Transcripts For CSPAN Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hea

Talking about burden sharing and wanting the europeans to do more. But senator johnson was and President Trump they were pretty candid and they believe that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Now, theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid about feeling pressure from President Trump. And isnt i want true that he stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump . Is that true . Yeah. He said it consistently. He said it at the United Nations september 25th. He said it, you know, in three more news availability, including last week. I want to change subjects and talk about something that professor turley raised last week and that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And youre an experienced congressional investigator. Professor turley, hes no trump supporter. Thats right. He is a democrat. Thats right. And, but professor turley cautioned the that a par the at the san inquiry is not what the founders envisioned, is that correct . Correct. And worse thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rancor because nobody will accept the result on the other side. And our Democrat Friends have become originalalists and citing the founders and their intent repeatedly in this impeachment process. I think it goes to whether this constitutes bribery. You know, theres case law on bribery. Im no Supreme Court scholar or lawyer or advocate, but, you know, theres new case law with the mcdonald case what constitutes an official act and that hasnt been, you know, addressed in this space and i think professor turley mentioned it. Right. I think professor turley said that a meeting certainly does not constitute an official act. Its the mcdonald nald case. And professor turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquiry is unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in Lieutenant Colonel vindmans deposition. There were some, you know we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Very basic things like who, what, when, where. And instead i would say too, this rapid you know were in day 76, and its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly, especially when the stakes are this high because any congressional investigation of any consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interests and how he they will respond to them. Right. We learned with the gowdy probe the first letter went in october of 2017, and, you know, in december we finally got a witness, and it was the following spring, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tugofwar, we reached a deal with the doj where we went down to doj, and they gave us access to documents and gave us access, to i think, north of 800,000 pages. But they made us come down there, they made us go into a skiff, and these documents werent classified, and, you know, it wasnt until may and june of that year that we started this process when the investigation had been ongoing and that is disappointing, obviously, we all wish there was an easy button. But congressional investigations of consequence take time. Right. And it took, i think six months before the first document was even produced and like you said, you had to go down there and review it in camera and then going back further to fast and furious, the investigation of the death of a Border Patrol agent. We issued subpoenas. Subpoenas were sent in february of 2011, and we had hearing in june with experts about proceedings with contempt. What does it take to go to contempt. That was the first time in june when we ever got production. Production was largely publicly available information. We went, we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the Justice Department. At the time we were also working with whistleblowers who were providing us documents, and chairman issa at the time then in october issued another subpoena that was to the Justice Department and so did the investigation had been ongoing most of the year . We were talking to whistleblowers, doing interviews and doing our best to get documents out Justice Department through that channel, but these things take time. Right. Certainly not 76 days. If you truly want to uncover every fact, as you should in an impeachment, do you agree, you have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas and here my understanding is we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information, you know, will you please provide us with documents on x, y and z and i think thats great. But you have to back it up with something, isnt that correct . Theres a number of ways to enforce your request. The fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is you really get what youre asking for unless and until the alternative is less palatable for the respondent. So, you know, you issue a subpoena, you try to get documents. One the technique you can use is talk to a document custodian or in the function of what documents exist. Chairman chavitz, during his era, officials are supposed to be directly responsible serving the interest. You can saber rattle about holding somebody in contempt. Oftentimes witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward, when you attach a contempt proceeding or a prospective contempt proceeding to their name a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a contempt proceeding you got a couple of different steps along the way. You can raise the prospect of a contempt proceeding, schedule a contempt proceeding. After you schedule a contempt proceeding you can hold the door open for documents or interviews or push it off. Can you go through at the committee level. And these are all sort of Milestone Events which historically are unpalatable or less palatable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle, and with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, you know, like with the gowdy probe, there was mccabe in and a couple of months. Once we got director mccabe in, a couple of weeks later we got director comeys chief of staff, couple of weeks later once you get the ball rolling, again you dont always like 100 of the terms. Sometimes you have to deal with Agency Counsel or go look in camera. Once you get the ball rolling usually it leads to positive results and historically has allowed the congress to do its work. Were any of those things here . No. In fact, they decided were not going to subpoena certain people that are important, is that fair the to say . And were not going to go court and enforce them so these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle and thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One of the concerning things is dr. Kupperman who has been described by dr. Fiona hill and a number of witnesses as a solid witness, a good witness, he filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena and a judge was assigned and the issues that kupperman raised were different than don mcgahn. Don mcgahn was the white House Counsel. Kupperman is a National Security official. Kupperman, you know, filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Kupperman wasnt asking the court to tell him not come testify, to the contrary kupperman was seeking the courts guidance to facilitate his cooperation and ultimately the committee withdrew the subpoena. Which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead the committee has chosen, the Intelligence Committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. I think they relied 600 times in their report. On this point yesterday i opened the democrat report. And i did a control f. Sondlands name shows up 611 times. In fairness, its going to be double counted because, you know, if its in a sentence and then a footnote thats two but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondland is relied on big time. Yes. And i think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and the record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and in sondlands deposition, he didnt share the same view. Theres a lot of instances of that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another, is that correct . Sondland is a witness, hes a bit of an enigma, lets just say it that way. He was you know he was pretty certain in his deposition that the security wasnt linked to anything. Then he submitted a he submitted an addendum. I call that the pretzel sentence. Yes. Even in that addendum or supplement or whatever its called, you know, its up to him and her and, anyway, sondland ends with, i presumed. So it wasnt really any firsthand information. Right. We dont have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct . On certain facts we dont. I mean we have first hand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. We have a lot of firsthand term although conflict on the july 10th meeting. There are episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account. But, the investigation hasnt been able to reveal, you know, firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. I think weve already talked about this, ambassador sondland would presume things. Assume things. And form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . You know, it started with his role with the ukraine portfolio. A lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged in issues related to the ukraine. You know, there are answers for that. Ukraine is an asp praspira nt t temp u. He said the president has given me a lot of assignments. The president assigned me ukraine. In his deposition he conceded he was, in fact, spinning. That the president never assigned him to ukraine, that he was just you know, he was exaggerating. I think at the public hearing, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isnt a note taker. He, in fact, he said i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Lets say think it way. Ambassador taylor walked us through his, his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He talked to us about having a notebook on his desk and a notebook in the pocket of his suit. So when ambassador taylor recounts to us, you know, what happened, its backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland on the firsthand he said he didnt have access to state department records. He said that at the Public Record simultaneously the state department issued a tweet, i think, or a statement at least saying that wasnt true. Nobody is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails. You know, hes still a state department employee. He can go he does have access to his records. But he stated he didnt. He stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes. He conceded that he doesnt have recollections on a lot of these issues. You know we sort of made a list of them. I think at the hearing i called it the trifecta of unreliability. And youre not the only person that has concerns about ambassador sondlands testimony, conduct, i think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct . Yeah. Tim morrison talked about instance where ambassador sondland was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why sondland was trying to get into the warsaw meetings september 1st. And dr. Hill, fiona hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, youre correct. And ambassador weeker said he was a problem. A problem. Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said that he might be an intelligence risk, is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his mobile device and make telephone calls. Which, obviously, can be monitored. Yes. By the bad guys. And we talked about how he was spinning certain things. And he admitted that. How he was spinning. He admitted he exaggerated. Yes. Also, you know, when it comes to his communications with the president , we try to get him to list all the communications with the president. I think he gave us six. And then he walked us through each communication with the president. It was about a christmas party. When the president of finland was here. Then congresswoman spear asked him the same question in the open hearing and he said that he had talked to the president 20 times. So, the record i think my time super. Thank you both. Yield back. Mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman. Under the five minute rule. Mr. Chairman, i move to recess 30 minutes pursuant to rule. Gentleman has im sorry. The gentleman moved to recess for how long . For 30 minutes. 30 minutes. As a privilege motion. It was not debatable. All in favor say aye. No, no . No. No, sir have it. Motion is not agreed to. Roll call vote requested. [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] mr. Cohen youre not recorded. I would like to be recorded as no. Any other members who have wished to vote who have not voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 15 ayes and 24 nos. The motion is not agreed. Now well engaging questions under the five minute rule. Ill start with myself. Mr. Goldman can you please explain the difference between Vice President bidens request to ukraine a few years ago and President Trumps request to ukraine earlier this year . Yes. When Vice President biden pressured the ukrainian president to remove the corrupt prosecutor general he was doing so with an International Consensus as part of u. S. Policy, the entire European Union supported that, the imf support that, the imf that gave the loans he was referring to. And so he did that as part of the entire international communitys consensus. And when President Trump is asking for this investigation of joe biden, all of the witnesses, every single one testified that that had nothing to do with official u. S. Policy. And Vice President bidens request had no personal, political benefit whereas President Trumps request did . Yes, in fact, if the witnesses testified if that corrupt prosecutor general were actually removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said that by removing that prosecutor general and adding a new one that there was an increased chance that corruption in ukraine would be prosecuted including as it related to the Burisma Company which his son was on the board of. Mr. Gold mapp, can you please explain exactly what happened with the phone records obtained by the Intelligence Committee. Thank you. I would like to set the record straight on that. This is a very basic and usual investigative practice where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a scheme, investigators routinely seek their records and just to be very clear, this is meta data. Its only call, to call from and length. Not the content of the calls. Or the text messages. Theres no content, no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or Attorney Client that none of that exists and no risk to that. What we did is for several of the people we had investigated and subpoenaed and who were alleged to be part of the scheme, we got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out maybe theres Additional Communications that we were unaware of. What we then did is took the call records and matched it up with important events that occurred during the scheme and start to see if there are patterns because call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evidence. In this case it just so happened people who were involved in the President Trump scheme were communicating with the president s lawyer who was also involved in the scheme, a journalist, staff member of congress and another member of congress. We, of course, did not at all seek in any way shape, or form to do any investigation on anyone, a member of congress or a staff member of congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president s scheme. And everything you did was basically Standard Operating Procedure. Every investigation we did we got call records. Did white House Counsel make his view clear of evidence and witnesses requested . We never heard from the white House Counsel other than the letter which basically just said we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in any way, shape or form. They never reached out to engaging this accommodation process. It was a complete stonewall. Not only would the white house not participate or cooperate and not respond to the duly authorized subpoenas of congress but the white house says were also going direct every other executive Branch Agency to defy this. I have a series of questions and keep your answers brief. During last weeks hearing my republican colleague said congress has not built a sufficient record to impeach the president. As a former prosecutor you spent years building substantial case records. Whats the strength of this record here . Weve moved fast and the evidence is really overwhelming. We have 17 witnesses with overlapping overwhelming. The committee managed to collect such evidence even by obstruction by the president. Yes. Was the obstruction so evasive as it was planned to have coverup president conduct. We saw there was an effort to conceal the president s conduct. President trump directed his administration not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. White President Trump<\/a> they were pretty candid and they believe that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Now, theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid about feeling pressure from President Trump<\/a>. And isnt i want true that he stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump<\/a> . Is that true . Yeah. He said it consistently. He said it at the United Nations<\/a> september 25th. He said it, you know, in three more news availability, including last week. I want to change subjects and talk about something that professor turley raised last week and that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And youre an experienced congressional investigator. Professor turley, hes no trump supporter. Thats right. He is a democrat. Thats right. And, but professor turley cautioned the that a par the at the san inquiry is not what the founders envisioned, is that correct . Correct. And worse thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rancor because nobody will accept the result on the other side. And our Democrat Friends<\/a> have become originalalists and citing the founders and their intent repeatedly in this impeachment process. I think it goes to whether this constitutes bribery. You know, theres case law on bribery. Im no Supreme Court<\/a> scholar or lawyer or advocate, but, you know, theres new case law with the mcdonald case what constitutes an official act and that hasnt been, you know, addressed in this space and i think professor turley mentioned it. Right. I think professor turley said that a meeting certainly does not constitute an official act. Its the mcdonald nald case. And professor turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquiry is unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in Lieutenant Colonel<\/a> vindmans deposition. There were some, you know we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Very basic things like who, what, when, where. And instead i would say too, this rapid you know were in day 76, and its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly, especially when the stakes are this high because any congressional investigation of any consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interests and how he they will respond to them. Right. We learned with the gowdy probe the first letter went in october of 2017, and, you know, in december we finally got a witness, and it was the following spring, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tugofwar, we reached a deal with the doj where we went down to doj, and they gave us access to documents and gave us access, to i think, north of 800,000 pages. But they made us come down there, they made us go into a skiff, and these documents werent classified, and, you know, it wasnt until may and june of that year that we started this process when the investigation had been ongoing and that is disappointing, obviously, we all wish there was an easy button. But congressional investigations of consequence take time. Right. And it took, i think six months before the first document was even produced and like you said, you had to go down there and review it in camera and then going back further to fast and furious, the investigation of the death of a Border Patrol<\/a> agent. We issued subpoenas. Subpoenas were sent in february of 2011, and we had hearing in june with experts about proceedings with contempt. What does it take to go to contempt. That was the first time in june when we ever got production. Production was largely publicly available information. We went, we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the Justice Department<\/a>. At the time we were also working with whistleblowers who were providing us documents, and chairman issa at the time then in october issued another subpoena that was to the Justice Department<\/a> and so did the investigation had been ongoing most of the year . We were talking to whistleblowers, doing interviews and doing our best to get documents out Justice Department<\/a> through that channel, but these things take time. Right. Certainly not 76 days. If you truly want to uncover every fact, as you should in an impeachment, do you agree, you have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas and here my understanding is we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information, you know, will you please provide us with documents on x, y and z and i think thats great. But you have to back it up with something, isnt that correct . Theres a number of ways to enforce your request. The fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is you really get what youre asking for unless and until the alternative is less palatable for the respondent. So, you know, you issue a subpoena, you try to get documents. One the technique you can use is talk to a document custodian or in the function of what documents exist. Chairman chavitz, during his era, officials are supposed to be directly responsible serving the interest. You can saber rattle about holding somebody in contempt. Oftentimes witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward, when you attach a contempt proceeding or a prospective contempt proceeding to their name a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a contempt proceeding you got a couple of different steps along the way. You can raise the prospect of a contempt proceeding, schedule a contempt proceeding. After you schedule a contempt proceeding you can hold the door open for documents or interviews or push it off. Can you go through at the committee level. And these are all sort of Milestone Events<\/a> which historically are unpalatable or less palatable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle, and with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, you know, like with the gowdy probe, there was mccabe in and a couple of months. Once we got director mccabe in, a couple of weeks later we got director comeys chief of staff, couple of weeks later once you get the ball rolling, again you dont always like 100 of the terms. Sometimes you have to deal with Agency Counsel<\/a> or go look in camera. Once you get the ball rolling usually it leads to positive results and historically has allowed the congress to do its work. Were any of those things here . No. In fact, they decided were not going to subpoena certain people that are important, is that fair the to say . And were not going to go court and enforce them so these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle and thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One of the concerning things is dr. Kupperman who has been described by dr. Fiona hill and a number of witnesses as a solid witness, a good witness, he filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena and a judge was assigned and the issues that kupperman raised were different than don mcgahn. Don mcgahn was the white House Counsel<\/a>. Kupperman is a National Security<\/a> official. Kupperman, you know, filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Kupperman wasnt asking the court to tell him not come testify, to the contrary kupperman was seeking the courts guidance to facilitate his cooperation and ultimately the committee withdrew the subpoena. Which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead the committee has chosen, the Intelligence Committee<\/a> has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. I think they relied 600 times in their report. On this point yesterday i opened the democrat report. And i did a control f. Sondlands name shows up 611 times. In fairness, its going to be double counted because, you know, if its in a sentence and then a footnote thats two but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondland is relied on big time. Yes. And i think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and the record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and in sondlands deposition, he didnt share the same view. Theres a lot of instances of that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another, is that correct . Sondland is a witness, hes a bit of an enigma, lets just say it that way. He was you know he was pretty certain in his deposition that the security wasnt linked to anything. Then he submitted a he submitted an addendum. I call that the pretzel sentence. Yes. Even in that addendum or supplement or whatever its called, you know, its up to him and her and, anyway, sondland ends with, i presumed. So it wasnt really any firsthand information. Right. We dont have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct . On certain facts we dont. I mean we have first hand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. We have a lot of firsthand term although conflict on the july 10th meeting. There are episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account. But, the investigation hasnt been able to reveal, you know, firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. I think weve already talked about this, ambassador sondland would presume things. Assume things. And form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . You know, it started with his role with the ukraine portfolio. A lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged in issues related to the ukraine. You know, there are answers for that. Ukraine is an asp praspira nt t temp u. He said the president has given me a lot of assignments. The president assigned me ukraine. In his deposition he conceded he was, in fact, spinning. That the president never assigned him to ukraine, that he was just you know, he was exaggerating. I think at the public hearing, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isnt a note taker. He, in fact, he said i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Lets say think it way. Ambassador taylor walked us through his, his Standard Operating Procedure<\/a> for taking notes. He talked to us about having a notebook on his desk and a notebook in the pocket of his suit. So when ambassador taylor recounts to us, you know, what happened, its backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland on the firsthand he said he didnt have access to state department records. He said that at the Public Record<\/a> simultaneously the state department issued a tweet, i think, or a statement at least saying that wasnt true. Nobody is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails. You know, hes still a state department employee. He can go he does have access to his records. But he stated he didnt. He stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes. He conceded that he doesnt have recollections on a lot of these issues. You know we sort of made a list of them. I think at the hearing i called it the trifecta of unreliability. And youre not the only person that has concerns about ambassador sondlands testimony, conduct, i think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct . Yeah. Tim morrison talked about instance where ambassador sondland was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why sondland was trying to get into the warsaw meetings september 1st. And dr. Hill, fiona hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, youre correct. And ambassador weeker said he was a problem. A problem. Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said that he might be an intelligence risk, is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his mobile device and make telephone calls. Which, obviously, can be monitored. Yes. By the bad guys. And we talked about how he was spinning certain things. And he admitted that. How he was spinning. He admitted he exaggerated. Yes. Also, you know, when it comes to his communications with the president , we try to get him to list all the communications with the president. I think he gave us six. And then he walked us through each communication with the president. It was about a christmas party. When the president of finland was here. Then congresswoman spear asked him the same question in the open hearing and he said that he had talked to the president 20 times. So, the record i think my time super. Thank you both. Yield back. Mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman. Under the five minute rule. Mr. Chairman, i move to recess 30 minutes pursuant to rule. Gentleman has im sorry. The gentleman moved to recess for how long . For 30 minutes. 30 minutes. As a privilege motion. It was not debatable. All in favor say aye. No, no . No. No, sir have it. Motion is not agreed to. Roll call vote requested. [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] [ clerk is taking a role call vote ] mr. Cohen youre not recorded. I would like to be recorded as no. Any other members who have wished to vote who have not voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 15 ayes and 24 nos. The motion is not agreed. Now well engaging questions under the five minute rule. Ill start with myself. Mr. Goldman can you please explain the difference between Vice President<\/a> bidens request to ukraine a few years ago and President Trump<\/a>s request to ukraine earlier this year . Yes. When Vice President<\/a> biden pressured the ukrainian president to remove the corrupt prosecutor general he was doing so with an International Consensus<\/a> as part of u. S. Policy, the entire European Union<\/a> supported that, the imf support that, the imf that gave the loans he was referring to. And so he did that as part of the entire international communitys consensus. And when President Trump<\/a> is asking for this investigation of joe biden, all of the witnesses, every single one testified that that had nothing to do with official u. S. Policy. And Vice President<\/a> bidens request had no personal, political benefit whereas President Trump<\/a>s request did . Yes, in fact, if the witnesses testified if that corrupt prosecutor general were actually removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said that by removing that prosecutor general and adding a new one that there was an increased chance that corruption in ukraine would be prosecuted including as it related to the Burisma Company<\/a> which his son was on the board of. Mr. Gold mapp, can you please explain exactly what happened with the phone records obtained by the Intelligence Committee<\/a>. Thank you. I would like to set the record straight on that. This is a very basic and usual investigative practice where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a scheme, investigators routinely seek their records and just to be very clear, this is meta data. Its only call, to call from and length. Not the content of the calls. Or the text messages. Theres no content, no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or Attorney Client<\/a> that none of that exists and no risk to that. What we did is for several of the people we had investigated and subpoenaed and who were alleged to be part of the scheme, we got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out maybe theres Additional Communications<\/a> that we were unaware of. What we then did is took the call records and matched it up with important events that occurred during the scheme and start to see if there are patterns because call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evidence. In this case it just so happened people who were involved in the President Trump<\/a> scheme were communicating with the president s lawyer who was also involved in the scheme, a journalist, staff member of congress and another member of congress. We, of course, did not at all seek in any way shape, or form to do any investigation on anyone, a member of congress or a staff member of congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president s scheme. And everything you did was basically Standard Operating Procedure<\/a>. Every investigation we did we got call records. Did white House Counsel<\/a> make his view clear of evidence and witnesses requested . We never heard from the white House Counsel<\/a> other than the letter which basically just said we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in any way, shape or form. They never reached out to engaging this accommodation process. It was a complete stonewall. Not only would the white house not participate or cooperate and not respond to the duly authorized subpoenas of congress but the white house says were also going direct every other executive Branch Agency<\/a> to defy this. I have a series of questions and keep your answers brief. During last weeks hearing my republican colleague said congress has not built a sufficient record to impeach the president. As a former prosecutor you spent years building substantial case records. Whats the strength of this record here . Weve moved fast and the evidence is really overwhelming. We have 17 witnesses with overlapping overwhelming. The committee managed to collect such evidence even by obstruction by the president. Yes. Was the obstruction so evasive as it was planned to have coverup president conduct. We saw there was an effort to conceal the president s conduct. President trump directed his administration not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. White House Counsel<\/a> wrote President Trump<\/a> cannot permit his administration to participate. The Investigative Committee<\/a> had dozens of witnesses including former and Current Trump<\/a> officials and were stymied with respect to most them. Is that correct there were 12 witnesses who were directed not to appear and ultimately they did not appear. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I yield to the ranking mr. , mr. Collins. Mr. Goldman, an interesting thing. We can commit extortion or put pressure on others as long as we have enough people to think were okay i can extort anybody i want to as long as enough people think its okay. That in essence what you just said. I want to go to the phone records. Its a novel approach. The phone records issued, hear me clearly. I have no problem with the subpoena as far as the subpoena power from congress. Not a problem. My problem as you did not answer in the previous, those is take meta data. Its interesting you had to go and say theres no we had that debate in congress in the last few years on fisa program. This committee should be hearing the fisa report. Its interesting to me to see to me that the calls in the meta data and not the content, what the problem i have here is this, if rudy, munoz, only phone records returned from the subpoena, why these released . Heres the problem. You took the committee and this is why i want to know who ordered it. The committee made a choice, chairman schiff is not here or you who did get to come, at least thank you for showing up, made a conscious choice to put these records in the report. It was a drive by. It was a gratuitous drive by that you wanted to smear the Ranking Member<\/a> or smear these others because they were in those numbers that were connected to it. Im not saying you knew the content. You just admited a second ago they were simply contacting these people. The problem i have you could easily have put if you want to do a nonsmear report say Congress Person<\/a> one or Congress Person<\/a> two, reporter one, or reporter two. Because if they didnt contribute to your report its nothing but a drive by. Thats the problem i have here. I have no problem with you working. No problem with the report. No problem with the subpoena. You can pretty it up all you want but that was nothing to show the American People<\/a> natural at least for a moment the schiff report became a partisan smear against other members we dont like because theres other alternatives for you to do. I have no problem as i said with you doing proper oversight. I have had a lot of issues how this oversight is done but dont make it up and dont not tell me or the rest of this committee who ordered that. That was noing more thanthing m smear committee. The chairman gave you a chance the to rehabilitate and you made it worse. By the way, fuller record got leaked from executive session got leaked to the Washington Post<\/a>. I dont understand how we can say this is okay. How do we say this is fine. Members of the majority now may be members of the minority at some point and if were setting the standard for this is where were going with these kind of investigations, then were in trouble. Were in deep trouble because this is another thing that the founders you and others have said, founders were deeply concerned about a lot of things. One of the biggest things is and most everybody is an originalist. They were concerned about a partisan impeachment. A partisan impeachment because you dont like his policies. You dont like what he said or how he said it. I dont like how joe biden side it but you blew that off because he has the back of the international community. Were a perpetual state of impeachment. Dont come here and be a person who is a witness. Sworn witness and not answer the question. Adam schiff is doing that fine without you. But dont come here and say im not going say because you know good and well in some committee room, somebody said hey this is interesting i have munoz phone number and that number is in that report. He had a phone call with somebody were investigating. Thats a drive by and its beneath you and this congress. And that is why have such a problem with this. Then you leaked further information. This is the problem here. We can be righteous about trying to get this president or not. This is why people are getting so just turned off by this whole thing. When we understand that, thats the problem i have because could you have handled this differently. Ill blame the chairman, ill hold the one with the pen responsible. He was the one who cant come and defend that. Unfortunately, he sent you. You had to take it. Thats wrong and this committee deserves better. With that i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from california is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gist of the question here is the potential of abuse of the president s power to benefit himself in the next election. Now america is based on free and fair elections, and after russia interfered in the 2016 election the American People<\/a> are rightfully concerned about ensuring that the next election is referee foreign interference and keeping that in mind i would like to ask you, mr. Goldman, the following question. Ambassador sondland testified that according to Rudy Giuliani<\/a>, quote, President Trump<\/a> wanted a Public Statement<\/a> from president zelensky committing to investigations of burisma in the 2016 election, isnt that correct . Yes. And ambassador sondland testified as the screen in front you shows that president zelensky had to announce the investigation he didnt actually have to do them. Correct. Mr. Goldman, youre an experienced former prosecutor. Is it common to announce an investigation but not actually to conduct the investigation . No. Usually it works the reverse. Normally you dont announce the investigation because you want to develop as much evidence while its not public because if its public then you run into problems of people matching up testimony and witnesses tailoring their testimony which is part of the reason why the closed depositions in our investigation were so important. What did that evidence, this benefitted the announcement tell you about why President Trump<\/a> would only care about president zelensky announcing the investigations but not actually conducting them. There were two things that it said. One is whatever he claims, the president claims about his desire to root out corruption, even if you assume these investigations are for that purpose as he has stated, it undermines that because he doesnt actually care if the investigations are done. So even if you assume which i dont think the evidence supports that its corruption, then hes still not doing the corruption investigation. The second is he just wanted the public announcement. The private confirmation was not enough and thats an indication that he wanted the political benefit from them. Looks to me like the announcement of the investigation could benefit the president politically because the announcement alone could be twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival. Thats consistent with the findings. President nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into Democratic Party<\/a> headquarters to gate leg up on the election. And then he tried to cover it up, just as weve seen some obstruction here. But even more concerning in this case, President Trump<\/a> not only appears to have abused the power of his office to help his own Reelection Campaign<\/a> he used Foreign Government<\/a> to do his bidding and used military aid as leverage to get the job done. Now this aid was approved by congress, apro ppropriated on a bipartisan basis to fight russia on behalf of ukraine who invade them. This aid was withheld. People died while this aid was withheld. People argued since ultimately the aid was released that there was not a problem. Mr. Goldman, isnt it true that the aid was released only after the president got caught and only after Congress Learned<\/a> of the scheme to make this life or death conditional on this announcement of investigation of his political rival . There were several things that made the president realize that this was coming to a head and could not be concealed. The whistleblower kplaint was circulating around the white house. The committees announced their own investigation. The Washington Post<\/a> oped on september 5th linking the two. Then the Inspector General<\/a> notified the committee there was this whistleblower complaint. I made it clear throughout this investigation, i dont want to be part of a third impeachment inquiry, but the direct evidence is very damning and the president hasnt offered any evidence to the contrary. Weve asked, weve subpoenaed, weve invited the president , and nothing has come forward. If he had evidence of his innocence, why wouldnt he bring it forward . You know, this is a very serious matter. It strikes at the heart of our constitution. And its a concern that were here but ive heard over and over again that this is too fast. Well, miss jackson lee and i were talking, we were both members of this committee during the clinton impeachment. That took 73 days. Were here on the 76th day. We need the to proceed. I thank you, mr. Goldman for your hard work and your presentation. I yield back. Outobjection the hearing will stand recess for 15 minutes. [ recess being had. House Judiciary Committee<\/a> beginning the fiveminute round of questions with chairman nadler and Ranking Member<\/a> collins and should be back at about 3 00 p. M. Eastern. Here on cspan three we are like. Hear what you host we dont screen our callers and provide you with unfiltered reaction and love to hear from you. Well get to your calls momentarily. Our cameras are outside the hearing room as they have been thrule all of our coverage in case members come to the microphones for comments. Lets get to your calls and hear louisiana. Caller i would like to say i have only voted in two president ial elections, one for republican and one for democrat. And i have watched these hearings, the performance put on by the republicans its clear to me what they are trying to do is deflect from the facts and i cant believe we are watching our country and i urge my republicans to get on the right side of history. Host linda on our republican line. I have been following this for 73 days and upset and concerned that this is as they say tearing our country apart. Theres no firsthand evidence and there are bills that are being held that are not being looked at. And i feel like everything has just stopped except for this scam impeachment. So thats my concern. Thank you for allowing me to voice an opinion. Getting frustrating and thank you, cspan. Host representative gohmert, the house coming back today. And will come back in legislative session with votes after 6 30. House Judiciary Committee<\/a>, they are hearing the report of the Intelligence Committee<\/a>. Good afternoon, diane. Caller i do have concerns about this tearing the country apart as well. I feel like that the republicans are not even looking at the evidence. There is plenty of evidence. And that senator from georgia that was just yelling at the democratic counsel was unbelievable. And i think they need to get on board and get this taken care of and get him out of office now. Host republican line, this is robert. Caller thank you for taking my call. I honestly, im selfemployed and been for 20 years and its beyond me how anybody could expect normal people to have the time to follow all of this. Yet, if you follow it, just for an hour, any logical person can see who is trying to pull a charade and not going to say who it is. Host robert, hang on, live to hear from democratic members. Taking a short break, but one of the things i have surprised about from the beginning is how weak our republican witnesses have been as well as the crossexamination of them. Ms. Bass i think the facts are clear, there is overwhelming evidence that the president has abused his power, the betrayal of our National Interests<\/a> is very, very clear and the corruption, especially the corruption of our elections has been demonstrated over and over again. When i listen to the republican witnesses, they dont have much to say except for arguing about the process and then diminishing what the president has done as though it is not important. Today as we are in our hearing, we need to remember that president zelensky is meeting with putin and he is in a weakened state. If we had been giving him the aid that was allocated, he would be in a completely different position in meeting with president putin. Because of what the president did for his own selfinterests, we have put a key ally in a very compromising position. Mr. Cicilline i think what we saw clearly from the witnesses this morning is overwhelming evidence that the president used the power of his office not to advance the public interests or the public good, for his own political advantage. Republicans focus on process. Not a single effort to refute the overwhelming evidence of misconduct and wrongdoing by this president. And as i listen to my colleagues become so desperate about subpoena for phone records and a reset, if they show show the same outrage about the president asking a foreign leader to interfere in an american president ial elections and using taxpayer dollars, goes to the heart for our democracy. People wait in long lines to vote, have their voices heard and determine their future. Is not for the president to interfere in our elections. That right belongs to the American People<\/a>. Know what we all now is that the facts are pretty overwhelming. But what is amazing to me. We all know that candidate trump said these words, russia, if youre listening, which means he invited a foreign power to interfere in our election. But what has been amazing after the july 25 call, where he asked ukraine to get involved in our elections, after that and after getting caught, he stands on the white house lawn and doubles down and invites ukraine again to interfere. That wasnt enough. He goes on to invite china to interfere. For the persons who say why are we in a rush, why arent we waiting . Were not waiting because we cannot wait. We cannot wait and trust this president to not interfere. If you question hell do it again, the best indicator of future performance of behavior is to look at past performance. Thank you. Mr. Swalwell there is a theme we are laying out which are facts not in dispute. Its not disputed that the president had Rudy Giuliani<\/a> go to ukraine to smear Vice President<\/a> biden and its not disputed that the president said that he was going to send Vice President<\/a> pence to president zelenskys inauguration and pulled him back and its not disputed that he withheld money to ukraine and he made the july 25 call and not disputed that the aid was released after the president s hand was caught in the cookie jar. What we need to make clear, no person in america can get away with this. If you are working at a restaurant, working hard, doing everything expected and your boss pulled you aside and said you are due for a raise, you are due for a promotion, but i need you to go to our competitor across the street and put congressreaches in their soup and then you can get that raise. The president did exactly that on a much level. E president has to be held accountable in the oval office. The mr. Raskin the evidence of the ukraine shakedown is uncontradicted and unrefuted. There is no other hype these is and the president has no alibi and the defenders have no legal theory which is our colleagues have been pounding the table a lot today. Their chief complaint seems to be that the process is going south and some say the process has been going on for years. This process is moving at the speed of constitutional democracy because there is a clear and present danger to this president ial election posed by the misconduct of President Trump<\/a>. Are you all concerned that the meter will be moved, indiscernible] ms. Bass speaking for myself, i am not, because what the polls have shown is that 50 of the American People<\/a> feel that not only should this president be impeached, but he should be removed. That is huge. If you look at the height of the polls during the clinton impeachment, i believe it didnt get above 29 . The enact that 50 of the American People<\/a> feel that way is extremely significant. Mr. Cicilline this is a determination that must be governed by the facts, the evidence that has been developed, the constitutional provisions that apply. This is not a question of the political calculation. This is on the oath to protect and defend the constitution. That is our responsibility. Im not concerned about where polls are. This is a fundamental question about protecting our democracy and ensuring the American People<\/a> decide who will be the leaders and decide their own future free from foreign interference. Do you have concerns about not including obstruction of justice . Indiscernible] ms. Bass one of the most important things is this president has a pattern. He has a pattern of abuse and pattern of obstruction. We have not identified specifically what the articles are going to be, but when we do, it encompasses his pattern of behavior which is not acceptable. The pattern included from the mueller investigation. Ms. Bass i dont know whether he obstructs congress and not allowing people, everything he has asked for we have done and then refuses to participate and says that the process is not fair. I wonder if you could respond to the republican points. Besides Speaker Pelosi<\/a> or they make the point that this is a partisan process but doesnt seem to be legitimate . Mrs. Demings this is a serious matter for our country. And lets go back to the pattern. Once who dent has not has always said he has done nothing wrong has not cooperated with one investigation into his wrongdoing, not once, not the mueller report. If there were things he could have cleared up, we would have ellcommed his participation. If there are things he could clear up, we welcome his participation. The speaker has to be a good quarterback and needs to see the entire field. I know she did not want to be here today. I wanted to be here actually a while ago. I thank god for the speakers leadership. But one of the things i realized as i look at this president s pattern of behavior that he was not going to allow us to not get to this point, i never once doubted that he would stop trying to undermine an equal branch of government, trying to invite a foreign power into our elections and here we are today. Mr. Raskin if i could add one thing to what congresswoman demmings said, this president has declared his conduct in the ukraine shakedown perfect into the telephone conversation was perfect and absolutely nothing to apologize for, which means if he gets away with it, he will continue the ukraine shakedown. What is there to keep him from demanding, continuing to demand of the ukranian president that he come in to make these statements about Vice President<\/a> biden and what will there be to prevent him to do this with china and other governments. He could do it with every government around the world. At that point, we would have set a precedent that any president can drag Foreign Government<\/a>s into the politics of the united states. This is what the founders warned against. They feared that president s would try to drag Foreign Government<\/a>s into our elections in order to advance their own reelection prospects. Thats the opposite of democracy. Indiscernible] mr. Swalwell there was never a doubt that they were working with a Foreign Government<\/a>. And where there are needs for fisa reform, we have the responsibility to look at that. Im in the hearing and look at the report and remain open and adhere to the i. G. s recommendation. Thank you. Indiscernible] host at this point on cspan, we are going to break away to fulfill our 40year commitment to live coverage of the u. S. House","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803102.us.archive.org\/25\/items\/CSPAN_20191209_190500_Impeachment_Inquiry_House_Hearings_Hearing_on_Evidence_in_Impeachment...\/CSPAN_20191209_190500_Impeachment_Inquiry_House_Hearings_Hearing_on_Evidence_in_Impeachment....thumbs\/CSPAN_20191209_190500_Impeachment_Inquiry_House_Hearings_Hearing_on_Evidence_in_Impeachment..._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}