conclusions in how the fbi case was opened. facts are out and you ve got the attorney general doesn t accept them, the president doesn t accept them? and it would appear his hand-picked prosecutor looking at some of the same things doesn t accept them or agree with them either. i can t make any sense of it. first ofan all what is he doing talking about his work? he s supposed to be a professional. if you must investigate, go get facts and then show them g to t american people. but don t be part of a sliming of the i.g. and the department as a whole. do yourrt work. what the workidea is that he s doing. we ll have to be quiet again, wait for the work to be finished. what i worry about for mr. rydurham is when somebody needs to investigate him when he doesn t support the president s conspiracy ortheories. possible? think that s of course. given the way these people act. he is a pro by reputation. he will gather facts. but if he doesn t find the facts that these characters want, there
one thing is clear. as it related to this scheme, the president of the united states donald j. trump knew everything and i yield back. mr. castor, what s direct evidence? when i witness personally observes a fact and testifies to it. and what s hearsay evidence? out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is something that you learn in lawth school. hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under exceptions. andio i believe when every witns testified including mr. sondland, right? uh-huh. and that sgh a yes? yes. and much of the democrats report in impeachment narrative is based t on the sondland testimony. is that a fair characterization? a lot of it is, yes. how many times did mr. sondland mentioned in the report? like ied said, i did a searc
mr. castor, do you remember anywhere in this 299-page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistle-blower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing and then did so again verbally? i don t remember that. after the inspector general testified on. and did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistle-blower contacted the inspector general to explain why he or she made statementshe under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct, and accurate? mr. acastor, is that communication from the whistle-blower to the inspector general to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in theco 299-page report? no. on october 2nd, chairman
what your politics. it matters to the american people and it s made up of good people trying to protect the country.ry we ve got to become unnumb and realize we ve been lied to for two and a half years. so the report came out. all of those things that donald trump has said have been debunked bye the inspector general. and this was the statement that came out from u.s. attorney john durham isu. looking at some of e same things. he said i have the utmost respect forha the mission of th office of the inspector general and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by mr. horowitz. however, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component partsin of the justic department. our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities in the u.s. and out. based on the evidence collected to date and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree withne some of the rep
schiff s spokesman acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistle-blower s accusations against the s president had bee disclosed to the house intelligence staff and shared with chairman schiff. mr. castor, is that disclosure and mr. bowlen s admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report? i don t remember seeing it. it s not. i think all members of congress should be held accountable during this impeachment process. and to that end, if i have made any falseve statements about th whistle-blower or the inspector general s testimony today, then i should be held accountable. the way to do that would be to release thee inspector general testimonyec or even just pages to 73. i would add that there is nothing in those pages that would t in any way identify or place at risk the whistle-blower s identity. nor would it reveal any information that in any way