rule of law and how to impeach an american president and this is not how we re supposed to run a country. it can t be. 17 out of 24 of our colleagues over there already voted to proceed with impeachment before we started all of this. they ve already made up their minds. they were prejudice before we walked in but the american people are are not. fairness still matters. truth matters and the people can see clearly that this is a smam. ip yield back. the gentleman yields back. mr. swalwell. mr. goldman, would you welcome the problem of having 8,000 documents given to you by the white house. it would be a wonderful problem to have. how many have they given you? zero. mr. castor, they said earlier, this got the aid. they got the aid. no harm no foul, they got the aid but you would agree although mr. sandy said that the presidential concern was european contributions, nothing changed from when that concern was expressed to when they actually got the aid, right? you agree on that
needed validation and support, is that right. yes. according to the u.s. ambassador to ukraine and we have ambassador taylor s testimony up there. it wasn t until after ambassador sondland told them there would be a quote, stalemate, end quote until he agreed to announce the investigations that trump was demanding, correct. that is right, yes. and furthermore the committee heard testimony that the ukrainians felt they had, quote, no choice 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 be involved to democratic open elections, elections of the usa, end quote. is that right? that sounds right if you re reading the quote, yes. okay. now the president and some of
sinking feeling. sinking feeling, correct. and then he went and talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador bolton. correct. and mr. goldman, ambassador taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on zelensky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogical, crazy and wrong, is that right? that is what ambassador taylor testified to, yes. and now my colleagues pointed out on september 9th, text message from sondland reflecting that the president has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo. mr. goldman, am i correct that ambassador sondland has now testified that prior to sending his text he himself came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations. yes. ambassador sondland subsequent public testimony revealed at least two things that were precisely false, that were not
evidence stand point. about tieing aid to investigations. that is correct, too. how about political motives in asking for investigations? the facts surrounding that are ambiguous. in the nonlegalistic world when we talk about speculation we use words like gossip, rumor, innuendo, isn t that right. yep. and the only direct evidence we have that ukraine gave the aid without giving anything in return and president zelensky has stated no pressure, no problem with the phone call in relation with mr. trump and that the president had a legitimate concern about ukraine corruption. he did. and the burden sharing of european allies. so much has been made about the alleged desire for fln announ announcement of an investigation but again there is no direct evidence that supports the allegation that president trump wanted merely the announcement of an investigation? like i said there is eight lines in the call transcript that go to what president trump said about the investigati
that s number one. number two, there was no pressure. both zelensky and trump have said that repeatedly. president zelensky said that the united nations on september 25th and in subsequent news articles on october 6th and october 10th and december 1st. and number three the ukrainians and zelensky didn t know about the pause of aid at the very least at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced, the aid was released and the white house afforded a meeting and then president trump met with zelensky in new york. do you find it amazing that the majorities, one of the key prongs of the whole thing is that their making the elected leader of the ukraine out to be a liar. um if he said there is no pressure, he s done it on many occasions, undoubtedly they believe him not to be truthful. doesn t that strike you as a little change especially under the circumstance. it is unfortunate.