because i sure would. mr. castor, the rest of the questions are for you. and i would like yes or no answers if possible. mr. castor, my first question is important. did any of the democrats fact witnesses present bribery, extortion or a high crime or a misdemeanor? good heavens, no. mr. castor, the deputy assistant to the president of the national security mr. morrison listened in on the phone call. he testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper. is that correct? he was worried about leaks. several democrat witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons. including concerns that the country is corrupt and taxpayer dollars may be misspent.
and sondland told the world that basically nobody else on the planet told him that donald trump was trying to tie aid to investigations. in fact he also said everything that he had been testifying to is simply his presumption, is that right? that is correct. so when we consider what a presumption is, it is not direct, it is not circumstantial, it is not even hearsay. in fact, we typically when trying a case we consider it speculation, is that right. right. do court as lou speculation in? no. why not. because it is not reliable. it is unreliable. can you name any witness that had direct evidence of the 17 that we heard from? well we have some direct evidence on certain things and direct evidence on the may 23rd meeting. and sondland gave some direct evidence. but a lot of what we ve obtained has been circumstantial. how about with regard to personal knowledge of the quid pro quo allegations? well we have not gotten to the bottom of that from direct
these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about those those investigations, correct? yes. and if i could just jump here, on july 25th call because the four facts that we keep hearing about are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also want to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, spesly washington and he said on the other hand i want to ensure that we ll be very serious about the case and we ll work on the investigation. that is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call. so that s wrong. it is also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call. even though that doesn t even matter. but then finally there was no white house meeting ever provided.
still hadn t gotten a meeting at the white house and still needed aid from the united states, correct? that s right. and david holmes testified very persuasively about the importance of the white house meeting and of the relationship to ukraine even after the aid was lifted. including pointing to today when president putin and president zelensky met to discuss the war in the east. so the evidence is clear that president trump knew he had the power to force ukraine s hand and took advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our taxpayer dollars basically to get what he wanted, right? yes. and what is really important here and i think it has to be clarified is that the president the evidence showed that the president directly said to ambassador sondland that there was a quid pro quo with the security assistance. and there has been some debate and some discussion about that. but that one thing that the evidence shows based on the
anything? the answer, no. the aid to be refused? no. a white house meeting? no. ambassador sondland also testified president trump wanted nothing from ukraine. tim morrison, when questioned, there was no quid pro quo? correct. the aid was released. four facts never changed. president trump and zelensky says no pressure and no conditionality between aid and investigation, no quid pro quo. ukrainians were not aware aid was withheld when the president spoke and ukraine didn t open an investigation but still received from president trump. mr. castro, has anyone heard from the whistleblower reit in closed door heart attacks or public hearings? no. did chairman schiff state he would call the whistleblower to testify? no. has that happened? no. is he going to? i hope so. has aid to other countries also been held up? yes. on october 2nd, the new york