remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation involving ukraine? absolutely. this all goes to the heart of bias. thank you for those answers. mr. chairman, i i go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. i would argue that the facts, in fact, are disputed.e and what you contend are facts are, in acfact, not. they are witnessct presumptions hearsay, and speculation. and the facts here are, in fact, that this is the shortest impeachment in u.s. history based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds. mr. chairman, this impeachment process is a farce and a stain on the committee and on the house of representatives. and i yield back.om gentleman yields back. ms. garcia. s thank you, mr. chairman. as we just heard, the president andea his supporters have claim that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay. and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the president s conduct.
nobody on the planet, nobody on the planet, told him that that was the case. mr. castor, i want to move on to foreign policy. and the idea that somehow the president was abusing foreign policy. repeatedly, witnesses came before thely intelligence committee and talked about how the presidentow was operating outside the bounds of the process for usingds norms. the presidentus sets foreign policy, correct? absolutely. andco from where does he dere that power? the constitution. article two, section two, in fact. yeah. can you give us examples of these members of the foreign policy establishment who took issue with the president s foreignth policy direction and choices? well, for example, lieutenant colonel vindman testified that when he was listening to the call, he had prepared talking points and a call package. he was visibly just completely deflated when he realized that
community that actually helps our adversary, a country that is attacking our elections in realtime? with that, i yield. the gentleman yields back. mr. stubing? mr. chairman, brief parliamentary inquiry about the schedule. mr. stubing has already been recognized. heco has the time. sir, are you going to recognize himto after for his parliamenta parliamentary inquiry? i ll make a statement about the schedule. i ve never seen a more partisan spectacle than what iowa witnessed here today. democrats want the rule to apply when it fits them. nine hours mr. burk, a hired gun for the democrats got 30 minutes to spreadgo his partisan rhetor, and then 45 minutes to cross-examine witnesses. that s 70 minutes more than most of the members of this committee who have been elected by their districts to serve the united
u.s. validation and support. is that right? yes. now, according to the u.s. ambassadorhe to the ukraine, an we have ambassador taylor s testimony up there. it wasn t until after ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that there would be a, quote, stalemate, end quote, on the aid that zelensky agreed to announce the investigations that president trump was demanding. correct? that s right. yes. okay. and furthermore, the committee heard testimony that the ukrainians felt they had, quote, no choice but to but to comply with president trump s demands. correct? that s right. yes. even after the aid was released. okay. in fact, when asked in front of president trump in september whether he felt pressured, president zelensky said, quote, i m sorry, but i don t want to beso involved to democratic ope elections, elections of the usa. end quote. is that right? that that sounds right, if
least two things that were precisely false. that were not true in that text message. including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that there absolutely assuredly was as it related to the white houseas meeting. and this september 7th call and the september 9th text occurred after the press reports. that is, after the press reports. that president trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rival, is that correct? yes. and it also, this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed president trump s message to president zelensky. mr. goldman, the investigative committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president s assertion that there was no quid pro quo? weno received a lot of evidence. and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. thank you. i yield. mr. chairman, i have a unanimous consent request.