with the findings in the horowitz report. horrow its seems to be giving the fbi that part of the investigation saying it's a clean bill. they had enough reason to do this investigation. everybody who was interviewed cements to indicate they did not open an investigation. >> evan perez, thank you so much. joining our panel now, we have with us jim bakker. you are not singled out the report makes clear the fbi failed when it came to the administering the fisa warrants, too much was left out or not presented to the court. do you accept what the inspector general is saying? >> i am there are two big groups of conclusions, one is, it was not a politically motivated investigation and it was properly predicated with us going-forward with that investigation. it was malpractice for us not to open this investigation. all of the statements that it was a hoax are wrong. the investigation was not a coup or a coup attempt. >> having said that, he does point out many mistakes that were made with respect to errors and omissions. those have to be addressed, they should be addressed, both with respect to the individuals involved. the director chris ray is take ing -- it needs to have the confidence of the american people at all times, if things need to be fixed they should be fixed. >> a lot of civil libertarians have been processed for years say thing that fbi agents cooke the books. >> now we have some movement on that, it does say that somebody might be investigated for possible prosecution and fbi lawyer, i believe. >> that's my understanding from that report. that's my understanding he's been known for criminal investigation. >> nellie moore, bruce orr an fbi official recommends he be referred to the of professional responsibility. >> it's an internal watchdog specifically focuses on attorneys. they'll mike a decision with respect to any punishment or clarification that needs to be made. >> you have the attorney general criticizing the fact that the investigation started into associates of the trump campaign and very unusual the u.s. attorney who is currently leading into the origins of the russia investigation issued a statement in which he said last month, we advised the inspector general. we do not agree with how the fbi case was opened. what do you make of that? >> both of these statements are unusual. the attorney general statement in what he says is wrong. in addition he has the statement about the fbi investigation open on the thinnest of predications or thinnest of facts that's what the a. 'd ag guidelines permission. the guidelines were established by a republican attorney general in 2008 under president bush. those are the guidelines that the fbi has operated under since then if they don't like it, they can change that. the guidelines written in the post 911 era, to allow the fbi to open investigations on very thin information about what terrorists might be doing. they apply to counter terrorism cases and counter intelligence. he needs to be careful what he wishes for. >> with characteristic restraint here. but let's be clear about what what happened today. for years and years, donald trump has said that the fbi and the deep state was involved in an illegal conspiracy to bring down his campaign. that they relied on the steele dossier to investigate and launch this investigation and now after years of investigation the inspector general said not true. didn't happen. this conspiracy theory that the president of the united states has been pushing was a total lie. then we learn the attorney general is not happy with that, he wants to continue investigating and investigating and his handpicked investigator u.s. attorney durham out of the blue, out of nowhere comes out and says well, we disagree. based on what. >> he's not refuting it with any facts, he's just saying, we disagree, he could have kept his mouth shut and when his report comes out. >> it's something we got criticized for doing. there was a whole ig investigation about that, i would encourage the ig to take a look at mr. durham's statement. >> it sounds or it seems political which is what everyone at the fbi is accused of being. and the attorney general. and mr. durham in particular who hasn't issued a report, who hasn't shown us what he's got is saying, well, we disagree. you do? why? why did you feel the need to do that. the administration and the attorney general who is clearly charging everyone else seems to be critical. >> they are critical to the process. they are criticizing, certainly sending a conspiracy theory has been that everything was launched with the christopher steele dossier. papadopoulos is the true origin of that, however, we have been saying the fisa process is so important, the court is only as good as the information it receives, they have to give a benefit of the doubt and trust the investigators that give the investigation. if any part or layer of that is inaccurate. the court is at the mercy of them. the court is saying, hold on a second they should have said steele, understates his availability. that these admissions were so clear they should have done that. now, all these things are not against a rule, there's an ab sense of a rule due to that respect. a lot of what happened here does support the president's narrative, but there were people who were against them and not doing his bidding. that's okay if it's the fbi. >> it wasn't political. >> the president talks a lot about lisa page and peter strzok who have the text chain, in which they're saying many unkind things about then candidate trump. the report says, while lisa page attended some of the discussions, she did not play a role in the decision to open crossfire hurricane or the four individual cases. while strzok was involved in the four investigations. >> there were additional people, yeah. >> he was not the highest decision maker as to any of those matters. it certainly clears them of the idea that the investigation happened because of lisa page and peter strzok being biassed against him. the report says the opposite. >> the word to take away is scrupulously accurate. because of the omission, the ig report is saying, they did not go to such great lengths to have it be scrupulously accurate. there are ways to reform that, if you are going to require people to have all the information, it's going to take a toll on the intelligence community. didn't we hit it last week? we want to have a common theme of why everyone's against trump. >> do you feel vindicated, you've been cleared, not that you had a necessarily cloud above your head, but in terms of the aspersions that were being cast by president trump. as a neat, there's nothing in here about obama tapping his phones at trump tower. despite that long statement by the president. >> i'm glad the ig confirmed we didn't do anything wrong in the sense of trying to do some political -- misuse our power. we did not abuse our power for some political purpose. that's one of the key takeaways. people within the organization screwed up or made mistakes or left things out, that 150eseemse a valid criticism and needs to be addressed. i've been working on investigations for 30 years now. and most have mistakes in them. >> we're going to go back to gerald ed thnadler. >> the fisa applications and other aspects of the fbi's crossfire -- >> i think if we're going to -- >> the fisa report that just came up. >> we'll take that under advicement so we can review it. >> mr. sensenbrenner. >> i would like to follow up on the two series of questions that ranking member mr. collins directed to mr. goldman relative to the telephone company subpoenas, and the inclusion of certain information in the majority report from the intelligence committee. let me see that there are two issues involved. one that is not involved is the legality of the subpoena, i believe that was a subpoena that is fully authorized under the law and under congressional procedures. where i do have a problem and a really big problem, is the fact that somebody made a decision to match certain data, metadata that had been collected through the subpoena with phone numbers of journalists and members of congress. and that is the beginning of the surveillance state, which i think is outrageous, particularly since the freedom act in 2013, we curtailed the nsa's ability about that. now, had chairman schiff decided to man up and come here and talk, rather than hiding behind mr. goldman as chief investigator, as his sur gate i think we could have gotten to the bottom of this, and taken action to make sure that this never happens again. i do not want to see members of congress through their subpoena power being able to subpoena the telephone records of private citizens without any kind of cause or to match the numbers up with somebody else to see who they were talking to, and then going the next step and publishing the results of that match in a report that the minority hadn't seen until it was released. that i think is an abuse of power. we're talking a lot about abuses of power here in the white house and in the executive branch. here we see a clear abuse of power on the part of the people who are prosecuting this impeachment against the president of the united states. they should be ashamed of themselves. now, i come from the state where joe mccarthy came from. i met joe twice when i was first getting into politics as a teenager. folks, you have made joe mccarthy look like a biker with what you've done with the electronic surveillance involved. it's something that's going to have to put a stop to now. whether it was chairman schiff. i would have loved to put sharm schiff under oath so he could be required to answer the same way you have as one who has spent quite a bit of time accesses of the patriot act which i authored, with the freedom act which i also authored, the surveillance state can get out of control. this is a major step in the surveillance state getting out of control, in the hands of the congress. a majority party that wants to influence political decisions relative to politicians in this case, president donald trump that they don't like. and they haven't liked him from the beginning of his term. they have tried to talk about impeachment since the beginning of his term, they thought that the mueller report was going to be the smoking gun. it ended up being cap fiscal. now they're working on this. the steps think have gone. the violation of commence. the precedent they have started and looking at the way the chairman has conducted this hearing today and in the previous hearings not even to allow mr. gets to make a point of order, that he can't see what you put on the screen, i think goes against the enfire fabric of american democracy, shame on those who have done it, and if we want to get back to something objective, it's time to push the reset button. >> could i respond quickly? >> mr. chairman, i yielded back, i didn't ask him a question. i made a statement. >> the gentleman yielded back. >> mr. dolman, let's get to the facts again, during the phone conversation on july 25th, president trump was narrowly focusing on his own political surviva survival, using his public office for private and political gain, the truth matters. then we heard council for the republicans say the president's concern about foreign aid, because you could kiss it good-bye, assuming that's referring to anti-corruption. but lit's look at the facts of the july 25th call, i happened to read it recently. which sharply illustrates the president's willingness to abuse the power of his office for his own personal benefit. the memorandum of the call is on the screen in front of you, it shows that president trump says -- and by the way, right after president zelensky spoke about defense support, i would like you to do us a favor, though. sao this had is a president's own behavior in words. mr. goldman, what was that favor? >> the favor was to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory related to ukraine interference in the 2016 election. >> mr. goldman, the investigative committee has received evidence from multiple witnesses who testified that president trump was provided specific talking points in the july 25th call. is that correct? >>. >> the talking points certainly were part of the u.s. policy and they included anti-corruption efforts. >> those talking points were provided to help the president effectively communicate calls with foreign leaders, is that right? >> that is correct. it's a routine process that the security council does. the president is able to use them or not use them. the president is not required to use them. he not only veered off from them. but he went to his own personal interest. >> it is fair to say such talking points signal the purpose of a given call, correct? >> yes. >> witnessed testified that the talking points for the july 25th call included recommendations to encourage zelensky -- >> so to be clear, the talking points created for the president or the principles to discuss specific matters that really protect the american people, is that accurate? >> yes, generally. >> but witnesses such as tim morrison, the deputy assistant the to the president, testified about what was not in those talking points. >> m morrison, were these references to crowd strike, the server in 2016 election and to vice president biden and his son, were they included in the president's talking points? >> they were not. >> are you aware of any witness who testified that investigating the bidens was an objective of official u.s. policy? >> no, it was not before and it was not after this call. >> and anything ever found of those investigations that might have occurred. >> anything ever found of those investigations that may have occurred with respect to the former vice president. >> every witness said there's no factual basis for either of the investigations. >> so mr. trump did not use official talking points? >> correct. >> there were fact witnesses that confirmed that. >> when you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful anti-corruption program consistent with u.s. policy? >> mr. goldman -- >> i do not. we were hoping -- we recommended the president very clearly support what president zelensky run on his own election and what his server of the people party had run on in its election. >> that didn't come up in the call, did it? >> mr. goldman, did mr. trump utilize public trust in order to hurt his political opponent? >> yes, that's what the evidence shown. >> america's values of democracy and justice must have the vital pillars of truth. the truth matters. it's clear that the president really cleared about -- did not really care about fighting corruption in ukraine but wanted his own personal interests to be continued. the president poses a threat to pursue the truth, that is our duty, we're now proceeding to do our duty to find the truth. thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady yields back, the gentleman from ohio. >> this is a second hearing on impeachment that this committee has held in the last week. i will submit that you're investigating the wrong guy. let's look at the facts, mr. caster, ukraine that's been at the center of attention in this impeachment hearing, has historically been one of the world's most corrupt nations, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> under legislation that congress passed, it was president trump's responsibility, his duty to see that u.s. tax dollars did not go to ukraine unless they were making progress in reducing corruption, is that also right? >> yes, that's right. >> and isn't it true that joe biden's son hunter placed himself right smack dab in the middle of that kruchgs? >> yes, he did. berisma is one of the most corrupt companies in the ukraine. >> acording to what they would have you believe -- they're not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy. in fact, the concerns about hunter biden were first raised by the obama administration, is that right? >> that's right, and also, washington post, a lot of publications and the state department. >> and the obama administration's concerns about biden didn't end there, did they? the former ambassador to the ukraine said she was coached by the obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related to hunter biden that might arise during her senate confirmation process. the state department was so concerned about this. they gave her a mock q & a on this question. >> every witness that testified at the intelligence committee agreed that hung theer biden's berisma deal appeared to be a conflict of interest, correct? >> that's correct. george kent testified that there was an investigation into berisma. and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had taken out of the country. and they were working with the united kingdom, they were working the united states, the united kingdom, ukraine was working on tracking this money down. and there was an investigation -- an active investigation going on. and a bribe was paid. that bribe was paid. it allowed him to get off scott free, right around that time is when berisma went about sprucing up their board shall we say. the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff, and now the democrats here are determined to sweep the biden corruption under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it and rush to impeach the president to satisfy the radical left wing base. you have the vice president in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy, and his son hunter biden receiving 50 grand a month with no identifiable expertise in energy or ukraine, yet the democrats won't let us present witnesses on that. let's do the next best thing since we can't bring the witnesses here, let's watch videos. >> you didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or ukraine itself, though? >> no. the list you gave me of the reasons why you're on that board, you did not list the fact that you were the son of the vice president. >> correct. >> what role do you think that played? >> i think it is impossible for me to be on any of the boards i just mentioned without saying i'm the son of the vice president of the united states. >> if your last name wasn't biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of berisma? >> i don't know, probably not. >> you know, joe biden got a little testy with a voter at one of his events in iowa last week, calling the man a liar, challenging him to a push-up contest among other things. and falsely stating once again that nobody said there was anything wrong with his son's deal in ukraine. well, you know what, that's a lot of malarkey. a lot of people have been saying that for a while, and they're right. first the intelligence committee and now this committee are conducting an impeachment investigation against president trump based on as professor turley put it last week, waiver thin evidence and ignoring evidence of a high level u.s. official who did engage in a quid pro quo with the ukrainian government, confessed to it in this video. >> i'm untiling you, you're not getting a billion dollars, i'm going to be leaving here, it was six hours, i'm leaving in six hours, the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. well, son of a bitch. he got fired. >> you're investigating the wrong guy, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. goldman, i'd like to bring us back to the next president, not to this president, not the next president. and stay focused on the july 25 call. the president's abuse of office for his benefit and no one else's. my colleague confirmed the president's request for these investigations was not an objective of u.s. foreign policy, correct 1234. >> that's right. >> is there any evidence the national security council wanted an investigation into berisma -- >> no. >> any evidence about the state department wanting them? >> no no. >> how about the dod? >> no evidence of that. >> did any witness tell you that they wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens of the 2016 election? >> no. >> and we certainly know that the ukrainians did not want it either, they made it clear they did not want to be an instrument in washington domestic re-election politics. the only person who was a beneficiary from that investigation is president trump. and that's why everyone on the july 25 call knew it was wrong. they knew it was wrong. the investigative committee heard testimony from three witnesses who participated in that call, is that correct? >> yes. >> well, listened to that call. >> even in realtime, the witnesses who listened on that call, testified they were concerned by the call, is that correct? >> yes. >> and in fact, lieutenant colonel vin man and mr. morrison reported that call to the legal counsel right? >> yes. >> why did they do so? >> they did it for separate reasons. vindman was concerned that the call was improper. mr. morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if the call was released because of the substance of the call and the political nature of the call. >> and they reported the call, that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. i placed colonel vindman's testimony about why he reported the call on the screen. am i correct that the call was based on the fact that the president was asking a foreign power to investigate a u.s. citizen? >> yes, and he was not the only witness to express that concern. >> am i correct that he reported this concern because he thought it was a sense of duty? a duty he felt something was wrong? >> as you know, lieutenant vindman was a purple heart winner from iraq, and he's been in the department of defense for 20 years. he has a great sense of duty and great patriotism to this country and felt compelled to follow that since of duty and report it. >> she testified as you brought out or was brought out earlier that it was unusual and inappropriate, is that correct? >> that's right. >> when vice president biden got involved with the european union and the imf and germany and france and said, you have to do something about corruption, that was okay because they were doing something for the common good of a bunch of people as distinguished from what's going on here, where somebody's doing it for their personal good, is that not correct? >> right, there's a distinction between doing an official act for an official purpose and a personal purpose. >> when mr. caster said that the -- there were problems because slocheski paid a bribe in order to get out from under the prosecution. that was exactly the type of conduct that vice president biden wanted to shut down in ukraine. that was exactly the type of nonanti-corruption policies that vice president biden was objecting too, using the official policy, that's one of the reasons that he -- i don't know if that's one, but that was the type of thing that he based -- he and the americans and the europeans -- >> that's the issue we have to get to, doing something for the national good, for the international good, the common good and your own good. that's the difference. those witnesses, many career, nonpart season officials were clear they thought it was wrong to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival. >> to investigate the vice president of the united states or someone who is a u.s. official, i don't think we should be asking foreign governments to do that. i would say that's true of a political rival. >> improper for the president of the united states to demand a u.s. citizen -- >> it was improper and inappropriate. >> again, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason. no good substantive reason. no good national security reason is wrong. >> and we are going to check that type of conduct. we are the people's house, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back, mr. gohmert. >> i had some questions for the witness, mr. burke, but he has absconded. i'm going to use my five minutes, not to ask questions. it is interesting to hear mr. goldman refuse to answer questions about the investigation, yet he comes in here, the very reason that he wants to see the president for the first time any president's ever been removed from office, why he's been obstructing, he didn't answer our question. perhaps if we're going to apply his sense of justice to him, it would be time to have him removed from his position, but that's only if we apply his own standards, if it weren't for double standards, some of these folks won the have standards at all. we were told we would hear lawyers present evidence. lawyers are going to come in here. now, what normally happens, i've been in some kangaroo hearings in courts, not my own, but i have been mistreated in hearings before, but i have never seen anything like this, where we don't allow the fact witnesses to come in here, we have the lawyers come in and tell us what we're supposed to know about those witnesses and about their testimony and their impression and what the law is, this is outrage yous. in 41 years, he's never seen anything like what we have going on here to try to oust a sitting president. and it's also outrageous to hear people say, well, this man thought he was a king, because i said he could do anything they wanted when they know that statement was in the context of whether or not he could fire mueller. of course he could fire mueller, he could fire or not fire mueller, he could appoint a special prosecutor to invest in mueller and wiseman, i think he should have, but that's his prerogative and he could have done anything about that he wanted. to take that out of context, he thinks he's a king. let me tell you what a king is, a concerning is someone who says over 20 times, i can't do that congress has to change the law on immigration. and then he decides, you know what, i got a pen, i got a phone. i'll do whatever i want. and by golly he does. he makes new law with a pen and a phone. now, that is more like a monarchy, not somebody saying they can fire a special prosecutor if they want to. regarding treason, the constitution itself says you got to have two witnesses, and that's not hearsay witnesses, none of this stuff that wojt be admissible in any decent court. no, that's two direct evidence witnesses that can come in and positively identify themselves, not something they overheard or -- but actually be witnesses to treason, and yet this group comes in here, they toss treason out in a report like it's no big deal. and then we'll have the lawyers testify and then throw a president out of office. this is so absurd. we have witnesses come in and we're told he's going to be a witness, that's why he doesn't have to follow under the rules of de core um, and then i've never seen this. he gets to come up and grill his opposing adversary witness, i feel like to be fair, if we were going to make this thing fair, mr. caster would be able to come up and grill mr. burke. it's not about due process, this is about a kangaroo system, and let me tell you, those that think you've done something special here, you have set the bar so low, i'm afraid it's irrepresentable. we've had people already mention the next president, joe biden, he may be the next president. well, we've already got the forms, all we have to do is eliminate donald trump's name and put joe biden's name in there, because he's on video. he and his son. he basically has admitted to the crime that's being hoisted on the president improperly. i'm scared for my country. i've never seen anything like this. this is supposed to be the congress. i came up here from a court where we had order and we had rules and i've seen nothing of the kind in here today, and it's outrageous that we're trying to remove a president with a kangaroo court like this. >> if i could just clarify, treason is not in our report. >> the gentlemen yielded back -- >> yeah, and it is mentioned in the report we got. thank you very much. >> the gentleman yielded back. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'd like to get us back to the undisputed facts of the president's abuse of power. mr. goldman as a prosecutor in the southern district of new york, when you prosecuted drug counsel spirscy cases, was it standard practice for drug king pins to try to beat the case by distancing themselves from the conspiracy and blaming their accomplices for the crime? >> all the time, conspiracies have different layers and the top layers make the bottom layers do the work, so they're further removed from the actual conduct. >> i'd like to have some questions about the president's role in what ambassador bolton referred to as a drug deal. did the testimony and evidence compiled by the intelligence committee establish the fact that with respect to ukraine rudy giuliani was at all times working on behalf of president trump. >> mr. juligiuliani said that, president trump said that to a number of other individuals, and then those individuals, ambassador sondland ambassador volker also said that. >> rudy giuliani on behalf of his client president trump spoke with a new york times reporter about his planned trip to ukraine, and on that trip, he planned to meet with president zelensky, and urged him to pursue investigations relating to the bidens and to the debunked theory that ukraine and not russia interfered in the 2016 election, isn't that correct. >> mr. giuliani told the reporter his trip was not about official u.s. foreign policy, and that the information he sought would be very helpful to his client. meaning it would be helpful to president trump, is that correct? >> yes, and if it's not official foreign policy, it would be helpful to president trump's personal interest. >> that's correct and there is no doubt that investigations of the bidens and the 2016 election meddling were in fact not about u.s. policy, but were about benefiting trump's re-election, correct? >> yes, and even the ukrainians realize that. >> and on july 25th, president trump placed that fateful phone call to president zelensky and he asked president zelensky to investigate the bidens, correct? >> yes. >> and on that call, president trump told zelensky, i will have mr. giuliani to give you a call, correct? >> that's right. >> and on october 2nd and october 3rd, president trump made once again explicit that he and mr. giuliani were intent on making these investigations happen. correct? >> just so you know. we've been investigating on a personal basis through rudy and others, lawyers. corruption in the 2016 election. >> i would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation, into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. >> mr. goldman, the evidence shows the course of conduct by president trump and his agents, does it not? >> it does. and clearly it continued long after our investigation began. >> it shows a common plan, correct? >> that's right. yes. >> it shows a common goal. >> correct. >> and the goal was to get foreign help for the 2020 election, correct? >> that's what all the witnesses said. >> and mr. goldman, who was the king pin of that plan? >> president trump. >> thank you, mr. goldman. ambassador bolton called it a drug deal. as a king pin, president trump tried to force a foreign government to interfere in the upcoming presidential election. the evidence is undisputed and overwhelming that rudy giuliani acted as part of a conspiracy with president trump to obtaining ukrainian help for president trump in the 2020 election. this was not just a hurtful drug deal, this was an attempt to undermine the very fabric of our democracy. the framers feared most how foreign influence could turn a president into a despot, so they adopted impeachment as a back stop to protect our democracy. the facts demand that we use that remedy today. and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go to the document that started it all, the whistle blower complaint. bullet point one on page one of the whistle-blower's complain the he says, over the past four months, more than half a dozen u.s. officials have informed me the various facts related to this effort. who are these individuals? >> we don't know. >> we had no chance to know for sure who these people were, because we never got to talk to the whistle blower? >> that's right. >> we needed to talk to the guy who started it all. who these more than half a dozen people were who formed the basis of his complain the and we never got to. adam schiff's staff got to, adam schiff knows who he is, we don't get to know the original people, the six people who formed the basis of this entire thing we've been going through now for three months, we did talk to 17 people, right? >> that's right. >> 17 depositions and you were in every single one. you were the lawyer doing the work for the republicans in every single one, right? >> that's right. >> there was one person they built that report around, one witness, who would that be? it's obviously one witness. >> ambassador sondland. >> i think you said earlier his name was mentioned -- what did you say? >> 611 times. >> more than colonel vindman who was on the call, more than ambassador taylor. they relied on sondland, not the whistle blower. not the half a dozen people who -- why did they pick sondland? >> that's the best they got. >> that's the best they got, the guy who had to follow an addendum to his testimony? the guy who said. he said, unless president zelensky announces an investigation into berisma and the bidens there would be no meeting with president trump, there would be no security assistance money going to ukraine. that's what he said. was there an announcement about this? >> no. >> did president zelensky get a call from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get a meeting from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get the money? >> yes. >> is that right? >> yes. >> the guy who said that wasn't going to happen is the guy they built their case around? >> yes. >> is that right, mr. sound land? >> right. >> they built their case around a lot of hearsay, didn't they? the best example of the hair say, surprisingly enough is ambassador sondland. they built their case around this ambassador and hearsay, the best example of both is ambassador sondland, we read this a couple weeks ago, we pointed this out a couple weeks ago. bullet point number two, in his clarification. ambassador taylor recalls. mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak. and a meeting with president zelensky. that's his clarification. amazing, six people before having four conversations in one sentence. i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president's visit to warsaw, that's the clarification. that's their star witness who they built their case around. so and so tells so and so what somebody said to someone else and there you have it. that's their case. they forget the four key facts. they forget the fact that we have the call transcript. two guys on the call, president trump and zelensky said there was no pressure, no linkage, no pushing. they didn't know aid was held at the time of the call. and the fact most important, they did nothing to get the aid released. they forget all that, those key facts and they build their case around the guy who had to clarify his testimony with that amazing sentence. mr. goldman, the democrats -- did the democrats publish phone records? >> did the democrats publish phone records of a member of the press? >> yes, he was also involved in this. did the democrats publish a phone record of members of the congress? >> yes. >> did that member of congress also happen to be your boss's political opponent. the democrats run this kind of investigation, ignoring the facts, not letting the whistle blower come in, and not litting us know if we talked to the more than half a dozen original sources for the whistle blower's complaint in the first place, the guy has to file an addendum with that clarification sentence, one thing they did do in their report is they published the phone records of the president's personal lawyer, the phone records of a member of the press and the phone records of the chairman of the inning tell against committees political opponent representative nunes. that's what these guys did, and that's their effort to impeach the president of the united states 11 months before an election. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> unanimous consent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to focus on the facts surrounding the president's abuse of power. >> gentlemen, gentlemen. gentlemen -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the report by the majority staff on the judiciary constitutional grounds that talks about trees ing and bribery be admitted for the record. >> you what? >> be made part of our record. >> majority report without objection. >> mr. deutsch. >> getting back to the facts surrounding the president's abuse of power surrounding the white house meeting as leverage for helping his political campaign. mr. goldman, president trump offered ukrainian president zelensky a meeting in the white house. but first he wanted investigations into the bidens on a conspiracy theory about meddling in the 2016 election. president trump worked to exchange official actions for personal benefit, and i want to talk about that. on may 23rd, 2019 a delegation of officials returned from zelensky's nomination and briefed the president. president trump directed government officials to work with his personal lawyer, isn't that correct? >> yes. >> and trump's handpicked ukraine operator testified that they faced a choice either work with giuliani or abandon the goal of a white house meeting. what choice did they make, mr. goldman? >> they decided to work with mr. giuliani. >> right. and six days later, on may 29th, president trump sent the new ukrainian president a letter that said, america stood with ukraine and invited president zelensky to visit the white house, isn't that correct? >> that's the second time he invited him to the white house. >> at this point the ukrainian president expected that meeting. >> correct. >> they learn they have to do something more for the president. >> sondland testified there was a prerequisite of investigations, isn't that right? >> yes. >> and nsc staffer, lieutenant colonel vindman testified that sondland told the ukrainians in a july 10th meeting that investigation of the bidens was a deliverable, necessary to get that meeting, isn't that right? >> yes, and if i could take a second to correct what mr. casto r said about that in connection to the white house. even ambassador volker in his public testimony was forced to admit he did hear that and said it was inappropriate. >> and on july 19th sondland told president zelensky directly that president trump wanted to hear a commitment to the investigations on the july 25th call, correct. >> that's right. >> that same day sondland updated senior trump administration officials that zelensky was, quote, prepared to receive potus' call and would offer assurances about the investigations, isn't that right? >> yes. >> and on that same day state department official volker had breakfast with rudy giuliani and he reported to sondland by text message, most important is for zelensky to say he will help investigation, right? >> yes. and address any specific personnel issues. >> after giuliani spoke with yermak gave a green light to the july 25th call. on the morning of the call he texted zelensky's yermak and it said quote, heard from white house, assuming president z convinced he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we'll nail down a investigation and zelensky agrees, isn't that correct. >> yes. and that text message was relayed from president trump himself. >> and then after the july 25th call, members of the administration continued to follow up with ukrainian counterparts to prepare for the announcement of investigations. sondland texted volker about efforts to schedule a white house visit knowing that potus really wants the deliverable and that is one of messages during a flurry of follow-up of meetings and calls and texts. on july 26th and july 27th and august 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, mr. goldman august 16th, 17th and august 19th, isn't that correct. >> yes. according to secretary pompeo as well. >> this is my point. these are government officials that work for us instead they are working to help the president advance his personal political interest. isn't that what you found mr. goldman. >> that is right. >> this isn't a close call. we have a president at war with russia desperate for a white house meeting. the president promised a white house meeting but then he blocked the oval office. he blocked it. and said i need a favor. not a favor to help america. a favor to help me get re-elected. our framers feared one day we would face a moment like this and they gave us impeachment as a safety valve not to punish the president but to defend our elections and our constitution and that is what we must do. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. buck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. castor, i want to direct your attention to page three of the telephone call dated july 25th between president trump and president zelensky. on page three president trump states i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. would you like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. later he said i would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and i would like you to get to the bottom of it. the majority report on page 13 says the u.s. intelligence community had unanimously determined that russia not ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of mr. trump. there is appears to be a conflict. president trump is asking ukraine to request something and the majority decide it is an illegitimate request because there was no interference by ukraine, is that how you read this? >> yes, sir. >> and the press conference from the majority on their report says as part of this scheme, president trump acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust personally and directly requested that the president of ukraine, that the government of of ukraine publicly announce investigations into subsection two, a baseless theory promoted by russia alleging that ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 u.s. election. is that true? >> yes. >> and mr. castor, have you seen this article from politico dated january 11th, 2017. >> yes, i have. >> sand ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfired. is that correct. >> yes. >> i want to read you the second paragraph. officials tried to help hillary clinton sand undermine trump by questioning his office and implick sating a top trump aide in corruption ant suggesting they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election and they helped clinton's allies research damaging information on trump and his advisers, a politico investigation found. isn't it true that president trump had a legitimate reason to request help from the ukraine about the 2016 election. and i'm not suggesting russia didn't interfere. of course they interfered. but the ukraine officials tried to influence the election? >> yes. >> let's move on to ambassador sondland. i only have ten fingers and ten toes, i can't count above 20 but do you know how many times ambassador sondland said that he did not know, he did not recall, had no recollection or had limited memory or failed to remember something in his october 17th testimony? do you know how many times? 325. does that surprise you? 325. >> a big number. >> and then he filed a clarifying statement and he clarifies a few things, i guess. but did you have any -- do you have any contact with ambassador sondland between the time of his deposition and the time of his clarifying statement? >> no. >> did the majority? >> i have no idea. >> you have no idea. so they may have had influence on his testimony? >> -- no idea. >> and that is evidence of bias. that would be evidence of credibility. that would be evidence that we should take into account before. but we'll never know, will we? because the majority counsel has a right to assert a priv age as to information that is relevant to this commit's decision. the majority council has a right to assert a privilege in any communications he has with the chairman adam schiff, doesn't he? as does minority council. that is a privilege reserved here in congress, isn't it. >> yeah. >> and the same thing with foia, freedom of information act does not apply to memos the majority counsel rights, isn't that right? >> correct. >> so we've demanded that of the executive branch but we have allowed sour selves not to be part of foia, correct? >> correct. >> so the majority has a privilege, the president also has a privilege. it is called executive privilege. he could meet with the secretary of state and that is a privileged conversation. he could meet with the secretary of defense, that is a privileged conversations. he could meet with the secretary energy and that is a privileged conversation. now when the majority subpoenas those witnesses and the president refused to deliver the relevant documents they are charging him with an article of impeachment for obstruction. in fact, their report says the president obstructed the impeachment inquiry by instructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas. why? >> the gentleman's time is expired. miss bass. >> mr. goldman, i want to pick up on the president using the powers of his office. in this case in a meeting at the white house to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rival. now that you've had time to step back from the investigation, is there any doubt that the president did, in fact, use a white house visit to pressure president zelensky to announce investigations of his political rival to benefit his reelection campaign? >> i will answer that question in a minute but i would like just to comment to mr. buck that the majority staff and no one had any contact with ambassador sondland after his deposition. but the answer to your question is, yes, miss bass. >> my colleague mr. deutsche mostly focused on the period pry to the july 25th call and would you like to focus on the period after. following the call did president zelensky come to the white house for a meeting? >> no. he's never come to the white house and witnesses said there is a huge distinction between a white house meeting and a meeting on the sidelines of the u.n. general assembly where they did meet on september 25th. >> so has a white house meeting been scheduled? >> no. >> so did the president and his associates essentially continue to withhold the white house meeting and if so, why did they do that? >> well the evidence found that the white house meeting was conditioned on the announcement of the investigations. and so once in mid-august when the ukrainians, mr. yermak and president zelensky, decided that they were not going to issue