power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring and injuring the national interest. or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. now, these -- this question of whether president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. and after action was taken, president nixon famously said if the president does it, it is not illegal. and this body rejected that because that's not so. that goes directly contrary to what the founders said. but president trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by department of justice and defending his conduct. here is what he said -- >> then i have an article, too, where i have to write to do whatever i want as president. >> that he has the right to do whatever he wants as president. that is as wrong as when president nixon said a similar thing. that is not what the constitution provides. that is not what the country demands. he does not have the right to do whatever he wants. turning to the second abuse of power mostly concerned. betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers. the american people have suffered that foreign influence when president trump treated military aid that had been approved, taxpayer's dollars, and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own re-election chances. that reflects what the founders were concerned about. and finally, corruption of our elections. the framers knew that corrupt leaders or leaders acting corruptly concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. they talked about it frequently. that is why the framers thought electoral treachery particularly o involving foreign powers was a critical abuse that could support and lead to impeachment. now the american people learned last election how dangerous foreign intervention in our elections can be. let me show another clip from president -- from candidate trump on the campaign trail. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> and russia was listening. within approximately five hours, five hours, of president trump's invitation to russia to interfere in our election by trying to hack and obtain the emails of his political opponent, russia, in fact, tried to do that for the first time. the very officers who were then indicted by the department of justice for that conduct, they took candidate trump's invitation. now, the american people learned a lesson. president trump unfortunately apparently learned a different lesson. let's look. >> well, i would think that if they were honest about it they would start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. they should investigate the bidens. >> so this was president trump answering a question about what did he want president zelensky to do. even after he got caught, he is saying again this vulnerable nation, dependent on u.s. support militarily and otherwise, again he's telling them what to do. unlike in 2016 when he only had a campaign platform which to extend the invitation to a foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it but to pressure that country to do it. and that's exactly what he did. and you'll hear more about that in the presentation from the house intelligence committee. and what's most striking as we come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about is there a continuing risk of wrong doing. the fact that president trump did this after he was caught shows the risk. shows the risk of what will happen if this body doesn't act. he really does believe he can act as though herp above the law. he really does believe as evidence by this conduct that he can put his personal and political interests over the nation's interest over the nation's national security interest, over the nation's integrity of its elections. so, of course, we do have an election coming up. that's not a reason to postpone this discussion. that's a reason we must have this discussion to make sure it is not interfered with. to make sure this president doesn't do it, to make sure future presidents do not do it. it is the hope that in these discussions you can put aside political ranker, disagreements and have a fair discussion about the facts and this conduct. not just as it relates to president trump, but as to the presidency itself and future presidents. my son, our children, our grandchildren, they will study this moment in history. they will read all of your remarks. they will learn about all of your actions. and that is not a reason to vote for or against impeachment. for that, of course, you must vote your conscious. but that is a reason for us to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show. to recognize that it is wrong, it is very wrong, and it cannot happen again with this president or any president. it is a reason to talk about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in a country where the president-elected by the people can put his own personal and political interests over the interest of the people who elected them. it is a reason for these debates to, again, fairly focus on the facts and to make sure the presentations we're going to hear will not distort the record, focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really are intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. it is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the country's best interest. history, future generations will be the judge. >> thank you, mr. berks rke. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> mr. caster is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> mr. caster is recognized for 30 minutes. >> my point of order should be heard. >> point of order. >> the witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country and those words should be stricken from the record and taken down. >> the point of order is not sustained. witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. >> in the same way members are. the topic of the hearing is the president's misconduct, so none of us should find it surprising that we are hearing testimony that is critical of the president. i do not find that the witness's comments were disorderly. i find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. the witness would be able to continue except that his time has expired. mr. caster is recognized. >> mr. chairman -- my point of order is not that his words are disorderly. they violate the rules of the house and should be taken down. this is not about his conduct. he's talking about the motives -- >> the gentleman is sustained. >> the character of the president of the united states. >> the gentleman will suspend the rules of decorum apply to members of the house, not to witnesses. the gentleman may proceed. >> so i appeal the ruling of the chair. >> that is not a ruling. >> sit a ruling. >> there was no -- >> it is a ruling on the point of order. it is appealing. >> subject to a vote. >> that's a rule. >> the point of order is not sustained. >> overruling of the chair. >> i move to table the -- >> the motion is made to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. >> move to motion the table is made in writing. move the motion is made in writing. >> is not in debate. all in favor of the motion to -- all in favor of the motion to table say aye. >> aye. >> point opposed no. >> no. >> motion to table -- >> she has to put it in writing first and then you can call the vote. >> motion to table is sustained. >> role call. >> clerk will call the role. >> mr. nadler. >> aye. >> mr. nadler votes aye. >> ms. jackson lee. >> aye. >> mr. cohen votes aye. mr. johnson of georgia votes aye. mr. deutsche votes aye. mr. richmond votes aye. mr. jeffries votes aye. mr. lou votes aye. mr. ras kin votes aye. ms. demmings votes aye. >> aye ms. garcia votes aye. >> ms. mcbath. >> aye. >> mr. stanton. >> aye, mr. stanton votes ay. >> ms. dean. >> aye. >> ms. escobar. >> aye. >> mr. collins? >> nope. >> mr. collins votes note. >> mr. stenson berner votes no. >> mr. sabot votes no. >> mr. jordan votes no. >> mr. buck? >> mr. radcliffe? mr. radcliffe votes no. >> ms. roby votes no. >> mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. >> no. >> mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. bigs. >> mr. mcclintok votes no. >> ms. lesco votes no. >> mr. kline. >> no. >> mr. kline votes no. mr. armstrong. >> no. >> mr. armstrong votes no. >> mr. stuby votes no. >> how am i recorded? >> mr. bigs you are not recorded. >> i said no. >> mr. bigs votes no. >> every member vote who had wishes to vote? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 24 aye and 15 no. >> parliamentary inquiry? >> mr. caster is recognized. i will not recognize parliamentary inquiry at this time. >> good morning, chairman nadler, ranking member collinss and members of the staff. my name is steve caster. i'm a congressional staff member. i served with the oversight committee on the republican staff with mr. jordan. i'm also for purposes of this investigation i'm a shared staffer with judiciary committee and mr. collins and the house permanent select committee on intelligence and mr. nunes. it sure is atypical for a staffer to be presenting, but again thanks for having me. the purpose of this hearing as we understand it is to discuss whether president donald j. trump's conduct fits the definition of high crime and misdemeanor. it does not. such that committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office and it should not. this case and many respects comes down to eight lines in a call transcript. let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. the record in the democrats impeachment inquiry does not show that president trump abused the power of his office or obstructed congress. to impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney. democrats seek to impeach president trump not because of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors but because they disagree with his policies. this impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. democrats have been searching for a set of facts which to impeach president trump on january 20, 2017. just 27 minutes after the president's inauguration that day, "the washington post" ran a story that the campaign to impeach the president has already begun. the article reported democrats and liberal activists are mounting broad opposition to stymy trump's agenda and noted that impeachment strategists believed the constitution's emoluments clause would be the vehicle. in the first two years of the administration, democrats in the house introduced articles of impeachment to remove president trump from office on several very different factual bases. on january 3rd, the very first day of the new congress, congressman short-termman introduced articles of impeachment against the president. representative tlaib said we're going to go in there and impeach the president. in may, 2019, representative green said on msnbc if we don't impeach this president, he will be re-elected. even speaker pelosi, who has said that impeachment is a somber and prayerful exercise has called president trump an imposter. and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020. the obsession with impeaching the president is reflected in house democrats used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. informer sight committee, the democrats first announced witness was michael cohen, a disgraced felon who pleaded guilty to lying to congress. when he came before us, at the oversight committee, he then lied again as many as eight times. oversight committee democrats demanded information about the president's personal finances and even subpoenaed the president's accounting firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal financial information about the entire trump family. the subpoena was issued over the committee of republicans and without a vote. in the ways and means committee, democrats demanded the president's personal tax return information. the reason they sited they said was to oversee the irs's audit process for presidential tax returns. you can judge that for yourself. in the financial services committee, democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president's bank records going back ten years. the financial services committee staff, the republicans tell me, the information demanded would cover every withdrawal, credit card swipe, or debit card purchase of every member of the trump family, including his minor child. the reason that the democrats gave for why they needed such voluminous and intrusive information about the trump family was, get this, financial industry compliance with banking statutes and regulations. here in the judiciary committee, democrats sent out letters demanding information from over 80 recipients, including the president's children, business partners, employees, his campaign, businesses and foundation. of course the main event for the judiciary committee was the report of special counsel mueller which democrats would believe would serve as the evidentiary basis for impeaching the president. despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending 25 million dollars, the special counsel's 19 attorneys and 40 fbi agents, analysts and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the trump campaign and the russian government. after the trump russia collusion allegation did not pan out, democrats focussed their efforts on obstruction of justice. they criticized attorney general barr for concluding that no crime of obstruction had occurred in the special counsel investigation. but, in fact, was entirely appropriate for the attorney general to make that call because the special counsel declined to do so. not surprisingly, the democrats mueller hearing was underwhelming to say the least and the sequel with corey lewandowski definitely did not move the impeachment needle either. the intelligence committee, too, was heavily invested in the russia collusion investigation. committee democrats hired former federal prosecutors to prepare for their anticipated efforts to impeach the president. now that the russian collusion allegations did not work out, democrats have settled on the ukraine phone call, eight lines the president utderred on july 25th with ukrainian president zelensky. but the foreign affairs committee, the committee on jurisdiction wasn't the committee leading the impeachment inquiry or holding the hearings. never was the oversight committee. the houses chief investigative entity. the judiciary committee was only recently brought back into the mix after fact finding concluded. instead the impeachment inquiry was run by the house intelligence committee and these former federal prosecutors. democrats on the intelligence committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a manifestly unfair way. all the fact-finding was unclassified and that was made clear at the top of every single deposition but the democrats took advantage of the closed door process in the capitol basement bunker the sciff to control access information. the secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowing mis-leading public narratives to form and catch hold with careful leaks of witness testimony. democrats refused to invite republican witnesses and directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer our questions. in the public hearings, many of these unfair processes continued. democrats refused to invite numerous witnesses requested by republicans. interrupted republican questioning, and prevented witnesses from answering republican questions. democrats voted down by virtue of a motion to table with no notice, subpoenas for documents and testimony requested by republicans. i'll note that democrats never once brought any of their subpoenas to a vote before the intelligence committee. this unfair process reflects the degree to which democrats are obsessed with impeaching the president. the democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president, the emoluments clause, the president's business and financial records, the mueller report, allegations of obstruction before landing on the ukraine phone call. the impeachment inquiry is clearly an orchestrated effort to up end our political system. according to politico, the speaker has tightly scripted every step of the impeachment inquiry. democrats have reportedly convened focus groups to test which allegations, whether it be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion were most compelling to the american public. speaker pelosi said democrats must strike while the iron is hot on impeaching the president. the entire duration of the impeachment inquiry from the time speaker pelosi announced it on september 24th until today has been 76 days. as professor turley testified last wednesday, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. the artificial and arbitrary political deadline by which democrats are determined to finish impeachment by christmas leads to a rushed process. and missed opportunities to obtain relevant information. democrats avoided the accommodations process required by federal courts and disputes between congress and the executive. democrats declined to attempt to negotiate with the administration for the production of documents and witnesses. democrats did not exhaust all their options to entice witnesses or agencies to cooperate, such as allowing witnesses to appear with agency lawyers. or initiating contempt proceedings. sometimes the threat of a contempt proceeding gets you a different result. sometimes the witnesses choose to appear when contempt is on the table. democrats even withdrew a subpoena to one witness who asked the federal court to resolve conflicting orders from congress and the executive. either because the democrats did not want to wait for the court to rule or they didn't like the presiding judge, judge leon. instead, democrats made their demands and refused to budge. democrats told witnesses at the outset that their refusal to cooperate in full would be used against them and the president. democrats threatened federal employees that their salaries could be with held for not meeting committee demands. these tactics are fundamentally unfair and counterproductive for gathering investigation in any serious inquiry. this rushed and take it or leave it approach to investigating is contrary to how successful congressional investigations typically work. congressional investigations take time. there is no easy button. in this job, you must take the information that's offered even if you don't like the terms. you should not say no to taking a witness's testimony because you would prefer the agency counsel is not present. if that's the only means of obtaining the testimony, you should take it. your priority must not be on blocking information out, it must be on seeking information. in all recent major congressional investigations, for example, investigation into the justice department's decision during 2016, the irs targeting investigation benghazi investigation and fast and furious there have been give and take between congress and the executive. in the investigation, for example, it took two months. two months of negotiations before the committees conducted the first witness interview with deputy director mccabe. the justice department only began producing documents to the committee after many more months of discussions. in none of these investigations did congress get everything it wanted right at the beginning, certainly not within 76 days, but with persistence and patience we eventually did receive enough information to do our work. and contrary to talking points, the trump administration has, in fact, cooperated with and facilitated congressional oversight and investigations. for example, earlier this year the oversight committee conducted an investigation into security clearances at the white house. the central allegation put forward was that the white house deviated from established procedures to grant clearances to certain white house staff. the democrats sought to interview career staff who performed these security clearance reviews. but, declined the witness initially to appear with agency counsel. house and the white house were at an impasse. however, after a little bit of time, we, the republican staff, wth the help of mr. jordan, convinced the witness to appear with agency counsel for our own tri transcribed interview and the democrats came along. the subsequent interviews and the security clearance investigation were conducted with agency counsel. the testimony allowed the committee to obtain the evidence to get to the bottom of what was going on and it wasn't what was alleged. nobody outside the security clearance office was handing out clearances. certainly not to senior white house staffers. in this impeachment inquiry, however, democrats turned away information that could be available to the inquiry. democrats turned away information by declining to negotiate in good faith with the administration about the scope of document requests. as a result of these failures, the evidentiary record in the impeachment inquiry is incomplete and in many places incoherent. the failure to exhaust all avenues to obtain information severely risks undermining the legitimacy of any articles of impeachment. as professor turley said, to the committee last week, i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit posity of evidence in an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. professor turley elaborated that the current lack of proof is another reason why the abbreviated investigation into this matter is so damaging for the case of impeachment. the substantive case for impeaching president trump as a result of an artificial, arbitrary and political schedule relies heavily on ambiguous facts. presumptions and speculation. president turley warned here, too, impeachments have been based on proof, not presumptions. the democrats do not have the proof. now my democrat counterparts on the intelligence committee are talented attorneys. i'm sure they would tell you a riveting story about a shadow or irregular foreign policy apparatus and a smear campaign designed to extort ukraine for the president's political benefit, they'll tell you about president trump and how he put his own political interests ahead of national security by mentioning former president, former vice president joe biden by name and raising the allegations of ukrainian influence in the 2016 election on the july 25th call. they'll try to convince you that the trump administration, the same administration democrats regularly accuse of being incompetent, orchestrated an international conspiracy at the highest levels. none of this adds up. it may be a great screen play, but it's not what the evidence shows. the democrats impeachment inquiry ignores all of the evidence that does not advance their story. the democrats impeachment narrative resolves all ambiguous facts and conflicting evidence in a way that is most unflattering to the president. the democrats impeachment narrative ignores public statements from senior ukrainian officials that contradict the narrative. as you listen to the democrat presentation later today, i urge you to keep these points in mind. what evidence that has been gathered in the impeachment inquiry paints a different picture? i won't provide a detailed presentation now, but allow me to highlight a few points. first, the summary of the july 25th phone call reflects no conditionality or pressure. president zelensky never vocalized any discomfort or pressure on the call. contrary to democrat allegations, president trump was not asking for a favor that would help his re-election. he was asking for assistance in helping our country move forward from the divisiveness of the russia collusion investigation. second, since president trump is declassified and publicly released the call summary, 75 days ago, president zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. he said it on september 25th at the united nations general assembly. he said it in an interview published on october 6th. he said it again on october 10th. and most recently, he said it just last week in "time" magazine. other senior ukrainian officials also said there was no linkage between a meeting, security assistance and an investigation. if president trump was truly orchestrating a pressure campaign to force ukraine to investigate former vice president biden, one would think that ukraine would have felt some pressure. third, at the time of the july 25th call, senior officials in kiev did not know that the security assistance was paused. they did not lempb it was paused until the pause was reported publicly in the u.s. media on august 28th. as ambassador volker testified because the highest levels of the ukrainian government did not know about the pause, there was no leverage implied. finally, president zelensky met with president trump in new york on september 25th at the united nations. shortly thereafter, or shortly before that, the security assistance flowed to ukraine. both happened without ukraine ever taking actions or investigations. the impeachment record also has substantial evidence going to the president's state of mind. undercutting the democrat's assertion of some malicious intent. witnesses testified that president trump has a deeply rooted, genuine and reasonable skepticism of ukraine stemming from its history of corruption. president trump is skeptical of u.s. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance and believes that our allies should share more of the burden of ukraine's defense. ukrainian politicians openly spoke out about against president trump during the 2016 election. these events beared directly on the president's state of mind. president zelensky had run on an anti-corruption platform, but he was an untried politician with a relationship to a controversial ukrainian oligarch. when former vice president pence met with president zelensky in warsaw, i'm sorry when vice president pence met with president zelensky in warsaw on september 1, he stressed to him the need for reform and reiterated the president's concern about burden sharing, especially among european allies. in late august and early september, after his party took control of the ukrainian parliament, ukraine passed historic reforms to fight corruption. these reforms included removing parliamentary immunity which witnesses said had been a historic source of corruption. imagine if members of our congress had immunity. president trump later lifted the pause on security assistance and met with president zelensky two weeks later. the aid was paused for 55 days. very simply, the evidence in the democrat's impeachment inquiry does not support the conclusion that president trump abused his power for his own personal, political benefit. there is simply no clear evidence that president trump acted with malicious intent in with holding a meeting for security assistance. indeed there are and the republican report articulates them legitimate explanations for these actions that are not nefarious as the democrats allege. the evidence shows that president trump faithfully executed the duties of his office by delivering on what he promised the american voters he would do. democrats may disagree with the president's policy decisions or their matter in which he governs, but those disagreements are not enough to justify the irrevocable action of removing him from office. the democrats hyperbole and hissee onices are no good reason 11 months out from an election to prevent the american people from deciding on their own who is going to be their next president. this record also does not support a conclusion that president trump obstructed congress during the impeachment inquiry. for many of the procedural defects i touched on earlier. additionally, as a factual matter, the only direct testimony the investigation has obtained about the president's reaction to the inquiry is from ambassador sondland who testified president trump told him to cooperate and tell the truth. president trump also declassified and released the summaries of his two phone calls with the president zelensky. president trump has said that he would like witnesses to testify but he's been forced to resist the unfair and abusive process. i believe strongly in the prerogatives of the congress. it's awful to hear president turley's testimony from last week when he critiqued the house from proceeding on impeachment so rapidly on such a thin record. professor turley said the man documents and then impeach because they haven't been turned over when they go to court i think is an abuse of power. the impeachment of a duly elected president as chairman nadler said in 1998 is the undoing of a national election. now, i understand democrats issued a report over the weekend arguing that contrary to the chairman's statement in 1998 impeachment is not undoing an election, i would just respond by saying that i don't think many of the 63 million americans from all around the country who voted for president trump in 2016 would agree. by impeaching president trump, the house would essentially be nullifying the decision of those americans. and the house would be doing it in less than 11 months before the next election. there still is no compelling argument for why democrats in the house must take this decision out of the hands of the voters and do it before christmas. during the clinton impeachment in 1998, the chairman said at bare minimum the president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond the demands that the president improve his innocence of vague and changing charges. i would submit that those words ring as true today as the chairman believed them to be in 1998. the blacksmith record is heavily reliant on hearsay, innuendo and presumptions. democrats have lobbed vague and ever-changing charges for impeachment going as far back as the president's inauguration. for all these reasons the extraordinary exercise of the house's impeachment on authority is not warranted on the evidentiary record presented. thank you for allowing me to present this information this morning. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. thank you both for your presentations. mr. berke, you are now excused and we will invite mr. goldman to take his place at the witness table. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. cl mr. chairman. >> what purposes does the gentleman seek recognition? >> parliamentary inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pursuant to rule 7b of the house rules the chairman is allowed to administer an oath. not mandated to. but it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. i'm wondering why we have not ministered the oath in this situation? >> i'm going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming before us to make presentation. the two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses. they were staff -- they were making opening statements for the committees. we will now administer an oath to mr. caster and mr. goldman who are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses. >> typically we administer before opening statements. >> which we will -- for witnesses. for witnesses. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> suspend. mr. castor was here with mr. berke presenting the report of the committee. that is the opening statement for this committee. they were not witnesses before this committee. mr. castor now and mr. goldman are witnesses before this committee and i will administer the oath. >> mr. chairman, if they were making presentations on behalf of members the rule should apply. >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> we welcome both of -- >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> who is seeking recognition. >> right here, chair. >> gentleman state his order. >> mr. chairman, despite our repeated questions for access to the evidence we received less than 48 hours ago over 8,000 pages of documentation. mr. chairman, if this were a court of law, you would be facing sanctions right now by the bar association. >> state his point of order not a speech. >> how are we supposed to process over 8,000 pages of documents that came from various committees -- >> that is not a point of order. that is not a point of order. >> mr. chairman, will you give us an explanation of why you gave us documents -- >> gentleman will suspend and not make a speech. please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god? let the record show the presenters answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> each will have 45 minutes to present. >> mr. chairman, off point of order. >> there's a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your time has expired. >> i have a point of order, mr. chairman. >> you have to recognize the point. >> mr. chairman, my point of order is this, in the previous point of order issued by mr. johnson of louisiana, you ruled against his points of order because you said that mr. berke was a witness. you said he was not a witness but he was a staffer. as such, a staffer must -- avoid impugning motivations. >> gentleman will sustain. >> will you let him finish his point of order, please. >> he made his point of order. >> i haven't completed yet, mr. chairman. the rule requires that members and staff not impugn the motivations of the president. what you ruled was that he was a witness. you've just told us he wasn't a witness. my point of order is that you were out of order in your ruling. >> the point of order is not sustained. i've already ruled on it. he was not a witness. these two gentlemen -- >> aappeal the decision of the chair. >> that is not -- >> it most certainly is. >> it is appealable. >> the ruling is not -- >> point of order is not -- >> point of order is not sustained. >> i appeal the decision of the chair. >> i move to table. >> the appeal to ruling of the chair is tabled. aye, opposed nah. motion to table is approved. >> i seek a role call vote. >> mr. nadler? >> aye. >> ms. lofgrin-aye. mr. cohen votes aye. jeffrey toobin, this is another procedural move right now. clearly the republicans are frustrated by the way nadler is conducting this hearing. >> that's right. and you know, i think it is consistent with mr. castor's remarks, which were very heavily focussed on what he regarded and what the republicans regard as an unfair process. he didn't really engage much with the facts of the ukrainian matter which is before the committee. which is the bulk of the evidence here. and this procedural sparring, which i suggest -- which i submit is probably of interest to few people, is a way of delaying the hearing and denying the democrats any momentum. >> yeah. we shouldn't be surprised by this. >> no. i think that's right. he really used one of the major republican talking points talking about the staffer castor, one of the major republican talking points which is that this is akin to overturning an election and i think he said that several times throughout his statement. he also i think tried to distract really somewhat from this current proceeding by referencing the administration's cooperation in a number of completely unrelated hearings. so he was describing oversight work that congress is doing and how the administration has cooperated with it, but he was talking about investigations that have nothing to do with this particular proceeding. so it wasn't until the very end of his opening statement that he started to discuss the facts a little bit. >> and it's a fore gone conclusion that republicans will lose the vote. the democrats will win and now presumably the speaker will try to resume this hearing. they're just doing a few final votes. >> i think, wolf, this is a political argument the republicans are making through process saying that democrats are in such a rush to avoid impeaching the president in an actual election year. >> here is mr. goldman. >> chairman nadler, ranking member collins, members of the committee, we are here today because donald j. trump, 45th president of the united states, abused the power of his office, the american presidency, for his political and personal benefit. president trump directed a month's long campaign to solicit foreign help in his 2020 re-election efforts. with holding official acts from the government of ukraine in order to coerce and secure political assistance. and interference in our domestic affairs. as part of this scheme, president trump applied increasing pressure on the president of ukraine to publicly announce two investigations helpful to his personal re-election efforts. he applied this pressure himself and through his agents, working within and outside of the u.s. government by conditioning a desperately-sought oval office meeting and $391 million in taxpayer-funded congressionally appropriated security assistance. vital to ukraine's ability to fend off russian aggression. and he conditioned that on the announcement of these two political investigations that were helpful to his personal interests. when the president's efforts were discovered, he released the military aid, though it would ultimately take congressional action for the money to be made fully available to ukraine. the oval office meeting still has not happened. when faced with the opening of an official impeachment inquiry into his conduct, president trump launched an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of congress, ordering executive branch agencies and government officials to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony. to date, the investigating committees have received no documents from the trump administration pursuant to our subpoenas. were it not for courageous public servants doing their duty and honoring their oath to this country and coming forward and testifying, the president's scheme might still be concealed today. the central moment in this scheme was a telephone call between president trump and ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky on july 25th of this year. during that call, president trump asked president zelensky for a personal favor, to initiate the two investigations that president trump hoped could ultimately help his re-election in 2020. the first investigation involved former vice president joe biden and was an effort to smear his reputation as he seeks the democratic nomination in next year's presidential election. the second investigation sought to elevate an entirely debunked conspiracy theory promoted by russian president vladimir putin that ukraine interfered in the last presidential election to support the democratic nominee. in truth, as has been made clear by irrefutable evidence from throughout the government, russia interfered in the last election in order to help then candidate trump. the allegations about vice president biden and the 2016 election are patently false. but that did not deter president trump during his phone call with the ukrainian president. and it does not appear to deter him today. just two days ago president trump stated publicly that he hopes that his personal attorney, rudy giuliani, will report to the department of justice and to congress the results of mr. giuliani's efforts in ukraine last week to pursue these false allegations meant to tarnish vice president biden. president trump's persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security. the overwhelming evidence of this scheme is described in detail in a nearly 300-page document entitled "the trump ukraine impeachment inquiry report" formally transmitted from the house selection committee on intelligence to this committee a few days ago. the report relies on testimony from numerous current and former government officials, the vast majority of whom are nonpartisan, career professionals responsible for keeping our nation safe and promoting american values around the globe. the evidence from these witnesses cannot seriously be disputed. the president placed his personal interests above the nation's interests in order to help his own re-election efforts. before i highlight the evidence and the findings of this report, i want to take just a moment to introduce myself and discuss today's testimony. i joined the house intelligence committee as senior adviser and director of investigations at the beginning of this year. previously i served for ten years a as prosecutor in the southern district of new york, when i joined the department of justice under the george w. bush administration. the team that i led on the intelligence community includes other former federal prosecutors, a retired fbi agent, an investigators with significant national security expertise. the report that i am presenting today is based entirely on the evidence that we collected in coordination with the oversight and foreign affairs committees that were gathered as part of the impeachment inquiry into president trump's actions. nothing more and nothing less. the three investigating committees ran a fair, professional and thorough investigation. we followed the house rules for depositions and public hearing, including the rule against agency counsel being present for depositions and members and staff from both parties had equal time to ask questions and there were no substantive questions that were prevented from being asked and answered. this investigation moved swiftly and intensively as all good investigations should. to the extent that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that president trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available. nevertheless, the extensive evidence that the committees uncovered during this investigation led to the following critical findings. first, president trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly elected president of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for president trump's personal and political benefit. second, in order to increase the pressure on ukraine to announce the politically-motivated investigations that president trump wanted, president trump with held a coveted oval office meeting and $391 of essential military assistance from ukraine. third, president trump's conduct sought to undermine our free and fair elections and poses an imminent threat to our national security. and fourth, faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against ukraine, president trump directed an unprecedented effort to obstruct congress's impeachment inquiry into his conduct. and with that context in mind, i would like to turn to the evidence of president trump's conduct concerning ukraine. my colleague, mr. castor just said it revolves around eight lines in one call record. but that's sorely ignores the vast amount of evidence that we collected of a month's long scheme directed by the president. but i do want to start with that july 25th phone call because that is critical evidence of the president's involvement and intent. it was on that day that he held his second phone call with the new ukrainian president. the first in april was short and cordial, following the ukrainian president's election success. but this second call would die verge dramatically from those listening had expected. president trump spoke to gordon sondland prior to this phone daul, the u.s. ambassador to the european union who donated $1 million to the president's inaugural campaign. and who had been directed by the president himself to take on a leading role in ukraine issues. ambassador sondland relaid the president's message to president zelensky through ambassador kurt volker who had had lunch that day with president zelensky's top aide andre yermac who appears repeatedly through this scheme as president zelensky's right hand man. ambassador volker texted mr. yermac with president trump's direction. good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down visit for -- we will nail down for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. so, even before the phone call with president zelensky took place, president trump had directed that ukraine initiate the investigation into 2016 the debunked conspiracy theory that ukraine had interfered in the election in order for president zelensky to get the white house visit that he desperately coveted. ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo. >> members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question, was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. during this call with the ukrainian leader, president trump did not discuss matters of important to the united states such as ukrainian's efforts to root out corruption. instead president trump veered quickly into the personal favor he wanted president zelensky to do. two investigations that would help president trump's re-election effort. witnesses who listened to the call described it as unusual, improper, inappropriate and concerning. two of them immediately reported their concerns to white house lawyers. now, let me just take a few minutes walking through that important call step by step because it is evidence that is central to the president's scheme. near the beginning of the call, president zelensky said, i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes. the great support in the area of defense included the nearly $400 million of u.s. military assistance to ukraine. which one witness testified was nearly 10% of ukraine's defense budget. in this support comes as a result of russia's invasion of ukraine in 2014, when russia illegally annexed nearly 7% of ukraine's territory. since then, the united states and our allies have provided support for ukraine, an emerging post soviet democracy to fend off russia in the east. yet, just a few weeks before this july 25th call, president trump had inexplicably placed a hold on military assistance to ukraine without providing any reason to his own cabinet members or national security officials. the evidence the committees collected showed that there was unanimous support for the aid from every relevant agency in the trump administration. nevertheless, during the call president trump complained that u.s. support for ukraine was not reciprocal, that somehow ukraine needed to give more to the united states. what did he mean? well, it became clear. immediately after president zelensky brought up u.s. military support and purchasing javelin, anti--tank weapons, president trump responded -- 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. now the favor that he referenced there included two demands that had nothing to do with official u.s. policy or foreign policy. first, president trump said -- i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowd strike. as you saw yesterday -- or excuse me, i guess you have one of your wealthy people, it says, the server you say ukraine has it. there are a lot of things that went on. the whole situation. i think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. and he went on later. 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. as you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named robert mueller, an incompetent performance. but they say a lot of it started with ukraine. whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it with that's possible. here again president trump was referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that the ukrainian government, not russia, was behind the hack of the democratic national committee in 2016. not a single witness in our investigation testified that there was any factual support for this allegation. to the contrary, a unanimous assessment of the u.s. intelligence community found that russia alone interfered in the 2016 u.s. election and special counsel mueller who indicted 12 russians for this conspiracy testified before congress that the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. dr. fiona hill, an expert on russia and president putin who served on the national security council until july, testified that the president was told by his own former senior advisers, including his homeland security adviser and his former national security adviser, that the alternative theory that ukraine had interfered in the election was false. and although no one in the u.s. government knew of any factual support for this theory, it did have one significant supporter. russian president vladimir putin. in february of 2017, president putin said, second as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the united states