Now, turning attention to the ron johnson letter if i may. Yes. On august 31st, Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to ukraine on September 5th with senator murphy. And he wanted johnson wanted the aid released, he calls the president , he actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news. Right. The president said, im not ready to lift the aid. And they had this Senator Johnson. He writes a ten page letter, very detailed. And he gives some remarkable deta detail. And id like to read it, its on page 6. I add this is Senator Johnson speaking, i asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation Senator Johnson says, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed. And he started cursing. And he said no way, President Trump said no way, i would never do that. Who told you that . And Senator Johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reaction here was adamant, vehement and angry. Senator johnson goes on to say that as of august 31st, the president told him, but youre going to like my decision in the end. So i think thats very important context on what the president s State Of Mind was at least as of august 31st. Right, he fully expected, do you agree, that aid would eventually be released, after the 55 day pause, right . Yes. Absolutely. I want to thank yall for your presentations. Before caster, i believe youve
been talking for approximately 75 minutes today. And i want to thank you for that. My wife thanks you as well. She likes it when i do the talking when shes not around. Time permitting today, id like to cover four or five areas, distinct areas theres a lot of facts that the American People have not heard. And theres a lot of contradictions in certain peoples testimony, is that fair to say, mr. Caster . Id like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador volker, ambassador sondland and second perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people, is that correct . Yes. And the democrats report
would like us to believe that these three individuals were engaged in some sort of kabal or some sort of nefarious venture. But thats not true, is it . No. In fact, these three people were at all relevant times and even today acting in the best interest of the American People, is that true . Thats right. And with the highest integrity. Thats right. I think everyone testified that ambassador volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service. Across the board, all the witnesses, including ambassador ionavi ionavich. Theres a loot of firsthand knowledge with people we didnt talk about, correct . Yes. Now i want to talk about the president s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid, is that correct . He is deeply skeptical of sending u. S. Taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt, because its as good as kissing it goodbye. Is that something new that he believes or is that something he ran on . This is something that he has run on. Something that he has implemented policies, as soon as he became president. The third ranking state Department Official told us about the over all review of all foreign aid programs, and he described it as almost a zero based evaluation. And you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark sandy who is a Career Official at omb, is that right . Correct. And he had some information about the reason for the pause, is that true . I think that he had a
conversation with an individual named problem blair. And mr. Blair provided insight into the reason for the pause . Sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us a firsthand account inside of omb, the reason for the pause related to the president s concern about european Burden Sharing. Right. In the region. And he and in fact in his conversations, the president s conversations with Senator Johnson, he mentions his concern about Burden Sharing. And i believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chance lower of germany, and in fact the whole first part of the July 24th Transcript hes talking about Burden Sharing and
wanting the our pie an europea more. Yeah, Senator Johnson and President Trump were pretty cand candid, they believe that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Now id like theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid aboutfeeling pressure from President Trump. Isnt it true he stated over an over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump . Is that true . Yeah, he said it consistently, he said it at the United Nations september 25th, in three more News Availabilities over the course of the period including last
week. I want to change subjection and talk about something that Professor Turley raised last week, that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And youre an experienced congressional investigator. And Professor Turley, hes no trump supporter. He is a democrat. Thats right. Professor turley cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned, is that correct in. Correct. Thats the worst thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rancher, because no ones going to accept the result on the other side. And our Democrat Friends have all of a sudden become originalists and citing the founders in their intent routinely as part of this impeachment process. I think that goes with
whether this constitutes bribery. You know, theres case law on bribery, and im no Supreme Court scholar or lawyer or advocate, but theres new case law with the Mcdonald Case what constitutes an official act, and that hasnt been addressed in this space, and i think Professor Turley mentioned that. Right, and i think Professor Turley said a meeting does not constitute an official act. I think its the Mcdonald Case. And Professor Turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquirys unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely, i think we
saw that in Lieutenant Colonel vindmans deposition. There were some we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Right. Very basic things like who, what, when, where . And instead. I would say too. This rapid. Were in day 76, and its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly. Especially when the stakes are this high. Because any congressional investigation of any consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interests and how were going to respond to them. The first letter i think went in October Of 2017 and in december,
we finally got a witness. And it was the following spring, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war, we reached a deal with doj where we went down to doj and they gave us access to documents and to north of 800,000 pages, but they made us come down there, they made us go into a skiff and these documents werent classified, and it Wasnt Until May or june of that year that we started this process, when the investigation had been on going. And that is disappointing. Obviously we all wish there was an easy button, but congressional investigations of consequence take time. Right. And it took six months before the first document was even produced. You had to go down there and
review it in camera, and going back even further to fast and furious. Yes. The vision of the death of a Border Patrol agent. Fast and furious, we issued subpoenas. Mr. Issa sent subpoenas in February Of 2011 and we had a hearing in june with experts about proceeding to contempt. What does it take to go to contempt. That was the first time in june when we got any production. The production was largely publicly available information. And we went we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the Justice Department. At the time we were also working with Whistle Blowers who were providing us documents and chairman issa at the time in october issued another subpoena that was to the justice
department. And so the investigation had been ongoing most of the year, we were talking to whistleblowers, doing interviews, doing our best to get documents out of the Justice Department through that channel, but these things take time. Right. Certainly not 76 days. And if you truly want to uncover every fact as you should in an impeachment, do you agree . You have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas. And here my understanding is, we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information, will you please provide us with documents on xyz . And i think thats great. But you have to back it up with something. Theres a number of ways to enforce your request. The fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is, you rarely get what youre asking for, unless and until the alternative is less palletable for the respondent. You issue a subpoena and youre trying to get documents. One technique you can use is try to talk to a Document Customer owed ya custodian. They used to have document status hearings, where you would try to get the lay of the land theyre supposed to be directly responsible serving interests. You can saber rattle, about holding somebody in contempt often times witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you attach a Contempt Proceeding or a perspective Contempt Proceeding to their name, a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a Contempt Proceeding, you have a couple different steps
along the way, you could raise the prospect, schedule a Contempt Proceeding, after you schedule a congress tempt proceeding, you could hold the door open for documents or interviews, push it off, go through at the committee level, and these are all sort of milestone events. Which historically are unpalatable or less palletable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle and with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling. We didnt get a witness, it was Andrew Mccabe in for it was a couple months, but once we got Deputy Director mccabe in, a couple weeks later, we got director comeys chief of staff. A couple weeks later, once you get the ball rolling. And again, you dont always like 100 of the terms, sometimes you have to deal with agency council. Sometimes have you to look in camera, once you get the ball rolling, usually it leads to positive results and historically has allowed the congress to do its work. And were any of these things done here . No. In fact they decided, were not going to subpoena certain people that are important, is that fair to say . And were not going to go to court and enforce them. These people have these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle. Thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One of the interesting things, dr. Cupper man who has been described by dr. Fiona hill and a number of witnesses who is a solid citizen. He filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena, and a judge was assigned to it, judge leon. And the issues that cupper man
raised were slightly different than don mcgann. Cupperman is a National Security official. Cupper man, you know, filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Cupper man wasnt asking the court to tell him not to come testify. To the contrary, he was seeking The Courts Guide Answer to facilitate his cooperation. And ultimately the committee with drew the subpoena. Yet which raises questions on whether the committee is interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead the Intelligence Committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. I think they rely 600 times in their i tell you what i did, i on this point, i yesterday, i
opened the democrat report and i did a controlf. Yes. And sondlands name shows up 611 times. And in fairness, its going to be double counted because if its in a sentence and then its in a footnote, thats two, but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondlands relied on big time. Yes. And i think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and the record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns of sondland and sondland in his deposition didnt share the same view. Theres a lot of instances of
that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing, and other witnesses recall another, is that correct . Sondland is a witness, is a and hes a bit of an enigma. Lets say it that way. He was pretty certain in his deposition that the Security Assistance wasnt linked to anything. And then he submitted a an addendum. I call that the press ilsenten ilsentence. Even in that addendum or supplement or whatever its called, you know, talk to him and her and anyway, sondland ends with, i presumed. There wasnt really any firsthand information. We dont have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct . On certain facts we dont. We have firsthand information
on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. Although all conflicting on the july 10th meeting. There are you know, episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account. But the investigation hasnt been able to reveal, you know, firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. And i think weve already talked about this, ambassador sondland would presume things, assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him, and he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . You know, it started with his role with the ukraine portfolio, a lot of people at the state
department were wondering why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged in issues relating to ukraine. And there are answers for that. Ukraine is an asperant to join the eu. And there are a lot of other reasons. Mr. Turner explored this really well at the open hearing. We asked ambassador sondland, he said did he did a tv interview, where he said the president s given me a lot of assignments. The president s assigned me to the ukraine and so forth. When we asked him in his deposition, he conceded that he was in fact spinning, that the president never assigned him to ukraine, that he was just he was you know, he was exaggerating. I think at the public hearings, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isnt a note
taker, he in fact he said, i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Lets say it this way, ambassador taylor walked us through his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk and a notes book in his coat pocket. He brought it with us and showed us. Consequently, when ambassador taylor recounts to us what happened, its backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland on the other hand was very clear that he said he did not have access to his State Department records. While he said that at the public hearing simultaneously, the State Department issued a tweet, i think, or a statement saying
that isnt true. No one is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails, hes a State Department employee, he can go he does have access to his records, he stated he didnt. And he stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes. And he conceded that he doesnt have recollections of on a lot of these issues, and we sort of made a list of them, and i think at the hearing i called it thetry te trifecta of unreliabi. And youre not the only person that has concerns about ambassador sondlands testimony, conduct. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct . Yeah, tim morrison talked about instances where ambassador sondland was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why sondland was trying to get into the warsaw meetings september 1st. And dr. Hill, fiona hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, youre correct. Yeah, i believe ambassador reeker said he was a problem, yeah. Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said he might be an intelligence risk, is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his mobil device and make telephone calls, which obviously can be monitored. Yes. By the bad guys. We talked about how he was spinning, that you know, certain things, and he admitted that, how he was spinning, and he admitted, he exaggerated. He also when it comes to his
communications with the president , we tried to get him to list all the communications with the president , i think he gave us 6. And then when he was back at he walked us through each communication with the president. It was about the christmas party, when the president of finland was here. And then Congresswoman Speer asked him the same question in the open hearing. He said he talked to the president 20 times. So the record is mixed. I think my time is up, thank you both. I yield back. The gentleman mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman, i move to recess for 30 minutes pursuant to clause a of rule 1 111. Okay. The gentleman has moved to recess for how long . 30 minutes, sir. For 30 minutes. That is a privileged motion, it was not debatable. All in favor, say aye . Aye . No, no. The nos have it. Ask for a roll call vote. Mr. Nadler . No. Mr. Cohen . No. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Deutsch votes no. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Cissaline . No. Mr. Lui votes no. Miss demmings votes no. Mr. Correia votes no. Miss garcia . No. Mismcbath votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Miss dean votes no. Miss escobar votes no. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensen burn irvotes aye. Mr. Gohmert votes aye. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck . Mr. Radcliffe votes yes. Miss roby votes aye. Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock voights aye. Mr. Russenthaler votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stubbey votes yes. Mr. Chairman, how am i recorded . Im not recorded. Id like to be recorded as no. Mr. Cohen votes no. Any other members who wish to vote who have not voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 15 ayes and 24 nos. Now we will engage in questions under the five minute rule, i yield myself five minutes for purpose of questioning the witnesses. Mr. Goldman, can you explain the difference between Vice President bidens request to ukraine a few years ago, and President Trumps request to ukraine earlier this year . Yes, when Vice President biden pressured the ukrainian president to remove the corrupt Prosecutor General, he was doak so with an International Consensus as part of u. S. Policy, the entire European Union supported that, the imf gave the loans that he was referring to, so he did that as part of the entire International Communities consensus. And when President Trump is
asking for this investigation of joe biden, all of the witnesses, every single one testified that that had nothing to do with official u. S. Policy. And Vice President bidens request had no personal political benefit, where as President Trumps did . Yes, in fact, if the witnesses testified that if that corrupt Prosecutor General were actually removed, it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said that by removing that Prosecutor General and adding a new one, that there was an increased chance that corruption in ukraine would be prosecuted, including as it related to the berisma company 2345 his son was on the board of. Ask you explain what happened with the intelligence records. This is a usual investigative practice, where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a scheme, investigators routinely seek their records. Just to be very clear, this is metadata, it is only call to, call from and length, it is not the content of the calls. Or the text messages. So theres no content, theres no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or attorney client, none of that exists, and there are no risks to that. What we did, for the people that several of the people we had investigated and subpoenaed, and who were alleged to be part of the scheme, we got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out maybe theres Additional Communications that we were unaware of. What we then did is took the call records, and matched it up with important events that occurred during the scheme. Wed start to see if there are patterns, call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evidence. In this case, it happened that
people who were involved in President Trumps scheme were communicating with the president s lawyer who was also involved in the scheme, a journalist, a staff member of congress and another member of congress. We did not at all seek in anyway shape or form to do any investigation on any one member of congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president s scheme. And everything you did was basically Standard Operating Procedure for a Well Run Investigation . Every investigation in 10 years i did, we got call records. Did White House Council make his view clear about witnesses in the investigating committee, what was that view . We never heard from the White House Council that other than the letter, which basically just said, we will not at all cooperate with this investigation in anyway shape or form, they nerve reached out to engage in this accommodation
prosets, it was a complete stonewall, not only will the white house not participate and not cooperate and not respond to the duly authorized subpoenas of congress, we are also going to direct every other executive Branch Agency to define. I have a series of questions and please keep your answers brief if you can. Congress has not built a sufficient record to impeach the president in this stage. As foreign prosecutor, you have spent years building substantial case records, what is the strength of the record here . I think we have moved fast, and the evidence is really overwhelming, we have 17 witnesses with overlapping overwhelming . And the committee managed to collect such a compelling record in the dpface of unprecedented obstruction by the president. Was it so pervasive that the president planned to cover up any misconduct. We do find there was
concealment of the president s conduct. He directed his administration not to cooperate with the inquiry. President Trump Cannot Permit his administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under the circumstances. The Investigative Committee has tried to interview dozens of witnesses and were stymied with respect to most of them. There were 12 witnesses that were directed not to appear. And they did not appear. Thank you very much, i yield to mr. Collins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its an interesting thing now, now we can commit basically extortion or put pressure on others as long as we have the International Community behind us. As long as we think were okay, i can extort anybody i want to. That was in essence what you just said, whether you believe it or not, i want to go to the foreign records. Its a novel approach, the phone
records issued hear me clearly, i have no problem with the subpoena as far as the Subpoena Power from congress, not a problem. My problem as you did not answer in the previous, is taking the me metadata, its interesting you had to go, theres no content. This committee should be hearing fisa this week, the ig report came out and were doing this, its interesting to see that the calls in the metadata and not the content, what the problem i have here is this, if rudy, nunes, were the only phone records returned from the subpoena why were these released . Heres the problem, you took the committee and this is why i want to know who ordered it. The committee made a choice. Chairman schiff or you who did get to come, at least thank you for showing up, made a conscious choice to put these records into
the report. It was a drive by, it was a gratuitous drive by that you wanted to smear the Ranking Member or these others because they were in those numbers that were connected to that. Im not saying you knew the content or anything else, you just admitted a second ago, that it was simply they were contacting these people. The problem i have with that, is you could have easily done Congressperson One or congressperson two, reporter one, reporter two, if they did not actually contribute to your report, its nothing but a drive by, thats the problem i have here. I have no problem with you working here, i have no problem with the report or the subpoena, you can pretty it up all you want. That was nothing but show the American People that at least for a moment the schiff report became a partisan smear against other members we dont like. Because there are other alternatives for you to do. I have no problem as i said, with you doing proper oversight. Ive had a lot of issues with
how this oversight 1 done. But dont make it up, and dont not tell me or the rest of this committee who ordered that. That was nothing more than than a smear campaign, and to say its not is being disingenuous with this committee. The chairman gave you a chance to rehabilitate and you made it worse. Its also a fuller record got leaked from the Executive Session got leaked to the Washington Post. And i dont understand except how we can say this is okay. How do we say this is fine . This is how we have devolved. And the members on the majority now may be members of the minority at some point. If were setting the standard for this is where were going with these kind of investigations, were in trouble. Were in deep trouble because this is another thing that the founders, you and others today, the founders were dopely concerned about a lot of things. One of the things is opposed to they also were concerned
about a partisan impeachment. A partisan impeachment because you dont like his policies. You dont like what he said and how he said it, i dont like the way joe biden said it, but you blew that off as everybody has the backing of the International Community. What we have become is a perpetual state of impeachment, and that is the problem that everyone on this dias should have. Dont come here and not answer the questions, adam schiffs doing that fine without you. But dont come here and say, im not going to say, because you know good and well, sometime at some conferences, in some committee room, in some little room, somebody said, hey, this is interesting, i have devin nuness phone number, that number matches and were going to put it in the report, not because we think devin nunes is a part of this, but because he had a phone call with someone were investigating. Its a drive by, and its beneath you and beneath this congress. And that is why i have such a
problem with this, and then you leaked further information. This is the problem here, and we can be righteous about trying to get this president or note. When it comes to this, this is why people are getting so just turned off by this whole thing. When we understand that, that is the problem i have, you could have handled this differently. Im going to blame the chairman, i hold the member, the one with the pen responsible. Im going to assume he ordered this, this he was the one that said put their names in here, hes the one that cant come and defend that. Unfortunately, he sent you. And you had to take it. Thats wrong and this committee deserves better, with that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back, the gentle lady from california is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gist of the question here is the potential of abuse of the president s power to benefit himself in the next election. Now, america is based on free and fair elections, after russia
interfered in the 2016 election, the American People are rightfully concerned about ensuring that the next election is free of foreign interference, and keeping that in mind, id like to ask you, mr. Goldman, the following question. Ambassador sondland testified that according to rudy juligiul, President Trump wanted a Public Statement from president zelensky, committing to investigations of berisma in the 2016 election, isnt that correct . Yes. And ambassador sondland testified as the screen in front of you shows that president zelensky had to announce the investigations, he didnt actually have to do them . Correct. Mr. Goldman, youre an experienced former prosecutor, is it common to announce an investigation but not actually to conduct the investigation . No, usually it works theory verse. You dont announce the
investigation because you want to develop as much evidence while its not public because if its public then you run into problems of people matching up testimony and witnesses tailoring their testimony which is part of the reason why the closed depositions in our investigation were so important. What did that evidence about the announcement tell you about why President Trump would oath care about president zelensky announcing the investigations but not actually conducting them. There were two things it said, one is, whatever he claim s claims about his desire too root out corruption, even if you assume these investigations are for that purpose as he has stated it undermain mines that, because he doesnt care if the investigations are done. Even if you assume which i dont think the evidence supports, that its corruption, then hes still not doing the corruption investigations. The second is, he just wanted the public announcement, the
private conversation was not enough, thats an indication he wanted t Eed The Political Bene from them. The investigation could benefit the president politically, because the announcement alone could be twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival. Thats consistent with the findings. You know, president nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election. And then he tried to cover it up just as weve seen some obstruction here. Even more concerning in this case President Trump not only appears to have abused the power of his office to help his own reelection campaign, he used a Foreign Government to do his bidding and he used military aid as leverage to get the job done, now, this aid was approved by congress, it was appropriated on a bipartisan basis for ukraine
to fight russia, who had invaded them. And while aid was withheld, people died while this aid was being withheld. Some people argued since the aid was released, that there was not a problem. But mr. Goldman, isnt it true that the aid was released only after the president got caught . And only after Congress Learned of the scheme to make this life or death aid conditional on this announcement of investigation of his political rival . There were several things that made the president realize that this was coming to a head and could not be congress sealed. The Whistle Blower complaint was circulating around the white house, the congressional committees announced their own investigation, and then the perhaps the Washington Post Op Ed On September 5th linking the two, and the Inspector General notified the committee that
there was this whistleblower complain the that was being withheld by the trump investigation. I made it clear that i didnt want to be part of a third impeachment inquiry, but the direct evidence is very damning. And the president hasnt offered any evidence to the contrary, weve asked, subpoenaed, invited the president , and nothing has come forward if he had evidence of his innocence, why wouldnt he bring it forward . You know, this is a very serious matter, that strikes at the heart of our constitution. And its a concern that were here, but i heard over and over again that this is too fast. Miss jackson lee and i were talking, we were both members of this committee during the clinton impeachment, that took 73 days, were here on the 76th day, we need to proceed, and i thank you, mr. Goldman for your hard work. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Without objection the hearing will stand in recess for 15
minutes. Youve been watching the house judiciary committee, this hearing getting more contentious this afternoon as lawyers for the democratic majority and republican minority answer questions about their findings, presenting their cases for and against the impeachment of President Trump. Laura, the second half felt different with the various Staff Members being cross examined by individuals on the committee. The reason they were doing this as opposed to a general presentation of the evidence showing the pros and cons of what abuse of power would look like, a presentation to convince and persuade the American People that may take place, they were trying to talk about the way in
which the questions were presented or asked over a dozen witnesses in the public hearings, to say, what did you fail to present. What was the angle about the abuse of powers, they were able to go altd one another, the different lawyers to ask the questions to say, hold on a second. When the American People heard something in the public hearings, it was because you were trying to pursue a narrative, not the whole comprehensive truth here, that wasnt immediately obvious, as you wondered i think his name was gohmert. Why are we having people who are witnesses suddenly being the judges in this as well, and getting information. Thats because that was the lens we saw in the past two weeks, ho you it comes through. I dont think it was effective to do it that way, i would prefer someone who has gun trials to present the evidence as opposed to present someone who is an Interested Party to undermine their own case in front of the American People. It would have been more prudent to say, here are the facts we have in support of this theory of the case, here are the facts that people are saying, here are
counter arguments, heres why those should not be looked at. Thats what lent itself to this being a problem. You saw castor being attacked. Do you think this would have been more effective for both sides if it had been chairman adam schiff of the Intelligence Committee talking instead of his lead investigator and lawyer mr. Goldman, and the same thing with devin nunes, the ranking republican on intel against instead of that committees republican lawyer mr. Castor . I dont. I thought in the morning in particular, where you had the detailed cases laid out by both sides was very valuable. And was something that was substantive and serious, and frankly, the lawyers know the facts better than the politicians. We spent the last hour with the
republicans going after daniel goldman, the lawyer for the democrats on the Intelligence Committee about the issue of the phone calls that were disclosed involving devin nunes, and whether that was like an attack leak on another member of congress. It is about as far from weather donald trump should be impeached or not than i can imagine. It was a tale of two stories, the republicans were going after the democrats on process. And that was clearly part of the process. And they were saying as mr. Castor said the democrats have been obsessed with impeaching donald trump since day one, and they were setting out to prove that, and the democrats were there with their attorney was saying, actually, the president remains a Clear And Present Danger to the United States of america, because he has tried to influence the 2020 election. And they went back and forth on
that i mean, you know, goldman says the evidence was overwhelming and uncontested. And the republicans say no. Its not that at all. I mean, my favorite part of this was when mr. Castor was trying to do his own riff on the president s phone call, and he said he was not asking for a favor that would help his reelection, he was asking for assistance in helping our country move forward from the decisiveness of the russia collusion investigation. Huh . I dont really understand that. What did you make of it . Well, i think he said a lot of problematic things. Castor . Yeah. And also, when he was asked. Joe biden was a leading contender for the nomination, and he wouldnt even acknowledge that basic fact. He also went to Great Lengths to make claims that the ukrainians
didnt have any idea that the aid had been held up, when we had at least five people testify that they did. They knew in july there were a lot of people who knew that they knew it had been held up and they were concerned about it. He was making these arguments that had been making republican talking points. I would expect more from him frankly. Im not sure anybody was moved by what they saw today. The only thing probably more confusing for the American People than watching congressmen fight over this is watching staffers fight over it. The same information rediscussed, am dids making the same arguments, republicans making the same arguments, one of the exchanges that stood out to me, and you heard a lot of republicans talk about this today, the democratic lawyer was badgering caster over biden, being a leading contender in the tweets about biden. And a lot of republicans look at this issue from a different
angle, all you have to do to be absolved of having bad judgment in your past job being looked at is run for president. As they go through that, they think theyre scoring points on republicans. A lot of republican see it differently, that its not fair for him to get away with a potential appearance of a Conflict Of Interest because he happened to file for office. Asha, what did you make of the hearing so far . I think you saw two different strategies, one is presenting a legal theory of the case. Barry burke laid out the abc. Corruption of the elections, and then you just kind of had this Very Meandering Presentation by steve castro, which focused on the process, eventually got to the substance, but even then involved these cherry picked kind of mischaracterizations of the evidence. And i think its strange to me because i think that they could, if they wanted to, get a very
good attorney to push a legal theory, even ifs something as basic as, this is not an impeachable offense, and we will go to bat on that matter of law, i think that could be more effective than kind of what theyre doing with the subpoenas and bringing up all of these issues. The other thing thats interesting is, that steve caster, the republican lawyer whos serving double duty, being the lawyer for the house Intelligence Committee and house judiciary committee, hes not going with what we heard from jonathan turley, the republican witness last week, which was even if you dont like this, its not impeachable. Steve castor is going with the trumpian defense, this was a perfect phone call, nothing is wrong here, what are you talking about . Turley also said, were not sure where this is going, so we need more evidence. He didnt commit one way or another, whereas caster, youre absolutely right, was taking the position was, zelensky was never pressured, there wasnt any quid
pro quo, theres nothing here, that phone call was perfect, he didnt use the word perfect, but that is effectively what he said. The ukrainians didnt want the president elected. And even though they wrote it in an op ed, its not election meddling, youre allowed to do that. It wasnt about trumps election, it was about his position on crimea. They didnt like trump, so he was very using the interrupt arguments to a t. Everyone stick around, we have a lot more to talk about. We have more on the impeachment hearing, first, we have big Breaking News, the Inspector General report on the fbi investigation into the 2016 Trump Campaign, that report has dropped. What does it say . Well tell you when we come back. Stay with us. Do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging . Prevagen is the number one pharmacistrecommended memory support brand. You can find it in the Vitamin Aisle in stores everywhere. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Here hold this. Follow that spud. [ Tires Screech ] the Big Idaho Potato Truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. And i want it back. What is it with you and that truck . Want to brain better . Say hello to neuriva, a new Brain Supplement with clinically proven ingredients that fuel five indicators of Brain Performance focus, accuracy, memory, learning, and concentration. Neuriva. Great customizes your caru wheninsurance, tual so you only pay for what you need. Wow. Thanks, zoltar. How can i ever repay you . Maybe you could free zoltar . Thanks, lady. Taxi only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. After being a part of millions of love stories. At kay. Weve learned the most important love story. Will always be your own. Every yes. Oh my gosh. Yes. Begins with kay. Get twentyfive to fifty percent off everything during our friends and family event. Get twentyfive to fifty percent off the holidays are here and so is tmobiles newest, most powerful signal. And we want to keep you connected to those you love, with the new iphone 11. So tmobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. For yourself, or up to a family of four. Keep your family connected, and hurry into tmobile today, to get up to four iphone 11s on us. Only at tmobile. I am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. I am for shortening my cold, with zicam zicam is completely different. Unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. I am a zifan for zicam oral or nasal. We have Breaking News from the Justice Department. The highly protected Inspector General report is out. The ig found no evidence of political bias or improper motivation influencing the fbis decision to investigate the Trump Campaign and the russian government, but the report did find major errors in the handling of surveillance warrants. Key facts were inaccurately stated or omitted. William barr is disputing the findings of the Inspector General report calling the investigation into the Trump Campaign intrusive, evan perez has been going through the findings of the report since it was released earlier this afternoon, tell me the top lines that youre pulling out right now. The top line does not fall in line with what the president and some of his allies have been saying, the fbi had no reason to be dog this investigation, and thankly, even what bill barr seems to be suggesting. Ill quote you part of what the report says from the Inspector General. We did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations, now, these were four investigations into four people connected with the Trump Campaign, were talking about george papadopoulos, carter page, michael flynn, who was a National Security adviviseadvis
paul man for the who served as the chairman of the campaign at one point. And what horowitz found is that the fbi had enough evidence to open this investigation. And so what was done at the beginning was proper. The report of course also outlines some very significant errors made by fbi officials. Thats right, there were 17 total instances in which there were substantial inaccuracies left out of these fisa applications. They were targeting carter page who was an adviser for the campaign. These were four different warrants that were got approval from a court. In each case, the fbi failed to update the information for the judges that were reviewing these warrants. Bill bar taking the unusual step of slamming the fbi. What is he saying exactly . Hes challenging the key finding here from horowitz is p. M. Ill read you his statement that is unusual that he issued this afternoon, the Inspector Generals report now makes clear that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u. S. President ial campaign. On the thinnest of suspicions, that in my view were sufficient to justify the steps taken. Its clear from its inception, the evidence was exculpatory. Nevertheless the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the campaign. As you know, the Attorney General has hired and appointed
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.