figures constitutional patriotism. it look like president trump might get away. most americans didn't know anything about it in the few who knew of it would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth. president trump could rest easy. but if donald trump misjudged the american character, the framers of our constitution did not. i account for 17 honorable public servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president. is that right, mr. goldman? >> yes, there were 17. >> i counted 17,000 officials who served republican and democratic presidents alike who came to testify. in fact, four of president trump's own national security staffers came forward to report trump's scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned about it. didn't they can make mr. goldman? >> morrison and vindman went to the lawyers. yes. >> that move me a lot. my father was a staffer on the national security council under president kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience. he devoted his career to the idea that people must be truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy. and to the people. so i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. mr. goldman, who is dr. fiona hill? >> the director of the national security council until this year. >> her family had fled both nazi germany and soviet russia. >> i think her family came from england. marie yovanovitch -- >> that was marie yovanovitch. dr. hill advisor lawyers july 11 and why did she go to report what she had learned? what motivated her? >> she was concerned that ambassador sondland and mick mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the ukrainians would open up these investigations for president trump's political interests in return for getting the white house meeting that president trump had offered. >> i want to talk about deputy assistant secretary george camp who served as a career foreign service officer under five different presidents, republicans and democrats alike. he updated notes to file on four different occasions to note the grave concerns about the president's conduct. what led to draft the notes on these files? >> there was a conversation at the end of june were several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. there was one august 14th i recall -- but you bring up a very important points, which is all of the state department witnesses and particularly, and frankly all the witnesses other than ambassador sondland took unbelievable, meticulous notes. i would've dreamed of for a witness like that as a prosecutor. it makes for a very clear and compelling record a clear and compelling evidence that spaced on based on contemporaneous notes. >> do we have mr. kent's notes on this progress? >> we have none, advisor solvents first-person cable, these emails. so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation. >> why do we not have them? >> the state department refused to provide them that was setting i was. the notwithstanding rr's subpoena.>k out the crimes of the political leaders. in united states, not a lot of people are afraid despite president trump trying to silence them. he is trying to make our country like russia and we can be think will found a lot of heroes who stood up to the truth for the constitution. i yelled back. >> gentlemen yields back. ms. velasco. >> my first questions are for the american people. america, are you sick and tired of the impeachment scam? america, would you like congress to get something done? i would sure do. mr. castor, the rest of the questions are for you. i would like yes or no questions if possible. my first question is important. do any of the democrats' back when this witnesses established the president had committed bribery, extortion, or high crime or misdemeanor. >> good heavens, no. >> mr. castor, the deputy assistant of the national security, mr. morrison, listened in on the phone call. he testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper. is that correct? >> yeah, he was afraid about leaks. >> witnesses testified it's common for foreign aid to be paused for for various reasons including concerns that the country is corrupt and tax dollars is misspent. ambassador volker claimed that this hold was not significant. is that correct? >> yes, a number of witnesses also said the same thing. >> former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch testified that in ukraine, and i quote, corruption is not just prevalent, but frankly is the system. is that correct? >> yes. all the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt. >> mr. castor, ukraine company burisma held a reputation in ukraine is a corrupt company. is that correct? >> big time. >> according to "the new york times," hunter biden was part of a bribe effort by burisma to bring in well-connected democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations. is that correct? >> yes. the new yorker also had a pretty extensive report on that too. >> obama's deputy assistant secretary of state george kent testified that he raised concerns directly to vice president biden's office about hunter biden's services on sondland burisma's board. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. castor, on the july 25th call we all saw the video earlier today. were joe biden bragged about he told ukraine, if the prosecutor is not fired, you aren't getting the money. mr. castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma? >> it is. >> in a similar scheme, obama's assistant attorney general said, and i quote, awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption. plain and simple. mr. castor, here's another key question. given that, one, burisma had the reputation of being a corrupt company, obama's own state department was concerned about hunter biden serving on burisma's board at the same time that vice president biden was acting as point person, and three, obama's assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme that the corruption, there is corruption plain and simple, do you think then it is understandable, reasonable, and acceptable for president trump to ask ukrainian president to look into the hunter biden/burisma's potential corruption scheme? >> yes. >> mr. castor, there are four are disputable facts that will never change that prove there is no in impeachable offense, no quid pro quo on the july 25th call, ukraine leadership did not know the aide was held up at the time of the july 25th telephone call, ukraine received a white house meeting phone call, and aid even though ukraine didn't initiate any investigations. do you agree? >> ukraine received a meeting with vice president pence in warsaw had a meeting not at the white house but in new york at the united nations. >> mr. castor, did mr. turley testify in the past hearing that this impeachment inquiry has not passed chairman nadler's three-pronged test? >> he did. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> thank you. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you. let's focus on the republican claim that president trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain. let me be clear. we actually do not have to read the presidents mind on this. as on page ten and will see on television, he told us himself what his intent was. >> what exactly did you hope zaleski would tell about the bidens after the phone call? >> i would think if they are honest about it, they'd start a major investigation on the bidens. very simple answer. >> the first and best witness about the president's intent was donald trump. let's review the basic facts with already established. first, president trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of his calls with president zelensky and he disregards all the talking points prepared for him on corruption by the national security council. second, investigations of the bidens and he debunked a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official u.s. policy. and third, congress authorized military aid to ukraine. ukraine passed all the checks that the united states established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption and there was unanimous consent amongst the state department, national defense, national security council that the president should release the military aid ukraine critically needed to fight russian aggression. mr. goldman, between the time that president trump put a hold on military aid to ukraine and then release the aid, the president never conducted an actual review or assessment on ukraine, did he? >> that was corrected no witness testified there was any review or investigation of any sort related to the ukraine and aid. >> is it true that the defense department determined not to conduct a review on ukraine after the president froze the military aid because ukraine had already met all of the corruption benchmarks in may of 2019? >> yes, and everyone involved in ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path and president zelensky in particular. >> in addition to ukraine having satisfied all the relevant corruption assessment prior to u.s. military aid being withheld, there is significant testimony that both the state department and the ukrainian embassy actually advised that a white house meeting with president zelensky would help further anticorruption agenda, correct? >> both the anticorruption agenda and the aggression, fighting the aggression from russia. >> in fact, president trump's budget fights down the cuts fighting for corruption in ukraine. mr. castor argued that he held up military aid because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general. in both 2014 and didn't he release aid without any complaint about corruption? >> that's correct. >> mr. goldman, the president was perfectly fine with giving aid in 2017 and 2018 but not in 2019 pick what changed? >> joe biden started running for president. >> vice president started running. >> and i would add these peanut report came out, it did not charge the president typically did to his campaign and welcoming the assistance from russia and utilizing it. >> the sequence of events and corroborating evidence makes it crystal clear that president trump didn't care about corruption at all. as he told us himself on national television, he simply cared about his own politically motivated investigations into his political rival. and you saw the clip where ambassador sondland picked up the phone, called president trump and then mr. holmes asked him, what the president thought about ukraine and quickly what was mr. simon's answer? >> mr. simon said the president doesn't give a bleep about just the investigation mr. giuliani was pushing. that was direct between president trump and ambassador sondland that day. >> we know what president trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and witness testimony. the president of the united states wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal political benefit to interfere in our election, and he was willing to use u.s. military aid, which is taxpayer dollars and an essential white house meeting as leverage. that is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power. i yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for . >> thank you. let me give everybody the bottom line. we are here because democrats are terrified that president trump is going to win reelection. that's really what it comes down to. let me get into the specifics. we are here dealing with impeachment because democrats don't want to talk about the red-hot trump economy. they do not want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. we are dealing with impeachment because democrats don't want to talk about how the president has worked to protect american companies from chinese aggression. how he's a really good negotiating renegotiating trade deals. he's eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy. and help job creators. congressional democrats don't want to be reminded that the american people, the democratic agenda includes such laughable ideas like banding airplanes, giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-funded health care, taking private health insurance away from the american people. that's really why we are here. this whole process is just a distraction. it's an attempt to hide the far left radical agenda. so let's talk about the facts. schiff support claims it administration froze military aid for your crane without explanation. the facts are president trump gave more military aid to your crane than president obama. president obama gave your crane well wishes and blankets president trump gave the ukrainians javelin missiles. those are the differences and those are the facts. house democrats want to claim it's a conspiracy that ukraine officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. yet ukrainian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election are well documented by politico, by financial times, and they held there was an attempt to influence our elections, and that's troubling and that's why president trump brought it to the attention of president zielinski. again, those are the facts. at the end of the day, those facts don't seem to matter to my democrat colleagues. house democrats don't care that president zelensky has repeatedly said that there was no pressure. it's not important in the call transcript was the best evidence we have. it is the best evidence we have. it's the actual primary documentary that transcript because there was no quid pro quo, no bribery. it's an old latin phrase that did not pull well and he democrat focus group. my democrats colleagues seem to care about focus groups and polling, but again they don't care about the facts. the fact is the democrats are calling about impeachment before this investigation even began. representatives tlalib said impeach the mother -- represented green said that, i'm concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected. these proceedings the entire process is nothing more than a political hit job. unlike my democrat colleagues, i do care about the facts that's why i'm troubled the committee not to hear from a single fact that witness this entire time. we should be hearing from hunter biden. we should be hearing from schiff's staff. we know that schiff is a staff quoted with the whistle-blower. again, we need to hear from the whistle-blower print last week, i offered a motion to subpoena the whistle-blower to testify in executive session, meaning he or she can testify behind closed doors but my democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. mr. castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistle-blower's complaint? >> the first thing about the complaint that troubles us is clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. the information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted. it's from a person who seems to be making a case, like an advocate, about what happened on the call. there whistle-blower references a number of individuals inside the white house and that the state department, that he or she has spoken to to form the basis of a complaint. we have not been able to piece together all those people and talking to all those people is important. and there is a lot of them, running out of time here. but there is a reference to lushenko when others have told us it's likely shokin. vindman and morrison's reason they went to the lawyers from a very different reason -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentlewoman from florida for 5 minutes. >> mr. goldman, as a director of the intelligence committee, i specifically and first-hand evidence that president trump conditioned our military aid on ukraine, announced investigations into the 2016 election into the bidens, and betrayed our national security interests in the process. for example, ambassador sondland told us that once the ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld, it was made, and i quote, abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid, and i quote that they were going to have to make these statements. mr. goldman, beginning on and around the tent 25th of july call through december, would you agree that consistent with the testimony be revealed, ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and white house visit, they would have to make a statement announcing the investigations? >> not only where they made aware, they were made aware either by president trump's proxy rudy giuliani or from president trump himself through ambassador sondland who spoke to president zelensky and andre are yermak that the aide was conditioned o on the investigations. >> by the end, president zelensky committed to making that statement on cnn. was i correct? >> finally president zelensky relented after months of what he called the domestic u.s. political process and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice to break the stalemate as ambassador sondland told them that he ultimately agreed to go on television before president trump got caught and released the aid of. >> i'd like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you. that headline said, trump tried to force ukraine to metal in the 2020 elections and the article reports that president trump, and i quote, attempting to force zelensky launching and investigating in the leading democrat joe biden. he's not soliciting help with the president shall campaign campaign, he's using united states military aid the country needs and attend to extort it. am i correct to mr. goldman, allegations by president trump use military aid to pressure your crane to announce investigations is being widely reported? >> i'm sorry, by what date? >> september fifth. >> welcome he has been widely reported. certainly the aid being withheld was widely reported. >> by september 9th, our committee formally announced a congressional investigation into the president about these issues. and, mr. goldman the, what they did president trump release the military aid? >> two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the ig, the inspector general, told the intelligence committee that there was a complaint that it was being withheld. >> am i correct that as the timeline in the screen in front of you shows, it wasn't until the whistle-blower complaint, after "the washington post" report, and after congress launched the investigation that president trump finally released the aid? >> that's right. and i would add one thing briefly to the congressman's point, it is true that president trump has given more military assistance than president obama. one would wonder if he does support military assistance so much, why then is he holding it up then for more than two months. >> as a matter of fact, the tendon colonel vindman testified that people at the end as he discussed that congress' investigation might have the effect of releasing the hold on your crane's military aid because we would potentially be politically challenging justifying the aide. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> in other words, the aid was released after the president got caught. what makes me angry is that this president, president trump, thinks he can get away with this. but he got caught. and he tried to cover it up. but we won't let him do that. and we thank god, mr. goldman, for the true courageous public servants who came forward and spite of intimidation and obstruction from the white house. you see, everybody counts. but everybody is accountable. up to and including the president of the united states. thank you. and i yelled back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. correa. i'm sorry, california. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. goldman, my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the president apparently said, and i quote, no quid pro quo on september 7th in a call with ambassador sondland. mr. goldman, did you receive testimony about this september 7 call? >> yes, we received testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little complicat complicated. but that was a consistent refrain through all of the witnesses is the president did say "no quid pro quo." >> mr. morrison that same date? >> mr. morrison then reported to master taylor, correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> both mr. morrison and ambassador taylor took most of those instructions, yes question marks because they did. >> whether notes or the nose produceto the commi? >> they were not, >> that set of notes was blocked consistent with the president's direction? smith correct. ambassador sondland said that president trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo? >> that's right. ambassador sondland also said that too. >> mr. goldman, what did the committee make of this fact? >> it was quite odd the president would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid pro quo that there was no. quid pro quo. what was more important immediately after that was which is effectively conduct that amounts to the quid pro quo. there is no quid pro quo but you have to go to the microphone to make the announcement. >> what did the committee make about the fact that according to ambassador taylor and mr. morrison right after president trump said no quid pro quo, president trump then told ambassador sondland that ukrainian president zelensky would have to go to the microphone and announce the investigations of biden and the 20 section election interference, and that president zelensky should want to do that himself? >> that's right. we had a number of different accounts on this. >> they are up on the boards here. >> i see this. ambassador taylor said that mr. morrison said something similar, their understandings of that conversation was there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo factually from the conduct, from the actions. we talk a lot today about the words and zelensky said no pressure, trump had no pressure no quid pro quo. as an investigator, as a prosecutor, you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean, and that's why this call in particular is so important. >> let's go further further. as we discussed, multiple individuals reacted with concern to president trump's call with ambassador sondland. do you recall mr. morrison's reaction? >> mr. morrison said that he was shocked, i think. >> sinking feeling? >> thinking feeling, correct. he went and talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador bolton. >> correct. and mr. goldman, ambassador taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on the zelensky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogical, crazy, and wrong. is that right? >> that's what ambassador taylor testified to, yes. >> my colleagues have also pointed out that on september 9th, a text message from sondland, crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo. mr. goldman, am i correct in that ambassador sondland has now testified that prior to sending his text, he himself came to believe that the aide was conditioned on the announcement of investigations? >> yes. ambassador sondland's testimony revealed two things that were precisely false, that were not true in the text message, including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that they are absolutely assuredly was as it related to the white house meeting. >> this september 7 call andy september 9th text occurred after the press reports, that is after the press reports that president trump is conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rivals, is that correct? >> yes. this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed the message to president zelensky. >> mr. goldman, the investigative committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president's assertion that there was no quid pro quo? >> received a lot of evidence and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. >> thank you. i yield. >> mr. chairman, i have unanimous consent request. >> can you please hold it until i do my questions? >> it'll be very brief it it's just unanimous consent. >> i recognize myself for 5 minutes. mr. goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words, so i want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for president trump to use the american government to pressure the ukraine president to benefit his reelection campaign. let's look at what the president said in his july 25th call to the president of ukraine. it wasn't a friendly request, it was really a demand. why did he say the president's favor was a demand? >> because the power disparity between the united states as the greatest power in the world and ukraine, which is so dependent on the united states not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not in reality say no. >> is this vast power disparity in part because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the ukraine have died? >> yes, and the only has the u.s. provided its military budget but a critical ally and rallying other countries to support ukraine. europe actually gives i think four times as much money as the united states over all to ukraine. >> president trump knew the ukrainian president 's back was against the wall and president zelensky needed u.s. validation and support, is that right? >> writes. >> according to the u.s. investor to ukraine and we have ambassador taylor's testimony there, it wasn't until ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that there would be , but zelensky agreed to the investigations president trump was demanding, correct? >> that's right, yes. >> furthermore the committee heard testimonies that they felt they had no choice but to comply with president trump's demands. correct? >> yes, even after the aide was released. >> in fact, when asked of president trump in september whether he felt pressured, presidents lenski said, "quote , i'm sorry, i do not want to be involved in the elections of the usa." is that right? >> that sounds right if you are reading the quote. >> the president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give into president trump's demand. did your investigated committees consider those statements by president zelensky? >> we did. and we found the statements of what is effectively an extortion victim are not particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter because president zelensky cannot for the same reasons he integrated integrated that will potentially upset president trump and they are so dependent on the relationship with president trump and the united states. >> one could say it's similar to a hostage testifying under duress. >> the rest would be a good word >> so when the president made these statements and up including today his country was still under attack by russia, still had not got a meeting at the white house, still needed aid from the united states. >> that's right, and david holmes testified very persuasively about the importance of the white house meeting and of the relationship to ukraine even after the speech 26 was lifted, including pointing to today when president trump and president zelensky mehta discussed the war in the east. >> the evidence knew that he had the power to enforce ukraine's hand and took advantage of that desperation and abuse his office using our taxpayer dollars to use what he wanted, right? >> it has to be cleared and clarified that the president, the evidence showed that the president directly said to ambassador sondland that there was a quid pro quo with the security systems. there has been some debate and some discussion about that, but that is one thing the evidence shows based on the morrison testimony, the taylor testimony the silent testimony, what we want to say about hearsay, that's direct evidence. >> that's the type of the trail that our founders sought to prevent. i will recognize the congressman from virginia. >> you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform consent after you had asked your question. i asked for your form consent -- excuse me, unanimous consent. >> the settlement will suspend. who is seeking -- what are you seeking unanimous consent? >> mr. chairman, i have two letters addressed to you december 2019. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i have a brief pulmonary inquiry regarding scheduling. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognize. >> i mr. chairman, i'm particularly reminded of your quote, there must never be narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment subtended by our major beluga parties and largely opposed by the other. such impeachment would lack would call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. you made that statement back in 1998. i'm glad we are moving on to presenting the "evidence" gathered in this report. not to hear from direct fact witnesses, but a 300 page report that's built largely on largely on hearsay and speculation. i'm outraged that the purported author schiff is not here to answer our questions today. now that we have the report and discuss the facts within our lack thereof, there will be arguments that will never change. both president trump and president zelensky says there's no pressure. plus there is no conditionality between aid and investigation. ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld, and ukraine did not open investigation but still received a meeting with president trump. i want to mr. castor, did the democrats' impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions? >> yes, it did. >> how many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay. >> we went through time over 50 instances. >> they had time to make their case? >> a lot of the details investor sondland was making , it was about one, two steps rd from the actual facts. that's the problem with hearsay, it's a whisper down the lane situation. some of the people doing the whispering have predisposed not like president trump, what they're whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted. >> did you also find instances where the democrats' report use whispers and speculation? >> this has become the big daddy of the hearing, sondland presuming the aide was tied to the investigations. he engaged in the back and forth with mr. turner -- nobody on the planet told him that that was the case. >> mr. castor, i want to move on to policy and some of the president was abusing foreign policy. repeatedly witnesses came before the intelligence committee and talked about how the president is operating outside the bounds of the process. where does he derive that power? >> the constitution. >> article two section two. taking issue with the directions and choices? >> within a building had prepared the call passage and was physically deflated when he realized that his call notes that the call notes were not being listed by the presidents. the officials became sad that the president did not revere their policymaking apparatus. >> would you be out for these goals like rooting out corruption and ukraine? >> i think the president is skeptical of the inner agency bureaucracy. >> that may be why he relied on secretary perry and ambassador volker ambassador sondland and others? >> by the way, all three of those officials are not that far outside the chain of the u.s. government. >> would be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in ukraine to exempt or removed, say, a political supporter? >> it would be. >> would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent questioning >> that's correct me out. >> would it be inappropriate to rose >>this all goes to the heart of bias. >> thank you for those answers. mr. chairman, i go back to what you said about the facts being undisputed. i would argue the facts are in fact are disputed. what you contend are facts are in fact not appear there with this presumption's, hearsay, and speculation. the facts here are in the fact that this is the shortest impeachment in u.s. history based on the narrowest grounds. mr. chairman, this impeachment process is a farce and a stain on his committee and the house of representatives, and i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we just heard that the supporters are relying on hearsay and they have failed to obtain first-hand accounts of the president's conduct. i'm a former judge and you, mr. goldman, a former prosecutor my republican colleague suggested there is no per direct evidence. is that true? >> there is a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence they say is hearsay is not actually hearsay. >> indeed, it is not true print i do not want to relive a law school evidence class, but i want to go over examples with you. at least with me, whether it's indirect or direct evidence. ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that in 2019, president trump told him to "talk to rudy about ukraine." is that direct evidence? speak yes, technically. well, not technically. but yes. >> and we have the memorandum of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelinski. is that direct evidence? >> yes, that is. we know that president trump as president zelensky to look into the investigations and for u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about the investigations, correct? >> yes. if i could jump in here, on the july 25th call because these four facts we keep hearing about that are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be that there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i want to thank you for your invitation. and on the other hand i want to ensure that we will be very serious about the case and work on the investigation. that's the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call. that's wrong. it's also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aide being withheld, even though that does not matter. finally, there was no white house meeting ever provided. so the third or fourth fact, i do think that needs to be clarified particularly as we are focusing on what direct evidence is. >> let's give more examples. three of the individuals participated in the july 25th call, is there a testimony direct evidence and what happened during that call? >> yes, although i think the call record is better evidence than there. >> the day after that call, devon holmes testified that juld ambassador sondland, is that direct evidence? >> that's direct evidence. speaker after the july 25th ca call, ukraine would investigate the bidens. is that direct evidence? >> yes. >> his own words but seems to me like there is a lot of direct evidence. is there are the direct evidence the committee relied on in addition to these? >> there is a lot of evidence that i would call direct evidence because it's not hearsay. if any of the people involved in this scheme are talking to each other and then relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. that would be in court a coconspirator statement that would be admissible but let's not talk too far about -- it's very important because anything mr. giuliani says, anything ambassador sondland says, anything these people say is not hearsay and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. of course, we don't follow the federal rules of evidence here. we keep it more lenient. that's an important point. >> is there anything wrong, goldman, drawing inferences from circumstances? >> courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in everything the court room. that is how you determine what the evidence shows. so when ambassador sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no estimation for the aid, the fact the white house meeting has artie been held up because of the investigations, and determines that's the reason why security assistance has also been held up, that's a natural logical instance that every jury draws across the country. >> i agree with you and disappointed that rather than to respond to the serious, factual direct and evidence before us, my colleagues make unfounded comments about the process but what president trump did here is wrong, unconstitutional, if anybody else did this, they would be held accountable. i urge all my colleagues to face these evidence and up oiled the oath, to protect our constitution. our democracy ensures us that not anybody, including the president, is above the law. >> gentlelady yields back. mr. neguse. >> i want to think post mr. castro mr. goldman for being here. a lot of discussion whether or not the facts of the matter are contested. i believe they are not contested. so i would like to level set here and give you both an opportunity to address some of the facts that i believe are not in dispute. i want to begin by addressing something i think we all know for certain. that is that russia interfered in our 2016 election. mr. goldman, after two years of investigation, the special council concluded that the interfered sweeping and systemic fashion. is that right question mike >> yes. speaker mr. castor, is that right? >> yes. >> public agencies state that ukraine attacked in 2016. >> that's right. i do not think that any government interfered. i think this is based off a couple of news articles. >> mr. castro, correct? >> the president had good faith belief that there were individuals -- >> and i believe you. i guess i'm asking you, and there are no intelligence agencies in the united states that said they attacked our elections but you are testifying to that? >> correct. >> in fact, trump's foreign security advisor tom moser said that ukraine hacking the dnc server was not included a conspiracy theory, it's completely debunked. that's president trump's homeland security advisor that said those words. is that right, mr. goldman? >> yes, i saw that interview. >> mr. castor, he saw the interview? >> i'm aware of it. >> isn't it true that none of the witnesses that appear before your committee testified in support of the theory that ukraine somehow interviewed intervened inour election? >> that is absolutely correct. >> mr. castor? >> that's correct -- >> thank you. i reclaim my time. no witnesses testified in support of that theory before your committee. mr. gorman, isn't it also true that your committee in fact recy indicating that there is evidene that russia is impart perpetrating this false theory that ukraine interfered because russia wants to deflect flame domain blame for its own involvement? >> that is correct. we have evidence of that and we have to know what is evidence and what is your media reports for speculation, because there is no evidence in our investigation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. >> in fact, i liked what some of the testimony that i believe you may be referencing, mr. goldman, in the screen in front of you, both in front of mr. holmes as well as dr. fiona hill. i'm confident on the analysis that i've done, and i don't want to start getting to intelligence matters, that the ukraine government did not interfere in our election in 2016. this is a fictional narrative that's being propagated by the russia security forces themselves. do you recall that, mr. goldman? >> i do and in addition to officials and made disparaging comments about president trump, there are officials from countries all around the world who also made disparaging comments about president trump and as dr. hill said, their military assistance was not put on hold. >> given your testimony and there are four uncontested facts preferred, russia attacked our 2016 elections. several agencies confirm that this is true. secondly, ukraine did not attack our 2016 elections. absently no evidence of this basis conspiracy theory. third, there is evidence russia perpetrated the allegations that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. and finally, russia benefits from the u.s. and the skin ukraine which was made clear through public testimony before your committee. is it fair that they agree with these four conclusions? >> the intelligence community agrees with one anticorporate dr. hill agrees with three and the statement from putin, and the witness literalists, and president >> it begs the case why would president trump perpetuate this conspiracy theory already disproven by the entirety of the intelligence community that actually helps our adversary, a country that's attacking our elections in real time. with that, i yield. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. >> brief parliamentary inquiry about the schedule. >> already recognized, he has the time. >> are you going to recognize him about his parliamentary? >> i'm going to answer that schedule shortly. >> democrats want the rules to apply when it benefits them and not to apply when republicans invoke them. nine hours ago now, mr. burke, hired gun for the democrats go at 30 minutes to spread his partisan rhetoric and 37 minutes to examine witnesses for that's 27 minutes more than most of these in the committee that was elected by their constituents. a politically biased consultant who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal elections to the like of pac blue, hillary clinton, and obama, and biden. i wonder why he has an ax to grind. brags about getting new york lawyers, and getting insider trading charges. mr. burke able to say whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony, that it would be truthful. so he could sit before this committee not as a fact witness and directly lie to the american people without any threat of criminal prosecution. makes sense. he's a white collar criminal defense lawyer. i'm sure he did not want to incriminate himself. this is a mr. berke who offered reports two years ago on his opinion to whether president trump obstructed justice, and colluded with. also rebrande represented bill de blasio the federal investigation of bill de blasio's a part of said new york lawyer with written bias against president trump who gave thousands to hillary clinton's presidential campaign. all of the spectacle, all of it, not a single fact which wetness hasappeared in front ofe committee but we heard for a minority hearing date. let's talk about the fact we do have before us. we heard from mueller, no evidence that there no obstruction of justice. after denying republicans from calling all of their in closed-door cds, denying the president's counsel, the facts are this. did the president tell you about any preconditions for anything? his answer, no. for the aid be refused? no. a white house meeting? no. to morrison when questioned, there was no quid pro quo answered, correct. the aide was released, four fax never change for both president trump and president zelensky say there is no pressure. the call says there is no conditionality between aid. ukraine did and opened an investigation but still received aid and a meeting with president trump. mr. castro, has any committee heard from the whistle-blower in any closed-door hearings? >> no. >> did chairman schiff state that he would call the whistle-blower to testify? >> yes. >> isn't going to occur? >> i would hope so. >> has other countries' aid also been held up? >> yes. >> on october 2nd, "the new york times" reported that the whistle-blower approached the house intelligence committee and with his concerns about president trump. are his concerns accurate? >> say it again? >> on october 2nd, "the new york times" reported that a house intelligence >> i think it was ablower is a s concerns are from the >> did the whistle-blower approach -- let me ask a different way. have you had any communications with the whistle-blower? >> as i said, i'm not going to get into -- >> you are refusing to say if i got into the communication with the whistle-blower? >> he did not -- >> he's absolutely relevant. >> the whistle-blower's complaints for the reasons mr. castro said, they allegations are not included in our report because they have been outstripped by the 70 witnesses that we have had come into testify directly about the conduct that the whistle-blower. >> as of today do you know the identity of the whistle-blower? >> i refuse to talk about the identity of the whistle-blower -- >> that's my time, not yours. has any other staff on the intel committee have medications with the whistle-blower? >> sir -- >> the american people want to know about those answers. >> time, mr. chairman. >> i have unanimous consent. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> the gentleman will state his unanimous and send. >> i want to submit the document, ukrainian efforts -- >> if you give it to our staff, we'll take a look at it. >> a motion to insert instead, mr. chairman? >> before i recognize ms. mcbath, i want to announce with respect to scheduling that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. it may and neck before votes are called to the which would be nice. we would recess for the votes and will reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor are over. it's going to be a close call. we will see. i will further announce that i'm not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond today's hearing. >> point of order, mr. chairman -- >> excuse who seeks recognition for point of order? >> it is i. >> for purposes --