Do you recall mr. Morrisons reaction . Mr. Morrison said that he was shocked, i think, and that 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 illogic illogical, crazy and wrong, is that right . Thats what ambassador taylor testified to, yes. My colleagues have also pointed out that on september 9 a 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 texts, he himself came too believe th believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations . Yes. Ambassador sondlands subsequent public testimony revealed at 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 house meie meeting. This september 7 call and the september 9 text occurred after the press reports that President Trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rival, is that correct . Yes, and also this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed President Trumps message to president zelensky. Mr. Goldman, did the Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president s assertion that there was no quid pro quo . We 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 anonymous consent request. Or madam chairman. Can you please hold it until after i do my questions, thank you. It will be very brief. Its just anonymous consent. I recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words so i want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for President Trump to use the American Government to pressure the ukraine president to benefit his reelection campaign. Lets look at what the president said in his july 25 call to the president of ukraine. Lieutenant colonel vindman listened to the president s call and testified that when President Trump asked ukraine for a favor, it wasnt a friendly request. It was really a demand. Im going to direct your attention to the slide about Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony. Why did he say the president s favor was a demand . He said because the power disparity between the United States as the greatest power in the world and ukraine which is so dependent on the United States not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. Am i correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the ukraine people have died, is that correct . Yes. Not only does the u. S. Provide 10 of their military budget but the United States is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support ukraine. Europe actually gives the European Union i think gives four times as much money as the United States over all to ukraine. President trump knew that the ukrainians back was against the wall and president zelensky needed u. S. Validation and support, is that right . Yes. According to the u. S. Ambassador to the ukraine and we have ambassador taylors testimony up there, it wasnt 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 . Thats right, yes. Furthermore, the Committee Heard testimony that the ukrainians felt they had, quote, no choice but to comply with President Trumps demands, correct . Thats right, yes. Even after the aid was released. In fact, when asked in front of President Trump in september whether he felt pressured, president zell zeensky said, qu im sorry but i dont want to be involved to democratic open elections, elections of the usa, end quote. Is that right . That sounds right if youre reading the quote, yes. The president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give in to President Trumps demand. Did your Investigative Committees consider those statements by president zelensky . We did. And we found that the statements of what is effectively an extortion victim are not particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter because president zelensky cannot in reality for the same reasons that he interpreted the request to be a demand, he cant go out and say that he did feel pressure because that would potentially upset President Trump and theyre so dependent on the relationship with President Trump and the United States. One could almost say its similar to a hostage testifying under duress. It is certainly a duress would be a good word. So when the president made these statements and up to and including today his country was still under attack by russia, still hadnt gotten a meeting at the white house, and still needed aid from the United States, correct . Thats right is, and david holmes testified 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 ukraines 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 whats 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. Theres been some debate and some discussion about that, but that is one thing that the evidence shows based on the morrison testimony, the taylor testimony, the sondland testimony, and the texts. So thats very important to understand that whatever we want to say about hearsay or whatever, that is direct evidence. And that is precisely the kind of betrayal that our founders sought to prevent. I yield back to myself and ill recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. Klein. Madam chair, you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform consent after you had asked your questions, so id ask for uniform consent excuse me, anonymous consent to introduce two letters the gentleman will suspend. Who is speaking anonymous consent . For what are you seeking anonymous consent . I have two letters addressed to you on december 4, 2019 and december 5, 2019. Without objection. The gentleman from virginia. I have a brief parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Last week i expressed concern regarding the deeply flawed and partisan process the democrat majority has been undertaking during this impeachment inquiry. Mr. Chairman, im particularly reminded of your quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an imt impeachment would call into legitimacy of our political institutions. You made that statement back in 1998. Now im glad were moving on to presenting the quote unquote evidence gathered in this report, not to hear from direct fact witnesses but a 300page report thats built largely on hi hearsay, opinion and speculations. Im especially outraged that the purported author of it, chairman schiff, is not here to answer our questions today. Now that we have the report and can discuss the facts within or the lack thereof, there are four facts that will never change. Both President Trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. Second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation. Three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the president spoke. And fourth, ukraine didnt open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting with President Trump. I want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it. Mr. Castor, did the democrats impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions . Yes, it did. How many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay . We went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts. Can you give us some examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case . A lot of the information for example that ambassador taylor was communicating, he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him, but it was about it was one and two steps removed from the actual facts and thats the problem with hearsay. Its a whisper down the lane situation and if some of the people that are doing the whispering have a are predisposed to not like President Trump, then what theyre whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted. Did you also find instances where the democrats report used witnesses speculations and plung presumptions . In the biggest ones of course and the big daddy is sondland presuming that the aid was tied to the investigations because as he engaged in a back and forth with mr. Turner, 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 the Intelligence Committee and talked about how the president was operating outside the bounds of the process for using norms. The president sets Foreign Policy, correct . Absolutely. And from where does he derive that power . The constitution. Article 2 section 2. Yeah. Can you give us examples of these members of the Foreign Policy establishment who took issue with the president s Foreign Policy direction and choices . For example, lieutenant conce colonel vindman testified that he had prepared talking points and a call package and he was visibly completely deflated when he realized that his call notes werent being referenced by the president. A lot of the inner Agency Officials i think became very sad that the president didnt revere their policymaking apparatus. Is it safe to say theres another reason the president is skeptical of relying on some of these individuals to carry out his Foreign Policy goals like rooting out corruption in ukraine . I think the president is skeptical of the inter agency bureaucra bureaucracy. Is that maybe why he relied on secretary perry and ambassador sondland and ambassador volker . Correct. All three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of the u. S. Government. Would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in the ukraine to temexempt or remove, say, a political supporter . It certainly would be. Would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent . Thats correct, yeah. Would it be inappropriate to remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation . Absolutely. This all goes to the heart of bias. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Chairman, i go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. I would argue that the facts, in fact, are dispute. What you contend are facts are, in fact, not. They are witness presumptions, hearsay, and speculation. 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 as far as and a stain on the committee and on the house of representatives, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr ms. Garcia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the president and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the president s conduct. Now, im a former judge and you, mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence, is that true . No, theres a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay. Indeed it is not true. Now, i dont want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, id like to go over some examples with you, and please tell me if theyre direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador sondland and mr. Volker both testified that on may 23, 2019 President Trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy about ukraine. Is that direct evidence . Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but yes. Thank you. Then we have the memoranda of the july 25 call between President Trump and president zelensky. Is that direct evidence . Yes, that is. So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u. S. Officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations, correct . Yes, and if i could just jump in here, on the july 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. One of them happens to be that theres no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25 call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically washington d. C. Then he says, on the other hand, i also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. That is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call, so thats wrong. Its also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call even though that doesnt even matter. Then finally, there was no white house meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so i think that needs to be clarified particularly as were focusing on what direct evidence is. Well, lets get some more examples. We also heard the testimony of three individuals who participated in the july 25 call. Is their testimony direct evidence of what happened during that call . Yes, although i would say the call record is better evidence than their and the day after that call, david holmes testified that on july 26 he overheard the president ask ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was, quote, going to do the investigation. Is that direct evidence . That is direct evidence. And after the july 25 call record was released, the president got on the white house lawn and again declared that ukraine should investigate a potential political opponents family, the bidens. Is that direct evidence . Yes, it is. His own words. Now, that seems to me like thats a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these . Theres a lot of evidence that i would call direct evidence because its not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other and they rely what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a coconspirator statement and that would be admissible. Lets not get too far afield on direct evidence we dont want to relive i understand its important because anything ambassador sondland or Rudy Giuliani says, anything these people say is not hearsay and wouldnt be permitted under the federal rules of evidence, of course we dont follow the federal rules of evidence but thats an important point. Is there anything wrong withdrawawit withdrawing inferences from circumstances . Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when ambassador sondland draws inferences from the fact that theres no explanation for the aid, the fact that the white house meeting has already been held up because of the investigations and determines that thats the reason why the Security Assistance is also held up, that is a natural logical inference that every jury draws across the country. I agree with you, im just disappointed that rather than respond to the serious factual, direct and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. Its unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable. I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our constitution. Our democracy depends on ensu ensuring that no one, not even the president , is above the law. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Mr. Nagoose. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we approach the ninth hour of this hearing i want to thank mr. Goldman and mr. Castor