Transcripts For CSPAN3 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Hearing On Evidence In Impeachment... 20240713

Decades who came to testify. In fact, four of President Trumps own National Security counsel staffers, hill, vindman, morrison and mcguire came forward to report trumps scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didnt they, mr. Goldman . Morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned it, yes. That moved me a lot because my father was a staffer on the National Security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience. He devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people. So i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. Mr. Goldman, who is dr. Fiona hill. She was the senior director for the europe and russia directorate at the National Security council until july of this year. And she was President Trumps Senior Adviser on russia . Correct. Her family had fled both nazi germany and soviet russia. I think her family actually came from england. Marie yovanovitch was oh, that was ambassador yovanovitch. Dr. Hill voiced her concerns to the nscs lawyers on july 10 and july 11, long before anyone on this committee knew about it. Why was she why did she go to report what she had learned . What motivated her . She was concerned that ambassador sondland and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the ukrainians would open up these investigations for President Trumps political interests in return for getting the white house meeting that President Trump had offered. I want to talk about Deputy Assistant secretary george kent who served as a Career Foreign Service officer for more than 27 years under five different president s, democrats and republicans alike. He wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president s conduct. Mr. Goldman, what were the events that led mr. Kent to draft these notes to his file . There were several. There was a conversation at the end of june where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. There was one on august 16th i recall that he talked about, but you bring up a very important point which is all of these state Department Witnesses in particular and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador sondland took unbelievable meticulous notes. I would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. It makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence thats based on contemporaneous notes. So do we have mr. Kents notes in this process . We have no state Department Records including these memos to file, the notes, ambassador taylors firstperson cable, emails. There are so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation. Why do we not have them . The state department refused to provide them, notwithstanding our subpoena, under the president s direction. In authoritarian societies like putins russia or the kingdom of saudi arabia, people are terrified to speak out about the crimes of their political leaders. In the United States a lot of people are not afraid even though President Trump has tried to intimidate or silence them. He is trying to make our country more like russia, and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heros who stood up for the truth in our constitution. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Less co. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My first two questions are for the American People. America, are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham . And america, would you Like Congress to get back to work and actually get something done . I should would. Mr. Castor, the rest of the questions are for you. I would like yes or no answers if possible. Mr. Castor, my first question is important. Did any of the democrats fact witnesses establish that the president had committed bribery, extortion, or a high crime or misdemeanor. Good he have heavenens, no. 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 . Yeah, he was worried about leaks. Several democrats 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. Ambassador volker testified that this hold on Security Assistance to ukraine was not significant, is that correct . Yes, a number of witnesses also said the same thing. Former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, testified that in ukraine and i quote corruption is not just prevalent but frankly, is the system, is that correct . Yes, all the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt. Mr. Castor, Burisma Holdings had a reputation in ukraine as a corrupt company, is that correct . Big time. According to the New York Times, hunter biden was part of a broad effort by burisma to bring in well connected democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations, is that correct . Yeah, kthe new yorker had n extensive report on that as well. Obamas Deputy Assistant secretary of state, george kent, testified that he raised concerns directly to Vice President bidens office about Hunter Bidens services on burismas board, is that correct . Yes or no. Yes. Mr. Castor, in the july 25th call President Trump referenced joe biden bragging about how he stopped the prosecution. We all saw that video earlier today where joe biden bragged about how he told ukraine if the prosecutor is not fired, youre not getting the money. Mr. Castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma . It is. In a similar scheme, obama assistant attorney general said and i quote awarding prestigious Employment Opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption, plain and simple. Mr. Castor, here is another key question. Given that, one, burisma had a reputation of being a corrupt company, two, obamas own state department was concerned about hunter biden serving on burismas board at the same time that Vice President biden was acting as the point person to ukraine, and three, obamas assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme that there was corruption, plain and simple. Do you think then it is understandable, reasonable and acceptable for President Trump to ask the ukrainian president to look into the Hunter Biden Burisma potential corruption scheme . Yes. Mr. Castor, there are four indisputable facts that will never change that prove there is no impeachable offense. There was no quid pro quo on the july 25 call. Ukraine leadership did not know the aid was held up at the time of the july 25 telephone call. Ukraine received the white house meeting, phone call and aid even though, four, ukraine didnt initiate any investigations. Do you agree . Ukraine received a meeting with Vice President pence in warsaw and a meeting not at the white house but at the in new york at the united nations. Mr. Castor, did mr. Turley testify in the past hearing that this impeachment inquiry has not passed chairman nadlers threeprong test . He did. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, the gentle woman from washington is recognized. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, lets focus on the republican claim that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain, and let me be clear. We actually do not have to read the president s mind on this. As your report notes, on page ten and as we will see on television, he told us himself exactly what his intent was. First, President Trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of his calls with president zelensky. Second, investigations of the bidens and a debunked Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official u. S. Policy, and third, congress authorized military aid to ukraine. Ukraine passed all the checks that the United States established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption, and there was anonymous consensus among the state department, department of defense and National Security council that the president should release the military aid that ukraine critically needed to fight russian aggression. Between the time that President Trump put a hold on the aid and then released the aid, the president never conducted an actual review or corruption assessment on ukraine, did he . Thats correct. There was no witness testimony that there was any review or investigation of any sort related to the ukraine aid. Isnt it also true that had Defense Department determined not to conduct a review because ukraine had already met all of the crutches benchmarks in may of 2019 . Yes, and everyone involved in ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path, and president zelensky in particular. In addition to ukraine having satisfied all the relevant corruption assessments prior to u. S. Military aid being withheld, there is significant witness testimony that both the state department and the Ukrainian Embassy actually advised that a white house meeting with president zelensky would help further an anticorruption agenda, correct . Both the anticorruption agenda and the aggression fighting the aggression from russia. In fact, President Trumps budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in ukraine. Now, mr. Castor argues that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general, but in both 2017 and 2018 didnt President Trump release military aid for ukraine without any complaints about corruption . Thats correct. So mr. Goldman, the president was perfectly fine giving military aid to ukraine in 2017 and 2018 but somehow not in 2019, so what changed . Joe biden starting running for president. Vice President Biden started running so and i would add the Mueller Report came out which did not even though it did not charge the president , it implicated the president and his campaign in welcoming the assistance from russia and utilizing it. And the sequence of events and all the corroborating evidence makes it Crystal Clear that President Trump didnt care about corruption at all. In fact, as he told us himself on national television, he simply cared about his own politically motivated investigations into his political rival. And you saw the clip where ambassador sondland picked up the phone, called President Trump and then mr. Holmes asked him what the president thought about ukraine and quickly what was mr. Sondlands answer . Mr. Sondland said the president does not give a bleep about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff, meaning the biden investigation that mr. Giuliani was pushing. By the way, just to add, that is a direct evidence conversation between President Trump and ambassador sondland on that day and there are many that we have not talked about on the minority side. So we know what President Trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and witness testimony. The president of the United States wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal political benefit to interfere in our election, and he was willing to use u. S. Military aid which is taxpayer dollars and an essential white house meeting as his leverage. That is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power. I yield back. The gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, madam chairwoman. In the navy we had a saying, bluff, which is bottom line up front. Let me give everybody the bottom line. Were here because democrats are terrified that President Trump is going to win reelection. Thats really what this call com comes down to. Were here dealing with impeachment because democrats dont want to talk about the red hot trump economy. They dont want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. We are dealing with impeachment because democrats dont want to talk about how the president has worked to protect American Companies from chinese aggression, how hes renegotiated trade deals that benefit american workers, how hes eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy and that help job creators. Congressional democrats dont want to be reminded that the American People, that the democratic agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes, giving Illegal Immigrants taxpayerfunded health care and taking private Health Insurance away from the American People. Thats really why were here. This whole process is just a distraction. Its an attempt to hide the far left radical agenda. So lets talk about the facts. Schiffs report claims the administration froze military aid for ukraine without explanation, yet the facts are that President Trump gave more military aid to ukraine than president obama. President obama gave ukraine well wishes and blankets. President trump gave the ukrainians javelin missiles. Thats the difference, and those are the facts. Lets go over some more facts. House democrats want to claim its a conspiracy that ukrainian officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. Yet, ukrainians attempts to interfere with the 2016 election are well documented by politico, by Financial Times and the hill. There was an attempt to influence our elections, and thats troubling and thats why President Trump brought it to the attention of president zelensky. Again, those are the facts. At the end of the day, those facts dont seem to matter to my democrat colleagues. House democrats dont care that president zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. Its not important that the script is the best evidence we have, its the actual primary document. That transcript shows no quid pro quo, no bribery. I got to remember were calling it bribery after an old latin phrase didnt poll well or test well in a democrat focus group. My democrat colleagues seem to really care about focus groups and polling. Unfortunately, again, they dont care about the facts. The fact is the democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began. Representative talib said in january, i dont even think we were sworn in yet, she said in january, impeach the mother. Representative green said in may and i quote im concerned that if we dont impeach this president , he will get reelected. These proceedings, this entire process, is nothing more than a political hit job. Im troubled that our committee did not hear from a single fact witness this entire time. We should be here hearing from hunter biden. We should be hearing from schiffs staff. We know that schiffs staff coordinated with the whistleblower, and again, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Last week i offered a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to testify in executive session, meaning that he or she could testify behind closed doors. My democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. Mr. Castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistleblowers complaint . The first thing about the complaint that troubles us is that its clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. The information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted and its from a person who is it seems to be making a case like an advocate about what happened on the call. The whistleblower references a number of individuals inside the white house and at the state department that he or she has spoken to to form the basis of the complaint. We have not been able to piece together all those people and talking to all those people is important. Theres a lot of im running out of time here but theres a reference to lutsenko in the whistleblower complaint where witnesses have told us its likely shokin. Vindman and morrisons testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers, very different reasons. Mr. Brek bul the gentlemans time expired. I dont believe he was on the call. I recognize the gentle woman from florida for five minutes. Mr. Goldman, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, i saw significant firsthand evidence that President Trump conditioned our military aid on ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and the bidens and betrayed our National Security interests in the process. For example, ambassador sondland told us that once the ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld, it was made and i quote abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid and i quote they were going to have to make these statements. Mr. Goldman, beginning on and around the 25th of july call through september, would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the white house visit that they were going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations . Not only were they made aware but they were made aware either by President Trumps proxy, Rudy Giuliani, or from President Trump himself through ambassador sondland who spoke to president zelensky and Andriy Yermak on september 7 and told them what President Trump had confirmed to him that the aid was conditioned on the investigations. By the end of august president zelensky did in fact commit to making that statement on cnn, is that correct . Thats right. Finally president zelensky relented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic u. S. Political process and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice to break the stalemate, as ambassador sondland told them, that he ultimately agreed to go on television before the before President Trump got caught and released the aid. Id like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you which displays again a Washington Post article from september 5. The headline says, trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections. The article reports that President Trump is and i quote attempting to force zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u. S. President ial election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate, joe biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting ukraines help with his president ial campaign, he is using United States military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. So am i correct, mr. Goldman, that by september 25 allegations that President Trump was using military aid to pressure ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported . Im sorry, by what date . September 5. Yes, widely reported, certainly the aid being withheld was widely reported. By september 9 our Investigative Committees formally announced a congressional investigation into the president of these issues to the president about these issues, and mr. Goldman, what day did President Trump release the military aid . Two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the ig, the Inspector General, told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld. So then am i correct that as the timeline on the screen in front of you shows, it wasnt until after the whistleblower complaint, after the Washington Post report, and after congress launched the investigations that President Trump finally released the aid . Thats right. And i would just add one thing briefly to the congressmans point, that it is true that President Trump has given more military assistance than president obama, and so one would wonder if he does support military assistance so much, why then is he holding it up for more than two months. Lieutenant colonel vindman testified that people at the nsc discussed that congress investigation, quote, might have the effect of releasing the hold on ukraines military aid because it would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid, is that correct . That was the testimony, yes. In other words, the aid was released after the president got caught, and what makes me angry is that this president , President Trump, thinks he can get away with it. But he got caught and he tried to cover it up, but we wont let him do that. We thank god, mr. Goldman, for the true courageous Public Servants who came forward in spite of intimidation and obstruction from the white house. You see, everybody counts, but everybody is accountable up to and including the president of the United States. Thank you, and i yield back. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr mr. Correa im sorry, california. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. Goldman, my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the president apparently said and i quote no quid pro quo on september 7 in a call with ambassador sondland. Mr. Goldman, did you receive testimony about this september 7 call . Yes. We received testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little complicated but that was a consistent refrain through all the witnesses, is that the president did say no quid pro quo. Lets try to clarify it. Ambassador sondland described that call to mr. Morrison that same day, correct . Thats correct. Mr. Morrison then reported it to ambassador taylor, correct . Thats correct, yes. And both mr. Morrison and ambassador taylor took notes of those discussions. They did. Were those notes produced to the committee . They were not produced to us but the witnesses said that they relied on their notes to provide their testimony. That set of notes was blocked consistent with the president s direction . Correct. And in his recitation to mr. Morrison, ambassador sondland said that President Trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo. Thats right. Ambassador sondland also said that too, yes. Mr. Goldman, what did the committee make of this fact . Well, it was quite odd that the president would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid pro quo that there was no quid pro quo. Whats even more important is that what he said immediately after that, which is effectively conduct that amounts to a quid pro quo. He said theres no quid pro quo, but you have to go to the microphone and make this announcement lets talk about that. What did the committee make of the fact that according to ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison right after President Trump said no quid pro quo, President Trump then told ambassador sondland that ukrainian president zelensky would have to go to the microphone and announce the investigations of biden and the 2016 election interference and that president zelensky should want to do that himself. Thats right. We had a number of different accounts of this and i think this is theyre up on the board here. Right, i see that, yes. Ambassador taylor said that. Mr. Morrison said something similar. Their understanding of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo, factually from the conduct, from the actions. Weve talked a lot today about the words and that zelensky said no pressure and trump said no pressure and no quid pro quo. But as an investigator, as a prosecutor, you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean. Thats why this call in particular is so important. Lets go further. As weve discussed multiple individuals reacted with concern to President Trumps call with ambassador sondland. 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 for being here today and for your testimony. Theres a lot of discussion about whether or not the facts of this matter are contested. I believe they are not contested so id like to level set here and give you both an opportunity to address some of the facts that i believe are not in dispute. I want to begin by addressing something that i think we all know for certain, and thats that russia interfered in our 2016 election. After two years of investigation, the russians interfered in our elections. Yes. Mr. Goldman, am i correct that zero intelligence agencies have publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections in 2016, is that right . Thats right. I dont even think the minority is alleging that the Ukrainian Government systematically in any meaningful way interfered. I think this is just based on a couple of news articles. Mr. Castor, correct . The president had a good faith belief there were some significant ukrainian officials i hear you and youve said that previously. Im asking you the president said that the Ukrainian Government there are no intelligence agencies in the United States that publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections. Youre not testifying that thats the case . Im not, correct. In fact, President Trumps former Homeland Security adviser, tom bossert, said that the idea of ukraine for example hacking the dnc server was, quote, not only a Conspiracy Theory, it is completely debunked. Thats President Trumps Homeland Security adviser that said those words that you see on the screen. Is that right, mr. Goldman . Yes, i saw that interview. Mr. Castor, you visaw that interview . Im aware of it. In fact, isnt it true that none of the witnesses that appeared before your committee testified in support of the theory that ukraine somehow interfered in our elections. Is that right, mr. Goldman . That is absolutely correct. Mr. Castor . Thats correct but thank you. No witnesses testified in support of that theory before your committee. Mr. Goldman, isnt it also true that your committee, in fact, received testimony indicating that there is evidence that russia is in part perpetrating this false theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections because russia wants to deflect blame for its own involvement . Thats correct. We had evidence of that and i think its very important to emphasize what is evidence and what is pure media reports or speculation because there is no evidence in our investigation that ukraine interfered inthat e interfered in the 2016 election. In fact, id like to put some of the testimony that you might be referencing, mr. Goldman, on the street in front of you, both for mr. Holmes, as well as doctor fiona hill. And i will quote from her testimony, i am confident, based on all the analysis that has been done, and again i dont want to start getting into intelligence matters, that the ukraine government did not interfere in our election in 2016. This is a fictional narrative. Its being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Security services themselves. You recall the testimony, mr. Goldman . I do, i also recall her testifying that in addition to the ukrainian officials who made a couple of disparaging comments about President Trump, there are officials from countries all over the world who also made disparaging comments about President Trump, and as doctor hill said, their military assistance was not put on hold. Given your testimony, and given your mr. Castor, is stressing that there in fact for uncontested facts. First, russia attacked our 2016 elections. Several intelligence agencies have independently confirmed that this is true. Second, ukraine did not interfere in our 2016 elections. Theres absolutely no evidence that this faces of this baseless Conspiracy Theory. Third, there is evidence that russia perpetrated the allegation that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. And finally, that russia benefits from the u. S. Investigating ukraine. Which was made clear through public testimony before your committee. So mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that the Intelligence Community agrees with these for conclusions . The Intelligence Community definitely agrees with one and two. Doctor hill testified to three, as well as, the Public Statement from mr. Putin, and yes, certainly the witnesses emphasize number four, that russia benefits from this. And we saw, in my opening statement, president putins comments that its good now that ukraine is all the talk. And if that is the case, it begs the question, why would President Trump perpetuate this Conspiracy Theory already disproven by the entirety of the Intelligence Community that actually helps our adversary, a country that is attacking our elections in realtime . With that i yield. The generals. Back mr. Suubi . A brief parliamentary inquiry about schedule. He has the time. Are you going to recognize him after for his parliamentary degree after my question . I will make an announcement about the schedule shortly. Thank you, mister chairman. Ive never seen a more partisan spectacle than what ive missed here today. Democrats want the rules to apply when it benefits them and not to apply when republicans invoked them, nine hours ago now, a hired gun for the governments got three minutes to spread his partisan rhetoric, and then 45 minutes across examine witnesses. Thats 70 minutes more than most of the members of this committee, whove been elected by their districts to serve in the United States congress. Mr. Burke is an unelected new york lawyer specifically brought in by the democrats to give his opinion. A politically biased consultant who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal elections to the likes of act blew, hillary clinton, obama, and biden. No wonder why he has an ax to grind. Mr. Burke is a white collar criminal defense lawyer who brags on his website of getting new York Financial brokers deferred prosecution for tax fraud, and fund manager and mr. Barr was able to say whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony that it would be truthful so he could sit before this committee, not as a fact witness, and directly lied to the American People that any threat of criminal prosecution. Makes sense, hes a white collar criminal defense lawyer. Im sure he did not want to incriminate in south. This is the same mr. Burke who authored a series of reports as early as october 2017, two years ago, on his opinion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, and colluded with russia. He also represented mayor bill de blasio in a federal investigation of his fundraising activities. For my fellow americans and floridians, watching this charade, this is who was sitting at the top of the acting like a member of this committee. A partisan new york lawyer with written bias against President Trump who gave thousands to Hillary Clintons president ial campaign. All of the spectacle, not a single fact witness has appeared in front of this committee. We have been denied a minority hearing day, which i asked for in the last hearing. All we have had testifier partisan lawyers giving their opinions. So lets talk about the fact that we do have before us. We heard from mueller, no evidence of the Trump Campaign no destruction of justice, after denying the president to call witnesses in closed door secret proceedings and the many republicans from calling all their witnesses in closed door proceedings, denying the president s counsel to cross examine witnesses, the facts are this. Did the president tell you about any preconditions for anything . His answer, no. For the aid to be refused. No. For a white house . Meeting no. The master also testified that President Trump wanted nothing from ukraine. Tim morrison, when questioned, and there was no quid pro quo, answered, correct. The aid was released, for facts never change. Both President Trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure, the call transcript shows no different reality to the aid in the investigation. No quid pro quo. The ukrainians were not aware that the aid was withheld when the president spoke. Ukraine did not open investigation, but still received eight and a meeting with the president. Mr. Castor, has any Committee Heard from the whistleblower, either in closed or hearings or an open hearings . No. Did chairman schiff state that he would call the whistleblower to testify . He did. Has it happened . It has not. Is it going . To i hope so. Have other countries yes. Mr. Goldman. On october 2nd, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower quote, approach a house Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about mr. Trump. Is that accurate . Im sorry . On october 2nd, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower is that accurate . I think the whistleblowers concerned about the president are from the threats thats not what im asking. Did the whistleblower approach a house intelligence . Let me ask you a different way. Have you had any communications with the whistleblower . As i said earlier in response to questions from her colleagues, im not going to get into so you are fusing to answer whether communicated with the whistleblower . The whistleblower is not relevant to this report. He is the whole basis of the beginning of this investigation. He is absolutely relevant. Hes not relied upon, the risk blowers complaints, for the race that mr. Castro said, are not included. His allegations are not included in our report. Because the evidence has been outstripped and surpassed by the 17 witnesses that weve had coming in to testify directly about the conduct that the whistleblower blew the whistle about. As you sit here today, do you know the identity of the whistleblower . And i go to talk to you about the identity you are refusing to answer whether youve had communications thats my time, not yours. You are refusing to answer whether you had communication with the whistleblower, has any other staff in the Intel Community had communication with the whistleblower . In the Intelligence Community you refusing to answer that question. Unfortunately, the American People congress has a right mister chairman . Could we have order . The gentleman wants to spend the time of the gentleman has expired. I have unanimous consent. Mister chairman, i asked for an initial document entitled ukraine efforts to separate trump backfire, dated 2017. If you give it to our staff, will take a look at, it and we will make it should i make a motion to insert instead, mister chairman . Before i recognize miss mcbath, im going to announce that, with respect to scheduling, that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. It may and be for votes are called, which would be nice. If it does not end before votes are called, then we will recess for the votes, and we will reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor are over. Its going to be a close call. We will see. I will further announce im not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond todays hearing. Point of order, mister chairman who has who sees recognition . I do, mister chairman. Your right, mister chairman. To ask i wanted to confirm, a point of, order the rules of the common, i dont believe that the gentleman from florida meant to violate them, know what to give him the benefit of the doubt. But more than, once he referred to a new york lawyer, and if you just explain why he meant then, im prepared to withdraw my point of order. Its not a point of order. Thats not a recognizable point of order. Mister chairman, the point of order, regarding the schedule, theres no point of order regarding the schedule. In this case there is,. Theres no point of order regarding the schedule. Will you answer my question . The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable point of order regarding the future schedule. Will he recognize miss mcbath is recognized. Thank, you mister chairman. Mr. Goldman, i want to follow up on just one part of President Trumps conduct that i asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The Investigative Committees found evidence that President Trump intimidated, threatened, and tampered with perspective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, correct . Yes. And mr. Goldman, it is a federal crime to intimidate, or to seek to intimidate any witness appearing before congress, is that right . Yes, theres a little bit more to, it but thats the gist of, it yes. Mr. Goldman, am i correct that President Trump publicly attacked witnesses before, after, and even during their testimony . That is correct. Id like to quickly go through some examples. On twitter, the president tried to smear ambassador bill taylor, a former military officer who graduated at the top of his class at west point. He served as an infantry commander in vietnam, and earned a bronze star, and an air medal with a v device for valor. He was attacked for doing his duty to tell the truth to the American People, correct . He did his duty, by testifying, yes. President trump also attacked other Trump Administration officials who testified before the Intelligence Committee, including Lieutenant Colonel alexander vindman, who is the director for ukraine on the National Security council, and jennifer williams, the special advisor on europe and russia with the office of the Vice President. Am i right . That is, right yes. Mr. Goldman, i think another troubling example of this is the president s treatment of ambassador yovanovitch. When you questioned a bachelor yovanovitch, you asked her about the president s remarks that she would, and i quote, go through some things. She told you that that remark sounded like a threat. Is that right . Yes, in the july 25th call, that is when President Trump said that. Ambassador yovanovitch is a career professional who served in republican and democratic administrations. She was once caught in a live cross fire during a coup attempt, and heres how she described that experience in her very own words. I later served in moscow, in 1993, during the attempted coup in moscow, in russia, i was caught in cross fire between president ial and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries. Me without a helmet, or body armor, to get into a vehicle to get to the embassy. We went because the ambassador asked us to come. And we went because it was our duty. It was our duty. Even under such duress, this is a Public Servant who did her duty. And as she testified before you and the Intelligence Committee, the president tweeted yet another attack against her. Is that correct . During the testimony, yes. At a rally, the president further attacked ambassador taylor and Deputy Assistant to george kent, Foreign Affairs official with decades of bipartisan service. I just have to say, i am so deeply saddened that our president has attacked our brave and Public Servants. These attacks are and abuse of his power, and they betray our national interests. My republican colleagues, until now, have agreed with me that this behavior is not okay. That in america, we protect witnesses and people who tell the truth. We want people to come forward, we protect witnesses in our community. I myself have no stranger to these kinds of attacks. They are not okay. I want to read a partial statement by Lieutenant Colonel vindman, who is a military officer and Public Service, and it is Intelligence Committee, mr. Vindman said, and i quote, i want to say that the character attacks on these distinguished and honorable Public Servants is reprehensible. I ran for congress because i care urgently about health care, gun violence prevention, and our veterans. Those are the urgent policies for me and many of my colleagues, but these witnesses, these Public Servants stood up and courageously told the truth and i must be courageous and stand up for them as well, i yield back the balance of my time. They gently deals back bounce over time, a few minutes ago he asked for contention to politico for that objection, i think it mister chairman weve heard today from some suggesting that this process has somehow been unfair, mr. Goldman lets clear of that record. Minority members on the Investigative Committees have access to all witness depositions, is that correct . Yes and all the documents and were they allowed to ask questions of every witness . They were given equal time to the majority for every single interview, deposition or hearing that we did. We are allowed to call the own witnesses to the hearings. Yes, they did, they got three witnesses theyre also allowed to call their own witnesses for the depositions and they chose not to do that, the only witness they requested for the deposition was chairman schiff who was not a witness to this investigation. Mr. Goldman why did the Investigative Committees decided to conduct this behind closed doors . Vest investigative practice when youre doing a Fact Finding Mission is to keep the information closed and the reason is exactly what i described earlier with ambassador sondland, first of all the day before his deposition he spoke with secretary perry about his testimony, that is the type of tailoring that can happen when people are engaged in misconduct and they try to line up their stories. So if you keep the information closed they cant lineup their stories and i think frankly part of the reason why ambassador volker and ambassador sondlands public hearing testimony was so different from their deposition testimony is because the initial depositions were in closed session before we released the transcripts to the public. This is unprecedented because in both in nixon and clinton inquiries there were close store grand jury at the beginning of the inquiries. In congress its a rule, in the house rules that was passed by Republican Congress is it was used in benghazi, used by a number of committees in the past decade or so. For clarity President Trump has received all protections afforded to other president s facing impeachment, is that correct . In the Judiciary Committee he has had all the options, that were angry was not the Industries Investigation it was the president s ability to present evidence, of course if the president wanted to present evidence to the Intelligence Committee he couldve provided documents, provided the witnesses that we asked from him, but he obstructed rather than cooperated. The president has been invited to participate in the house impeachment inquiry, correct . Yes. Any declined the invitation . That is my understanding. Twice . Twice this far. The president has refused to participate would try to stop congress from obtaining evidence, is it true that he has refused to provide any evidence subpoena to the white house. Yes. Not a single . One not a single document. He also got all of his agencies to refuse to produce documents, is that right . That is also true. Based on the president s order federal agencies have ignored more than 70 specific requests or demand from records from the Investigative Committee, is that correct . Yes and if i can just add. Quickly please. This would ordinarily be a document case, if youre prosecuting this case and basing it on the documents, so the fact that those documents are being withheld is quite significant and its quite remarkable that we built the record we had on the witnesses. The president s order to obstruct caught didnt just go with witnesses, witnesses also refused to testify, is that correct . Yes that is correct. In total more than a dozen members of the administration defied a lawful subpoenas or request for a testimony or a documents as we see on the side. Right, between testimony and documents that is correct. Is it also true that when witnesses chose to follow laws and testify the president denied those witnesses access to the documents that they needed to properly prepare for their testimony. For some of, them that is correct. I also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging. In many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my phone records. The state department emails, and many other state department documents. And i was told i could not work with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. These documents are not classified. And in fairness, and in fairness, should have been made available. The state department has called all materials in response to september 27th subpoena, that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. I have no such documents or materials with me today. The president was not denied the right to participate, quite the opposite. The president has chosen not to participate, and he is consistently trying to obstruct the impeachment investigation to ensure known testifies against them, that known produces a document that may incriminate him, and to engage in a coverup to prevent the American People from learning the truth. I yield back. Mister chairman, may i just Say Something for five seconds was a chairman, please . Just something for five seconds. No. The gentle lady thank you mister chairman. Mr. Goldman, some have argued that we should wait, that we are moving too fast, that we should try to get more evidence. Lets examine why these arguments are without merit. All members of the white house staff will appear voluntarily when requested by the committee. They will testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper questions, and quote. During the investigation of president clinton, ken starr interviewed white house staff. President clinton also provided written responses to 81 interrogatories from the house Judiciary Committee. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has categorically stonewalled congress is investigation at every turn, into this far back is april, the president presented his we are fighting all the subpoenas. More recently, on september october 8th, white House Counsel pat seem alone echoed the sentiment, in the letter reflecting the president and tracking that all executive Branch Officials not testify in this impeachment inquiry. Are you aware of that letter, mr. Goldman. Yes i am. And mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that President Trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek the completely undertaken by this house . That is correct. It is unprecedented. And in, fact pursuant to President Trumps ordered, 12 executive Branch Officials refused to testify as part of the house impeachment inquiry. Ten of whom defy congressional subpoenas. Am i right . Yes. Given the president s sweeping directive, not to cooperate with congress, do the Investigative Committees believe that there was any chance that other Administration Officials would come forward if subpoenaed . No, it became clear that the president was trying to block everything, and block everyone, and eventually, they came up with an alternative reason to write an opinion to prevent people from coming in, which is quite an aggressive view that they took. But it was quite clear that they were trying to block every single witness. Some have said that the Investigative Committee should have gone to court. Did you decide not to go to court . We thought about it a lot, because obviously, there are additional witnesses and we want this to be as thorough and investigation. As you can see from the Deutsche Bank case or the mcgahn case, it takes months and months to go through the Appeals Court, and thats effectively what the president wants, to delay this as long as possible lets take a look at that exact case, the mcgahn case. We are all intimately aware of it. On april 22nd, this Judiciary Committee served a subpoena for testimony. To white House Counsel, don mcgahn. And after mcgahn refused to testify on may 21st, the Committee Filed a lawsuit on august the 7th, to compel his testimony. And even though we did request expedited ruling, it was another three and a half months before judge jackson found the constitution does not allow a president to kneecap congressional investigations because, as the judge wrote, and they put it up on this screen, quote, president s are not kings. As you know, mcgahn has appealed. A hearing is set for january the 3rd of next year. As we sit here today, eight months since we issued that subpoena, would you agree its likely we will not have an Appeals Court ruling for many months to come . Its quite possible that it could be several more months, and then there may be the supreme court. Exactly. Mcgahn may appeal to the supreme court, and conceivably, that could take another many months, a year, more. It depends on whether its the storm or gets pushed over to the next term . Given us to lay illustrated mcgahn example specifically, would you agree that if we go to court to endorse the Investigative Committee subpoenas we could face another month or year long delay to hear testimony . Absolutely there is an ongoing threat because the president is trying to cheat to win the next election, its not something that happened in the past its continuing in the future so we cannot delay it just wait for the courts to resolve this one the reason we would have to go to the courts is because the president is obstructing an investigation into himself. The urgency is not just about our elections but also our National Security, and my right . That is a critical component to it let me and with this what is plain is we cannot wait, wait means never, we must not let this president disregard, defy, and delay justice, this president has shown that he repeatedly abuses the power interested him by the people every moment we wait is another opportunity to chip away at the foundation of our constitution so carefully crafted by our founders, i think you mister chairman any old fact. Gentle lady yields back and youll to miss jackson lee. Thank you very much mister chairman, id like to submit or ask unanimous consent to refer to the record in my questioning statement of Administration Policy proper without objection i would like to. And they call dated. Mr. Armstrong, thank you mister chairman. Mr. Castor its been a long day, its been all long couple of months, youve been in the middle of this and i know privacy wanted to Say Something so. Thank you i resisted on my willingness to be this this afternoon, but first of all the republicans on the Intelligence Committee gave out a number Ranking Member nunes sent a letter asking for witnesses Ranking Member colin sent a letter on december six asking for witnesses some of them wouldve touch at part of the issues and that is could ukrainians try to interfere with our elections this is a fact that it is meritorious of the investigation of the ingredients are investigated and we are being investigated so to the extent that hasnt happened republicans have attempted to do that during this process so, id like to say that and i have a couple other things mr. Armstrong. You know ambassador sondland is a witness who went from being not very favorable to very favorable in his hearing. One of his remarkable statements it is hearing was that everyone was in the loop, he types of this email to pompeo, to the secretary and the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone is in the loop is not conclusive at all, you know he talks about the statement that was going back and forth especially the early part of august, first of all they said all along in think the statement was a very good idea tried to write this statement and ultimately both sides decided that it wasnt a good plan so they didnt do it, so the fact that the sondland is emailing the secretary talking about the statement and so forth it doesnt show that every once in a loop ambassador hill testified with us and they dont just email the secretary the secretary gets an email of course but its not like this theres a whole secretariat that filters the email and so its not emailing the secretary of state, its not quite as simple as i think ambassador sondland made it seem here. So i just wanted to address that and we talked a couple times about the reliability of george kents notes, one of ambassador volkers assistance Catherine Croft testified and it was rather startling piece of testimony. She was asked whether cans notes would be reliable, sort of a typical question, everyone expecting the answer to be yes, they said she said no, i dont think kens notes would be reliable so i think that is important to put on the record that there is evidence, you know perhaps mr. Kent felt some oceans about some of these issues and his nose according to one state Department Official light not in fact be reliable. The cnn interview that there has been discussion about, okay there is discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned, maybe there is discussion of a cnn interview but we did not really get to the bottom of that, that was this is a more surface fact that was out there, ambassador taylor was worried it was going to happen but we didnt really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur with the cnn interview and whether president zelensky was actually going to do it. If you look back at the statements that they were talking about you are no wasnt comfortable doing it, so when it comes to the cnn interview its possible that you are macro david Vice President zelensky not to say what people thought he was going to say so im sorry mr. Armstrong. Know you worked hard and i want to summarize this, you can and because you cannot proof this entertainment on tv its they get a conviction in three minutes but my question is for what crime . A mueller conspiracy fell flat, the obstruction charge was a banded, Campaign Finances is a nonstarter, victim of conspiracy or the victim of bribery and extraordinary cities not a victim, so you can proves any of it doesnt mean you can use all of it and thats no way to prosecute a case it is no way to proceed with impeachment, thank you all. Gentleman yields back thank you mister chairman, mr. Goldman i want to come back and highlight what i think is the biggest National Security threat and that is foreign interference into our elections. I can tell you in florida we are extremely concerned about the security of our elections and the potential for election interference by Foreign Governments especially russia because florida my home state was the victor victim of russian hacking, there is every indication that they are trying to do the same thing right now, our country was founded on the premise that the elected officials are elected by the people but President Trump doesnt share these ideas, he has and continue to interfere he doesnt want the American People to decide and hes inviting foreign effort to fear. Its on mr. Goldman its been confirmed that he actually saw the interference in the 2016 election, is correct. What special counsel mueller said is that President Trump did invite them and solicit them to hack Hillary Clintons emails ultimately the Trump Campaign i think it was welcome, knew about the interference, welcomed it and utilized it. Right and in 2016 trump it became quite clear in all of his comments and all the other witnesses at any mention of corruption or Anti Corruption was really meant in the evidence show this it was really a euphemism for the investigations. Correct and trump is not only asking, excuse me President Trump is not only asking ukraine but he also says china should start investigating his political opponents, the president s pattern of behaviors incredibly disturbing, russia, ukraine china hes inviting three countries to help him in his reelection campaign, mr. Goldman i dont see any reason to believe that he wouldnt ask any other governments, for example venezuela, correct . He could at this point he has shown not only willingness to do this multiple times but i think most importantly for all of the members consideration he has also shown a lack of contrition, a lack of acknowledgment that what he is doing is wrong and that it is wrong, if you dont recognize it it is wrong then theres no reason but you wont do it again, if youve already done it. Exactly we saw giuliani and ukraine just three days ago and last night i wanted to say the Washington Post based saying that Rudy Giuliani has been now advising opening a back channel, so im very worried about that now i dont think we have any time to wait to see if any countries are now going to take him up on the offer to help him on his reelection campaign. Mr. Goldman did the Investigative Committees reach any committees about the ongoing threats, he continuing risk that the president poses. Yes for the same reasons we have just discussed, i think june Television Interview where the president integrated that he would once again anne have a data point, questioning that he is saying that he has such a great record and the democrats dont want him to win, the question is if that is the case and the very mae be the case then why does he need to cheat to win the election, why cant he just go on his own platform . I think they demanded it follows the rule of law and fight to keep russian interference, excuse me for an interference, now i know that i was elected by the people of florida and i work only for the people of this country and im not going to let anyone interfere in our elections or threaten our democracy. The continuing power of behavior should be a warning that it is a beginning of a dictatorship that i have seen in latin america, i have seen the abuse of power, and foreign interference and also obstructing any checks on their power. The constitution has no partisan allegiance, we cannot allow this behavior from this president or any future president our democracy depends on it. Gentle lady yields back, thank you mister chairman. Mister chairman. I recognize mr. Jordan for the purpose of this request. Thank you the majorities witness was wrongly said that we were able to interview people. We were not so the record, to letter santa chairman nadler and. Youll miss escobar is recognized. Thank you mister chairman many thanks to us who have spent the entire day, despite what our republican colleagues have stated over and over again and their own witness mr. Castor has agreed that these have produced direct evidence, direct evidence with any objective observer would recall as overwhelming, that evidence proves that the president solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election, pressured on zelensky to publicly announce unfounded investigations, conditioned a white house meeting, and 391 Million Dollars on the announcement of the egg investigations and then the president covered up his conduct obstruct the investigation, the findings reflect a serious abuse of power by the president yet we are being asked to ignore we have seen with her own eyes and what we have heard with your own ears. So mr. Goldman id like to get yourself to respond to some other claims of my colleagues have made today. Happily. The president and his allies say there was no quid pro quo, in other words they claim that the president wasnt withholding the aid in exchange for the manufacture political investigation, is it true that the aid was withheld and that there has been no logical explanation for the withholding of that aid . There is common sense that leads one to conclude that the aid was withheld from the investigations and then theres also direct evidence in that the president s own words to ambassador sondland said the same thing. Thank you President Trump knew he had leverage over president will zelensky and in fact david holmes testified that ambassador sondland told President Trump that president zelensky will quote, do anything you ask, him is that correct . That is what ambassador sondland said, actually that is what President Trump said. That is what ambassador sondland said to trump, my apologies. You testified that the ukrainians did no clear that the aid was being withheld, my colleagues continue to say that there couldnt be leverage because they had no idea that the aid was being withheld yet there has been evidence showed that i think its important for a second to take a step back it doesnt matter when they knew as long as they knew at some point then they realized at that point that the investigations were depending on the aid, in addition and there is a lot of evidence that they knew before the cable public on august 28th. And youre right it doesnt matter if you are about to be held up a gunpoint by a burglar it doesnt matter if you know or not. The intent is still there by the criminal about to commit the fact. My republican colleagues also make much about the a family being released, isnt it true that it wasnt released until the president got caught . There was an released into the president got caught and all of the money didnt actually get to ukraine and that fiscal year and you all had to pass to get that money to ukraine. Earlier today mr. Castro tried to explain the way the request for foreign interference in the election by claiming the president had three concerns, that number one the president was concerned about ukraine corruption, that number two he was concerned about burning sharing with europe and number three he brought up the debunked Conspiracy Theory about ukraine election interference which by the way that the last point we know is a russian talking point. Mr. Goldman did the Investigative Committees consider those three explanations and if so what did the evidence show about whether President Trumps request was actually motivated by those concerns . Its a very good question there are two things that were discussed here today, what is evidence and one is assertions and opinions, based on the evidence there is no evidence to support any of those three things that you just mentioned, theres no evidence to think that the president acted towards ukraine because of his concerns about corruption, even if he held those concerns that was not the motivating factor. There is no evidence that his concern, will giving enough money motivated him and there is really not a reasonable belief given all the evidence that he believed that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. Thank you id like to close with other scholars explain to us last week about why all of this is so important. Drying a Foreign Government into our elections isnt especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. Because if we cannot impeach a president to abuse his office for personal advantage we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or a dictatorship. If what we are talking about is not impeachable that nothing is impeachable. Thank you mister chairman i yield back will. Can i respond to that . This concludes the questioning, i i seek unanimous request to introduce mister chairman in his first hearing and the new congress which was on examining Prescription Drug prices, his first hearing was not about Michael Cohen as was asserted earlier. Without objection i now recognize the Ranking Member for any conclusion remarks he may have. Thank you mister chairman one quick thing it does matter whether they knew or didnt know. Because after they supposedly found out it does matter because after two meetings with officials from the United States it was never talked about it no linkage was made. The reason it matters is because if there is no understanding that this is being withhelds there is no quid pro quo and also goes to the state of mind of mr. Zelensky who says im not being pressured, there is nothing here and again it goes back to the amazing thought of this majority who keeps calling the ukrainian leader a liar, is just amazing that we continue to propagate that mid here tonight, but what did we learn today . Here is some things we did learn, in the hearing they talk about in which staff basically not members gave testimony and got into very heated debates with each other, this is not what the Judiciary Committee should be doing, its not the way they should be held and again and the reason it is mr. Goldman who handled himself very well but hes not adam schiff this is ridiculous we shouldnt be doing this, the Intel Committee also what we did find out took phone records and went on it endeavor against the wrecking with member but no itll take responsibility for telling the staff to use mr. Nunez or who decided to put this mirror job in the report, we will just assume that mr. Schiff because i do hold the member accountable. Also we found out today which is really interesting the staff can determine whats relevant or not not member of congress. Its interesting to me that staff told members of congress but that wasnt relevant again goes back to the problem if you are not members here to actually talk about this. Also interesting another thing weve learned that the chairman continues to regard in this regard house rules. Plainly disregarding house rules, if i hear basically one more time all address that one remark up impeachment articles whats the use of the hearing today forgot gonna have evidence if you get the confirmation of the markup itself. Even your most heated debate on getting rid of this president doesnt show any way that can be fair and in the end both parties are in the minority. If you destroy the institutional integrity which again in the staff have talked about we destroy this there is nothing else for us to do but well we were here there was something that did happen and as we were sitting here discussing whether to encourage the president on the call he had with president zelensky, to look at how it happened in 2016 democrats are seeking to impeach the president over that and we are seeing that problems with the Russian Investigation play out in front of our eyes. Its the same playbook, a select group of individuals concluding against trump, they are blowing through every procedure to ensure they get him in time. So what happened today while we were stuck here the Inspector General reports. Other aspects of the investigation, hurricane administration here some of the top findings the fbi included inaccurate information, the fbi failed to include an information in the fisa, the fbi did not cooperate a huge amount of information. The fbi shows two on brief candidate clinton not trump. And disclose information that was going directly to the clinton campaign. The fbi attorney on altered and other agencies email to miss league about whether they carter page had banana intelligence orders. The bottom line is that it should never have been obtained, if you dont have this than you dont have a Russian Investigation, if you dont have a russia investigation you cant knock out the president and you cant hamstring the president s first two years where there is special counsel investigation. I could go on from mr. Trump who has waited as the next batch of this and we will see where it goes. I do want to take one last thing from our side because this undoubtedly will be the last hearing because we have no desire to hear anything from our side, minority hearing or otherwise. I want to take the time to think mr. Castor the top investigators and they combined have 15 to 20 Years Experience in the house conducting investigations to protect the american interests, what these Public Service fans dont usually do is get questions from others who come before them, miscast and caroline usually alongside members of the congress, im sorry today that the majority chose to highlight their investigators and also the ones that have been brought in over these Public Servants, im sorry to choose this but its where were out and i want to thank them for their work today, id like to thank them for their work on our behalf but also the ones listening here if you look around the room this is what happening to the American People. But the end of the day most of the ones in the members of the meeting are begging to go somewhere else because at the end of the day one thing that keeps being said from mr. Goldman and others is these facts are undisputed the very nature of the fact that i say i disagree and use it you dont is a disputed fact, these are disputed facts and will be the first impeachments that is partisan and facts are not agree to, that is a state in which the history as we go, we have the cover rubberstamp just as the chairman predicted almost 20 years ago when we willingly except from someone else a project a report that we dont investigate ourselves, with that, that is the problem we have and that is called the Judiciary Committee impeachment scam today, you go back. And now recognize myself concluding remarks. After hearing the reports in the evidence today we now know several things with certainty. We know that the president was at the center of a scheme to pressure ukraine to announce an investigation of the president s political rivals. He applied that pressure by withholding both the white house meeting and vital military aid, he made that demand directly to president zelensky and confirmed his personal involvement, we know that there are no excuses for this conduct, it is no excuse that President Trump eventually released the aid after his scheme was revealed to the public and its no excuse that he insisted that there was no quid pro quo only after his scheme was revealed to the public, we know that his actions endangered National Security including our reputation our safety at risk in. We know that the president also compromised the integrity of our elections for corrupt private political purpose we know President Trump in a president active obstruction quoted everyone in the executive branch to divide all congressional subpoenas for documents and subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry. We know that his attempts to solicit a political favor from the government of ukraine fit a pattern of conduct that the president established in 2016 when he solicited political assistance from the government of russia. That pattern of misconduct undermines or National Security and Undermines Free and fair elections. Abusing his office in this manner and in obstruction the investigation that followed we know the President Trump has put himself before his country. I am struck by the fact that my republican colleagues have offered no serious scrutiny of the evidence and hand. Theyve talked about Everything Else but they have offered no one substantive word in the president s defense. I suspect that is because there is no real defends for the president s actions, President Trump put himself before his country. There is a constitutional remedy for a president who National Security in our elections, who puts his own interests before those of the country, that remedy is impeachment. The facts are clear, the danger to our democracy is clear, our duty is clear President Trump violated his oath to the American People, he placed his own private interests ahead of our National Security and the integrity of our elections and constitutes a continuing threat to the integrity of our elections into our democratic system of government. Such conduct is clearly impeachable, this committee will proceed according. This concludes todays hearing and we thank all of our prisoners from participating, without objections they have five days to submit questions original information for the record, without objection hearing is adjourned. We are going to open up our phones for your thoughts, what you hear about the witnesses, the testimony, for republicans use democrats use. We do not screen the phone calls and will get your calls momentarily and i do want to let you know that we are keeping our eye out on the cameras outside, the microphones outside the hearing room as members come to make comments to reporters, and we will listen and, we will listen first to jason in illinois, republican line. Today has been a very exhausting day of listening to the back and forth going over the same talking points. Both democrat talking points, republican talking points but where was adam schiff, why was in adam schiff there and why did he have counsel to the house Intelligence Committee go and answer for the investigations that he was in charge of, just more evidence that this is just a Kangaroo Court and that its purely partisan impeachment this needs to stop. Right neither the chairman of the committee was there, neither devin nunes testified, instead the councils from those committee from that committee testified before the house traditionary today, zeke is in Tampa Florida on the democrats line. Yes hello and thank you kindly for allowing me to talk, i have been watching this from the very beginning and i try to give the president the benefit of the doubt even though i will admit that i didnt vote for him. I just cant see how the republicans are so steadfast and Nothing Happened when so many people are saying yes this happened, it happened, it happened and im in shock that they are so blind, you know damien. Do you think the remedy for what happened is impeachment . I hate to see a president impeached even if it is donald trump but what he did was inexcusable and we have to have a remedy to stop this and send a message to other people we can be done and it just happens to be impeachment at this time. All right we go to our other is line oscar calling us from portland oregon. Hi. We lost oscar republican line. Hi. I think it was a sham today they dont listen to anything the republican side has to say and i think it is a farce. And youre not think he was wrong and what he did and i do not think hes impeachable, thank you. The committee got underway at 9 08 eastern this morning took very few breaks actually, we want to let you know that we will be errol the entire hearing coming up ready to clock eastern that will be over on c span two, we will go to anthony, anthonys in detroit on the democrats line. Hi yeah i Just Launched to call in and say that solely on the basis of the conduct of the republican members are so emotional, is ridiculous and it tells you theyre not all that serious and he is corruption and they were talking about is charities and foundations today so yeah this president is the most corrupt and we deserve better. Now we go to portland and this is robert. Hello there. Yes i think that is pretty clear today that we saw republicans want nothing more than to obstruct in project as much of his possible and that democrats are actually looking out for a democracy and every american should look at this and be outraged on by the behavior of the republicans. And do you think that the evidence presented the Intelligence Committee report barriers the impeachment stands up to the charges of impeachment that the articles of impeachment that are likely to be drafted in the coming days . Absolutely the democrats are doing a good job of outlining with the laws or and finding what the constitution says in the republicans are looking at it saying, thats our president and we dont want his crap to roll onto us. Expressing some frustration at the end of the hearing just the very end of the hearing the ranking republican is saying that this is the last hearing he called it the farce and he calls at the impeachment scam. To lake city pennsylvania on the republican line. Yes sir i think it is a double standard, i love my president i love what he does for my country you know what when obama was voted and i got the tax Free Health Care and everything i dont go out and i did say nothing bad about it, i didnt talk that about people but i think it is a double standard and it is really bad. Michelle did you vote for donald trump in 2016 . Yes sir i did. How much do you think this hurts him in pennsylvania, particularly in your area of pennsylvania . I dont think it hurts him because we are the ones that work seven days a week and when we had obama we gotta charged like 800 dollars or more and not having Health Insurance because we couldnt afford it anyway. This man he gave me almost 100 dollars more in my pocket. That is something nobody else gave us or, we worked everyday hard and they come up and they smear and they say this in that, but they are not doing nothing for us, they are not passing the laws, they are not trying to hold me on, they are not doing nothing for us. Michelle from pennsylvania the president heading to the keystone state by president pence for a rally in hershey pennsylvania, we will have live coverage alex from nbc reporter on capitol hill tweets this. The judiciary impeachment inquiry hearing concluded that roughly 6 42 after roughly nine hours of testimony we are waiting for the next step but this may have been the final hearing ron straining us next on the democrats line from swath in vermont. Hi guys i was proud of the democrats because they were laying out their information concisely, clear pragmatically. There wasnt a lot of yelling raising voices using adjectives to try to undermine any person and i mean i was really trying to be objective and listen to the republicans in all i heard from them was, and i suspect banging on pots and pans saying this is unfair, i wouldve loved for one of them to respond especially when they show the video of trump on the lawn inviting china and everyone else to investigate his political enemy basically. But we heard none of that and i was glad it did in turn into the democrats retaliating raising their voices in using adjectives so they were pragmatic, the attorney was brilliant and i really sad that the republicans to me in my opinion seam its all in. Let me ask you republicans of astronaut in the judiciary hearing today previously in the Intelligence Committee hearings they express their frustration at having the Committee Chair or deny them the ability to have some evidence in some testimony introduced, including the request for people like hunter biden to testify before the committees, whats your thought on that . I didnt give it much thought i think throughout the whole process the republicans in the democrats have had equal access in the closed door meetings to call their witnesses and lay out their cases i dont think anything of that nature. But again we are talking about process were not talking about them saying this is why President Trump didnt collude or didnt coordinate with a foreign power for his own interests over National Security that in here any of that in that disturbs me. All right ron in vermont and we go to hawaii next and hear from dorothy on. Good afternoon, welcome. Good afternoon thank you. I would just like to express my opinion that from what ive heard throughout this process is i reiterate the last caller saying that the democrats laid out their evidence and they also were very polite and cordial in the process where the republicans were yelling and trying to be very intimidating and very polite to the witness that they were talking, every time he had a marshal of information to elaborate on they cut him off because they knew he was going to Say Something that would help the impeachment process. Okay dorothy was noted several times and adam schiff the chair of the Intelligence Committee was not at todays testimony. I want to understand at least in the audience devin nunes was there and hurt, he was about the presentation of the evidence from the Intelligence Committees deliberations in their witnesses both public and the closed door testimony. Adam schiff the chair of the Intelligence Committee tweeting just a moment ago saying the famous question from the watergate hearings was what does the president know and when did he know it, we dont have to ask that of President Trump, he knew everything from the beginning, how President Trump was the central player in this corrupt scheme, in a whole gate ohio this is layery. Yes this is larry i used to be a democrat but i didnt like how they squeezed barack obama in there. And im a union man and i supported the democrats all my life but after seeing what they did with barack obama and what theyre doing today i am thankful that i am not a democrat because what they are doing is against the law. They are lying, all they know how to do is why sam and then they make the republicans look like theyre prejudiced and if youre a christian youre pressured and they are the ones that are prejudiced. I listened and its garbage. They have no proof but theyre still doing it. Larry how much did you watch today . I watched all of it. Okay we will go to the independent line. Hey there thanks for having me as an independent after watching all day today and watching the entirety of the impeachment inquiry, i am not convinced it all i dont think the democrats have made a direct case that this president and there are other candidates outside from biden but it hasnt won the nomination. They are not saying that he would be the one that it would oppose him so i think if this were to happen after biden had won the nomination then it would have a little bit more credible but this is a circumstantial case that insinuates that that was his motive but how courage they delve into the mind of donald trump so they could only insinuate and kind of contoured the fact that they have to build some kind of a case that is what hes trying to do but there is Elizabeth Warren and so many other candidates, there is Bernie Sanders and buttigieg so any one of those people who win the nomination i think truly the president wanted to get to the bottom of corruption in the ukraine and it was the bidens that injected themselves in that situation. And the bidens who are the ones that injected themselves so i think it is fair to the president to look into corruption before they spend their hard earned dollars over there. I think the democrats wanted a case, they made an eloquent argument there is some Brilliant Minds there but but i can make the appearance of substance in sound good it doesnt mean that i made my case. There is no direct evidence no one said that this was politically beneficial really this hasnt been beneficial this is been really bad politically. I think the president in the last three years has shown his politically and experience and he speaks directly and he doesnt watch the things that he says and what happened with joe biden was very apparently corrupt and he mentioned it and i think he might have seen it and decided look theres something to look into. At the end of the day a suggestion is under proof of a crime and so to prove bribery or extortion or things of that nature i think you have to show that a crime was committed and as far as i see as an independent, i dont see that, to me the democrats have made a mockery of the entire system. They pivoted from one situation to the next to find something that would seem damning. Collaborated with media its a tease to really push the narrative and what is incredulous, what i think is so ironic is that they are using this to win an election theyre using their power, domestically, politically to try to influence the voter to win an election an election that they will lose. When you look at the country, the economy, the Record Number its unbelievable. Another report here from alex in bc but maybe ahead we dont know you dont get an answer from jerry nadler left the Committee Room, departing the Committee Room ignoring all questions on the next step of the impeachment probe and or the articles of impeachment what they will look like, we are getting your reaction in your calls and comments for republicans and democrats. And for independence. We will reair all of todays hearing so about an hour away at cspan two cassie on the democrats align in greensboro pennsylvania. Yes. Make sure you cheer television go ahead with your comment. Okay one second. Okay i have a couple of statements on the whole thing, i have watched every day of all the proceedings from the beginning, what the americans dont know it is a have been cultish. That cold is called the trump stirs. If republicans can see for what they have talked and toyed they dont come back and say they werent treated fairly trump must have some kind of evidence on all those trump stir republicans as for the hearing today who is just the same topic as the hearings of the fourth, the republicans never gave an explanation or defending any part of trump and trump is been in trouble for numerous things. You have watched a lot of this case he did democrats make their case today are they ready based on what youve heard today. Let me finish this the republicans never explained they kept saying its unfair and they made a mockery of the whole hearing for interrupting people i dont like oh both the media say that we the American People cant understand what they are talking about and they have to explain everything to us, im sorry im a very intelligent person and as far as me growing up. I have heard from trumps move that he wanted out of the country. That is trees into me, to me. What i learned from school and i learned from the history books, that is dishonor to them to reduce honor of fellow american that to me is gold trees into. And from that law wont stick up for himself is a man that should not run this country he is trying to say that if i dont give anything or testify they cannot impeach me that says to me in the constitution and the American People. Yes he is glad youre watching so close infirmity tails, all the documents are reports including today eyes to the report go to cspan, the idea report on the Russian Investigation which was released today and if you go to cspan. Orgs impeachment you will find all of that in the documents action. All of our coverage of previous hearings and more plus reaction from the white house and we have not had reaction specifically from the White House Press office today but President Trump commenting throughout the day in a number of occasions and in new york we go to the republican line, joanne go ahead. Hi good evening thank you i just wanna say that i am a trump sister. That was very nice at the moment called us a colt. I am all for President Trump, everything he did he had every right to do. I want to know why the democrats dont want biden investigated. He has every right to hold back that money and i wish she did even give them money, all right law. They are trying to overturn the election because they have the majority, they didnt need any was in a bipartisan fair impeachment hearing. Wait till it goes to the senate, thats all i can say and trump is smarter than all those idiots with all those law degrees. Beverley hills florida, next up police on the democrats line. Yes good afternoon hope youre doing well first of all id like to say that i am a democrat now law i referred to the Republican Party has gop, gas or object. That is exactly what im hearing the democrats have repeatedly, repeatedly shown evidence that donald trump has committed more than one of impeachable offense, he continues to obstruct justice but not standing up and its all perfect a no witness then why is he testifying. I have been threatened and when i stood up and said that our freedom of speech has been taken away, when our republican counsel decided not to what is have the New York Times because he was fake news. I have been told by republicans that it doesnt matter whether or not he is corrupt or not they will support him no matter what. So i strongly believe that he should be impeached, not only repeated but removed thrown in jail, thats all i have to say. Thank you to the independence line, ron hello there. Hello and good evening thank you for having me on sir. You bet, go ahead. Sorry i believe that the democrats have their opportunity now to finally do what they have been planning for years but i think the problem is they dont have the guts to go through with it. They have what they say is evidence the publicans to security and now here we are, the ball is lined up all they have to do is kick it through in their stumbling because i dont think they truly believe theyre evidence, theyre waiting for one thing i am saying democrats get the guts impeach this president if thats what you believe and if you dont then he might as well go to sleep right now. So ron you dont even think the whole drop articles impeachment, you dont think the vote on it . I think they will but i think they need to do quicker than they anticipated they will, probably can still want to talk anymore, both sides only have their talking points theyre not presenting everything knew and they needed just do, it go through with it, send it to the senate and lets see what happens. All right thank you fear comment. The timeline is next thursday for the 2020 spending and the house and senate will wrap up their work at least for a 2019 by late next week back in early january however. John in tucson arizona, go ahead john, you are on the air. Hey how are . You nod it took so long i kind of lost my thoughts so there is no direct evidence but it is just ridiculous there just trying to overturn the election and there are a bunch of crybabies and ive never seen anything like it. I wish the roster of the country would come together. Based on what our previous caller said do you think the democrats will go through with it on . I hope they do you need 60 or 70 . Its never going to happen, so all theyre gonna do is make sure he gets reelected, im hoping on the take this trial, are you kidding me. All right john in arizona. Thank you for all the calls this evening and more ahead tomorrow washington journal live beginning 7 pm eastern every morning and we thank you for your participating in the conversation. As we mentioned we are going to rear the entire year and getting underway at 8 00 eastern coming up tonight that will be over on cspan to and how to Bernie Sanders taking questions on health care, Climate Change and