky was anticorruption reformer, they had reservations about engaging in u. S. Domestic politics. You said he had no quid pro quo and he had no reason. He had no reason to be any less than candid. Thats what you said. No reason to be less than
candid. What happened though on Septemberap 5th . Let me show you a slide 52. Days before he made that statement, the Washington Post printed an article, trump tries to charge ukraine to meddle into the 2020 elections. Let me show20 you if President Trump is aware of that article before he volunteered no quid pro quo as a defense. Let me show you a tweet on slide 53. This is putting on a tweet essentially saying the democrats based on following up the article they are pursuing impeachment again, showing awareness that this is now reported on so mr. Goldman, is
it fair to say when mr. Castor said that President Trump had no reason to be less than candid of saying no quid pro quo. President trump had every reason to try to put out that message that the that point as ambassador sondland said even if you credit ambassador sondlands testimony which is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes he said no quid pro quo Out Of The Blue without any questioning of any quid pro quo. Gentlemans time is expired. Chair and i recognized the ranking members. Pursuant the house, resolution 660. His council has 45 minutes to question the witnesses. This is becoming very evident
why this hearing is hear and the craziness of this hearing especially not having mr. Schiff here. Please put back the next slide. We cut it off. I think the most amazing statement to come out there. Democrats are concerned of impeachment. There is nothing the democrats are not concerned about for 2. 5 years since november of 2016. The president is saying nothing new in that tweet is now k baaing t up. Hes known they have been after impeachment, thats why mr. Goldman and mr. Burkey is here thats why we are going through this charade and answering questions. Where is adam . Where is adam . His report . His name . You are not adam schiff and you dont wear a pin. Thats true. We got a problem here. The problem is developing you said you are an attorney, you are a good prosecutor, i believe it, you are a good attorney. Do you understand what quid pro quo is, correct . Yes. You understand whats asking for something in exchange for something . You do. You know about that conversation, correct . You want me to read it to you . Are you talking about 2015 . No, i am talking about the one from the national i will read it to you. Ast i remember going over t ukraine convincing our team, our leaders convincing them we should provide for long guarantees, i suppose to announce there is A Billion Dollars long guarantee, i got a commitment from proshenko. I said i am not going to. We are not goeing to give you A Billion Dollars. You have no authority. You are not the president. The president said, i said calling. Laff laff laughter. You are not getting the billion dollars. I am getting ready to be leaving here and i think about six hours and i look at them and said, i am leaving here for six hours. You are not getting the money. Well, sone of a he got fired. Did he asked for something or hold something of value . George cant testify . George cant testify. I am not asking about what george can. It is important concept. It is not. Answer thisis question. Did he or did he not. Either joe biden is a liar telling a story to make people impressed or he didak this. Which is it . He did it pursuant to of u. S. Policy. He did it withholding actual
dollar and actual thing. Vai den is the only one thats done a quid pro quo. We are sitting here pretending this is not happening. We are sitting here pretending that the president of the United States would not be concerned . Joe biden is a terrible candidate, he can destroy himself but he cant get by this. It does not matter who brings it up. It does not matter who does it. This is what happens. You can wash it all you want and go all you want. Hes either a liar or he did it. I want to continue on. The question is, a question that you had earlier. How many tim would you be amaze of 600 times or better . I have no idea. Youav did. So for 600 times. Would you understand if you do it simple check that over 158 times, mr. Sondland not knowing something to the best of my knowledge. Are you talking about the report . T the deposition and the closed door testimonies. Overtime he remembered a lot refreshed by s others. The question we are having here. Is mr. Sondland also said and he presumes what actually happens. Lets go back to something else. According to your report, other investigations of the other two committees, are we okay with that . Tecertainly. Issued dozens of subpoenas, is that right . Certainly over a dozen. Some subpoenas were not
reported . Corre answer the question or elaborate, one or the other. Sir, i am trying to answer the question. Did you or didnt you . Did it come out or not . I will read it again. Some of the subpoenas were not publicly reported until the Majority Report . Yes, they were given to the minority and notve public. Ty putting aside the witnesse who have been publicly identified, did you issue any other testimonies other than the one thats publicly identified . I am not sure. I dont think so. How many subpoenas were issued for records . Well, we issued a number of subpoenas for records, we did issue six subpoenas to executive Branch Agencies and they all defy our subpoenas. Moving onto another issue here, the Wall Street Journal reported, forcing subpoenas to
at t for call record, is that correct . Are we wondering . Yes, we are. There are multiple numbers. We only issue subpoenas for call record for peopleoe involved in Theed Investigation and who had subpoenaed by Thewh Committee F testimonies of their own. Absolutely would feel. Answer my question. Well, i am trying to answer your question. Was it at least fourth . Yes. Thank you. Could have saved a lot of time there. Can you check your record . Weou just found out about this over the unweekend. We got a massive documents dumped over the weekend. For all of you writing report about it, all that massive documents dumped this is
important, we just found out about this. How many subpoenas were issued to at t . I dont know. If you would like to me to find out was it targeted a single Telephone Number . Call records, multiple numbers. How many . I dont know. This is very porntimportant. None of Members Of Congress and none of staff of congress. We did it to the subjects that were involved in the investigation which washe routi and standard investigation practices. You are not going to hear anything about a subpoena and legality. An my problem is this, who on the committee asked those numbers you did in the forced subpoena and get those numbers back. Whomb was it to get it cross checked for Members Of Congress, who ordered that . I dont think thats how we did it,nk sir. Youd came out with a report thatou shows these people such
chairman nunes were on these calls. Yes. We are not going to play cute here. Somebody took the four records that you asked for, took those numbers and said hey, lets play match game. Who ordered the match game for members of the congress and the press . Was it you . I dont think anyone did, sir. Come on, thats ridiculous i have ever heard. You dont suddenly pick up numbers and you have to match up those numbers to show where they are and you dont come up with them. Who ordered them to match Members Of Congress and the press . S what you described is how it happens. Who ordered to find out if nuness number was on that call. You pick an event of ig skans significance of those numbers and you look for pattern and you start to build a substantial case. Thats ald wonderful
explanation but not an answer. You are looking for the four numbers to see how they are connected. I understand the subpoena that you issued. Wasat it you or Chairman Schiff that said while we are doing this, lets see if it matches chairman nunes number. Somebody along the way all of a sudden had an epiphany unless you are throwing staffer under the busro that these numbers ma match. Who did it . Was it Chairman Schiff or you . Be careful, you are under oath. I know i am under oath. Then answer the question. I will give you the answer if you give me while you are thinking about how you are going to answer the question, who decided to leak the information, why did you include it in the report . After not saying anything else about this. Two questions are hanging out that everybody is looking for answer including me. Who ordered it, was it you or
was it Chairman Schiff and why wasma it decided except for nothing but smearing purposes . I am not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you. I will tell you the reason it was included in thego report because the calls were surrounding of important evidence to our vitaminvestigat. Your question is not better directed at me but at the people who are having conversations involved we are not playing that game. You are notin answering the question. Everybody here when youer start goingy into the core of this house and start looking at members Telephone Numbers which they ought to be scared about. You took subpoenas for four and you decided to play match game, you found numbers that you thought well, some of them do not exist bus they were claimed for the white house but they were r not. We are throwing stories out there because nobody was out there. Are you going to go on record
and say you would not tell who ordered it. I am going to go on record that i am not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation. Thats the t problem we have th entire thing. Mr. Schiff sat behind closed door. I am done with you for right now. You are not answering the question and not being honest. O. Subpoenas yielded information about Members Of Congress. Whether theyre subpoenaed the
members phone records or not its a concern and thens the information is publicized. Second with journalists, its a tricky area to start investigating journalist call records. The third is with regard to mr. Giuliani serving as the president s personal a attorney. Six subpoenas as we understand it. The first went to at t for the giuliani numbers. The second was in regard to igor fruman to a company csc holdings, the third related to mr. Sondland, off to verizon. The fourth was back to at t. Seeking information on a certain number. The fifth was back to at t and the sixth was seeking Subscriber Information which impacted the
veteran journalist john solomon and also involved with these are some of the attorneys. Mr. Castor youve been an investigator of the hillve and this is crazy, ive never seen anything like this, you havent either, would it be interesting towo note because mr. Goldman chooses not to answer because he dont want to incriminate himself or the chairman or somebody else, would it be interesting to e,find, as you he dealt with committee staff, somebody to just have an epiphany or were they under direction by somebody to do that. Its obvious they were trying tos figure something out. Wait. Ur i have one thingme for mr. Goldman, mr. Goldman, were used to committeeol and people and witnesses taking gratuitous shots at people they dont like. Earlier today in your testimony, you made a comment that really goes to an interesting thing and i will go back to the chairman questioning motive, in your
testimony you said as discussing mr. Sondland you made a snide comment that he was a Million Dollar donor to the president. The implication being he got his job because he bought it or he was loyal to the president and would say anything. Be very careful about how you throw around dollars and giving because you and mr. Berke are really heavy donors to the Democratic Party and im not going to say it questions your motives or position today, but we need to make sure this thing is already blowing out of proportion, were not answering questions and you are here without a pin because your chairman will notpi testify tha says all we need to hear. He dont even stand behind his own report and sendsst you. Im done at this point could i respond. Are you trying to say that i what are you trying to say . What is the implication . By the way, i didnt give anything close to a Million Dollars remotely. Implication is we want schiff in thatti chair. The person that t wrote the rept is the person that should
present it. You Arent Elected by anybody and youre here giving testimony in place of the chairman. I hope that clears up the implication. The gentlemanrs has been ward beforeee and cannot simply yell out and disrupt the committee. Mr. Collinst has the time. I think you understand what you did. And i called it out for just the way you did. You thought you were going to get by and you didnt. Thats all im saying. I would like to just say one other thing yeah. I am done. Point of order no question for the gentleman. Stop. Youre Casting Aspersions on me personally. As you did mr. Goldman on mr. Sondland. To the chairmans own ruling a few minutes ago, im done asking questions and not asking you to elaborate because im not asking more questions. You wons answer Theng Question Who Toldr The Committee To Che the numbers, wont say if its you or mr. Schiff so were done andif going to miss calllan. As mr. Berke said you will have
plenty of time with counsel. Does the Gentleman Yield his time to Missnt Callen . Yes. The gentlelady is recognized. If i may. Certainly. I have a number of things i think i neednu to clear up. If i may. Yes, certainly. You have to bear with me because i have a number of them here. First of all on the call, tim morrison, general kellogg have a different view of the call than Lieutenant Colonel vindman and jennifer williams. Going to the point that the call is ambiguous, so thats the first thing. Timrs morrison testified that h went to the National Security counsel lawyers foron a very different reason. He did not say he went to the nsc lawyers because he was concerned about thens call. He went to the National Security lawyers for two reasons. Number one, they werent on the
call. We wanted to update them about it. Number two, he was concerned about leaks. And he was concerned that if his call leaked out, how it would play in washingtons polarized environment, which is exactly what we have here. He was also concerned if the call leaked, that it might affect bipartisan support in congress. You know, issues of ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where republicans and democrats share interest. The third reason he didnt want the ukrainians to get a distorted perception of what appened on the call because on thepp call, were talking about eight lines of concern, and a lot of ambiguity. This Oval Office Meeting on may 23rd, theres this question, i guess its ambiguous, i didnt think it was, but a question about whether when the president Referred Thehe the delegatio goes to the inauguration may 20th, its sondland, its volker and its Secretary Perry and its senator johnson. Theyre briefing the president having noneident is ofpr it and says ukraine is corrupt and he doesnt want to invite zelensky to the white house. S volker testifies to this definitively. The president essentially doesnt order anybody to do anything. The president says talk to rudy. Volker testified at his deposition and at the public hearing that he didnt take it as a direction. Look, if you guys think this is important and want to work it, go talk to rudy. Uy
different than a direction or the president ordering a scheme. And different than the president collecting up a bunch of agents to do something. According to ambassador volker he said go talk to rudy. Now, whether the ukrainians knew of the aid 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 they had received, there was an article November 22nd In Bloomberg and the Zelensky Administration said they never knew about the hold in the aid until august 28th Politico28 article and they sai in the article and yermak is the
principle person, says that they believe the embassy was keeping information from them. Another interesting thingn mr. Yermak says in that November 22nd bloomberg article is that he recounts the whole aside meeting with sondland, with which hasg become very significant apparently and the meeting he says, he doesnt recall it the way ambassador sondland recalled it. Keep innd mind, mr. Yermak spea english. Pe but its not his first language. And so he does not recall the pull aside meeting which happened on the way to an escalator after the meeting with the Vice President. He recalls it very differently. So the question and the facts of what happened between ambassador sondland and mr. Yermak on the way to the escalator, remain in
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.