for then democrats is a witnes and that s why he didn t have to comport with thee rules of decorum. i ve been a judge and i know you don t get to be a witness and a judge in the same case. that s my point of order. it s not a point of order. pursuant to house rules there will be 45 minutes conducted by the b chairman or or majority counsel followed by 45 minutes by the minority counsel. only theor chair may question witnesses during this period. following that unless i specify we will proceed under the 5-minute rule. i now recognize myself for the first round of questions. the republican s expert witness last week professor turley wrote
in an article that, quote, there is no question that the use of public office for personal gain is an impeachable offense including the withholding for military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political opponent. you just have to prove it happened. that was mr. turley s comment. did t the investigative committs prove that the i was proved that the presidenthe used his public office for personal gain? or yes, mr. chairman. finding of fact five said president trump used the power of the offensep of the preside to ap may increasing pressure on the part of ukraine and the ukrainian government to announce then politically motivated investigations desired by president intrump. did the evidence also prove that president trump withheld military aid in exchange for an announce of an investigation of his political opponent. yes, it did. president trump acting through hisde agents and subordinates conditioned release
evidence that president trump held a meeting or security assistance in order to pressure president zelensky to investigate former vice president biden. witnessed who testified in the inquiry have denied having awareness of criminal activity or even an impeachable offense. on the key question of the president s state of mind, there is no clear evidence that president trump acted with malicious intent. overall, at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled i with hearsay, presumptions and speculation. there are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. facts that could be interpreted in different ways. to paraphrase professor turley from last week the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof.
that s not mero saying that. that is professor turley. let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. this is president trump s phone call with zelensky for which the national security council and the white house situation room staff prepared a call summary. according to testimony from tim morrison at the nsc the summary was accurate and complete. lieutenant colonel alexander vindman testified that any omissions were not significant and any editing was not done maliciously. president trump has declassified and released the call summary so the american people can assess it and review it for themselves. i llve make a few points that sm to have gone under noticed. the call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or