Whatwe that means, its to use e power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring orfi 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, this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. And president nixon famously said, if the president does it, it is notde illegal. And this body rejected that because thats 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 the Department Of Justice and defending his conduct. Heres what he said. I have an article 2 where i have the right 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. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power, betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers. The men the American People have suffered foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been amapproved, taxpayer dollars, and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection 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 Concentratein their powers to manipulate elections
andle undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. Thats why the framers thought electoral treasury, particularly involving foreign powers, was a critical abuse and that could support or lead to impeachment. Now, the American People learned last election how dangerous foreignho intervention in our elections can be. Let me show another clip from Candidate Trump on the campaign trail. Russia, if youre listening, i hope youre 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 Trumps invitation to russia to interfere inss 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 Trumps invitation. Now, the American People learned a lesson. President trump unfortunately, apparently, learned a different lesson. Lets look. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they would startut a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens. So this was President Trump answering ais question about wh didqu he want president zelensk to do. So event after he got caught, is saying again this vulnerable nation dependent on u. S. Support militarily and otherwise, and unlike in 2016 when he only had
a Campaign Platform to extend the invitation to the foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it, but toly pressure that country do it. And thats exactly what he did. And w youll hear more about th in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee and whats most c striking as w come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about, is there a continuing risk of wrongdoing, the fact that President Trump did this after he was caught shows the risk. Shows the risk of what will happen if this body doesnt act. He really does believe he can act as though he were above the law. He really does believe as evidenced by this conduct, that he can puts his personal and political interests over the nations interest, over the Nations National security interest, overe the nations integrity of its elections. So of course we do have an election coming up. Thats not a reason to postpone this discussion. Thats aos reason we must have this discussion, to make sure it is not d interfered with. To make sure this president doesnt do it, to make sure future president s do not do it. It is the hope that in these discussionsse we can put aside political anger, 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 president s. 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 conscience. 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 wantlk our children d grandchildren to live in a country where the president elected by the people can put his own personal and political interests over the interests 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 were going to hear will not distort the record. Focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really arean intended to distract rath than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the countrys best interest. History, future generations will be the judge. Thank you, mr. Burke. Mr. Caster, you are chairman. You are recognized for 30 points. Point of order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 points. Point of order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 points. The witness has violated rule 17 and my Point Of Order should be heard. O Point Of Order. The. Witness has used langue which impugns the matters of the president and suggests hes disloyal to his country and those should be stricken from the record andsu taken down. The point ofe order is not sustained. Witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum. Appeal the ruling of the
chair. 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 ofsu the president. St i do not o find that the witness comments are disorderly. I find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue, except that his time is expired. Tichairman, its not my Point Of Order is not that his words are disorderly. They are unparliamentary. They violate the rules of the house and should be taken down. This is not about his conduct. He is talking about the motives and the character of the president of the United States. The Gentleman Willve suspend. The rules of decorum apply to members of the house, not to witnesses. The gentleman may proceed. I appeal the ruling of the chair. That is not a ruling. It is a ruling on a Point Of Order and its appealable. That is a ruling. The Point Of Order is not
sustained. I move to table the the motion is made to table the appeal of m the ruling. Move the motion that the table is made in writing. It is not in debate. All in favor of the motion to all in favor of the motion to table say aye. Aye. Those no. No. The motion to table. She has to put it in writing first, then you can call it a vote. The motionn to table is we should follow the rules. The motionou to table is sustained. Roll call. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Ms. Jackson votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mrs. Demmings votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. Ms. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Mcbath votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Dean votes aye. Ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Gomer votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck. Mr. Ratcliffe notes no. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Mr. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steube votes no. Mr. Chairman, how am i recorded . Mr. Bigs, you are not recorded. I said no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Has every member voted who wishes to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 14 nos. May i make a parliamentary inquiry. I will not recognize a parliamentary inquiry at this time. Good morning, Chairman Nadler and members of the committee and staff. My name is steve castor, i serve with ther, Oversight Committee the republican staff with mr. Jordan. Im also for purposes of this investigation, im a shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee and mr. Collins, and
the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence and mr. Nunes. It sure is a. Tom co atypical for a staffer to testify, but thank you for havingfo me. Were here to discuss about President Trumps conduct fits theco high crime or dismeaner. It does not. This case in 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 they evidence of high crimes or
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 on which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration on january 20th, 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 stymyn trumps agenda and note that impeachment strategists believed the constitutions Emoluments Clause would be the vehicle. The democrats announced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump on several different factual bases. On january 3rdt , the very firs day of the new congress, Congressman Sherman introduced
articles of impeachment against the president. The same day, representative talib said were going to go in there, were going to impeach the president. In may 2019, representative green said on ms nbc if we dont impeach this president , he will be reelected. 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 judgell his performance in 2020. The obsession with impeaching the president io is reflected inhouse democrats have used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. In the Oversight Committee the democratss 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 objection ofer Committee Republicans and without a vote. In the ways and means committee, democrats demanded the president s personal tax return information. The reason they cited for wantingth the president s tax returns, they said, was to oversee the irss Audit Process for president ial tax returns. R you can judge that for yourself. In the Financial Services committee, democrats demanded and subpoenaede, the president bank records going back ten years. The Financial Services committee staff, the republicans tell me, the information demanded would cover every withdraw, credit card swipe, debit card purchase
of every member of the trump family, including his minor child. The reason they gave for why they needed such personal 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 everybo evidentiary basis for impeaching the president. Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending 25
million, the Special Counsels 19 attorneys and 40 fbi agents, analysts and staff, found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. After the trumprussia Collusion Allegations did not pan out, democrats then focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They visiton sized Attorney General barr for concluding that none crime of obstruction had occurred in the Special Counsel investigation. But, in fact, it 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 thehe sequel with Corey Lewandowski definitely did not prove theni Impeachment Needle either. The Intelligence Committee is heavily invested in the russia collusion investigation. Democrats hired 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 uttered on july 25th with Ukrainian President zelensky. But the Foreign Affairs committee, the committee of jurisdiction, Wasnt The Committee leading the Impeachment Inquiry or holding the hearings. Neither was the Oversight Committee. The houses chief investigative entity. The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix afterug fact finding concluded. Instead, the Impeachment Inquiry was run byco the House Intelligence Committee, and thesete former federal prosecutors. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the Impeachment Inquiryco in a manifestly unfai way. All of the factfinding was classified andwa that was made clear at the top of every single
deposition. But the democrats took advantage of the closeddoor process in the Capitol Basement Bunker to control access to information. The secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowingnv misleading 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 Notle to answer our questions. In the publicr hearings, many 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. Ill 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 upend our political system. According to politico, the speaker was scripted every step of the Impeachment Inquiry. Democrats have reportedly convened focus groups to test which g allegations, whether ite quid pro quo or bribery or extortion, were most compelling to the american public. Speakerri 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 tooc obtai relevant information. Democratsva avoided the accommodations process required Byro Federal Courts in disputes between congress and the executive. Democrats declined to attempt to negotiate with the administration for the production of documents and witnesses. An democrats did not exhaust all their options to entice witnesses or agencies to to cooperate, such as allowing
witnesses to a peer with agency lawyers or initiating Contempt Proceedings. Sometimes the threat of a Contempt Proceeding gets you a different tsresult, sometimes t witnesses choose to appear when contempt is on the table. Democrats even withdrew a subpoena to one witness who asked a federal court to resolve conflicting orders from congress and thein executive, either because the democrats did not want to waite for the court to rule, or they didnt 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 Theirth Salaries could be withheld for not Meeting Committee demands. These tactics are fundamentally unfair and counterproductive for gathering information in any serious inquiry. Thisou rushed and take it or lee it approach to investigating the contrary to house successful investigations typically work. Congressional investigations take time. There is no easy button. In this job you must take the information thats offered, even if you dontth like the terms. You should not say no to taking ato witnesss testimony because you would prefer the Agency Counsel is not erpresent. If thats the only means of obtaining the m testimony, you shouldta take it. Your priority must not be on blocking information out, it must benf on seeking informatio. Inki all recent major congressional investigations, for example, chairman gaudys investigation into the Justice Departments decision during 2016, the I Ars Targeting Investigation An Benghazi and fast and furious, there have been give and take between gong and the executive. In the gaudy investigation, for
example, it took two months. Two months of m negotiations before the committees conducted the c first witness interview wh 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 ane investigation in 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 democratshi sought to
interview careerug staff who performed these Security Clearancepe reviews. But declined the witness initially to appear with Agency Counsel. The house and the white house were at an impasse, however, after a i little bit of time, w the republican staff with the help of mr. Jordan, convinced the witness to appear with Agency Counsel for our own transcribed interview and the democrats came along. The subsequent interviews in the Security Clearance investigation were conducted with Agency Counsel. The Testimony Allowed The Committee Tost obtain the evidence, get to the bottom of what was going on, and it wasnt 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 have turned away information that could be valuable to the inquiry by
disallowing Agency Counsel accompany witnesses. Democrats have turned Away Information By T declining to negotiate in good faith with the administration aboutit the scop 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, im concerned about lowering Impeachment Standards to fit evidence and 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 Abbreviatedhy Investigation int this matterev is so damaging fo
the case of impeachment. The Substantive Case For Impeaching President Trump as a result ofim an artificial, arbitrary and political schedule, relies heavily on ambiguous facts. Presumptions and speculation. President on turley warned that impeachmentsey have been based proof, not presumptions. The democrats do not have the proof. Now, my democrat counterparts on the Intelligence Committee are talented attorneys. Im sure they will tell you a riveting story about a shadow or irregular Foreign Policy apparatus and a Smear Campaign designed to Ex Tort Ukraine for the president s political benefit. Theyll tell you about President Trump and how he put his own political interests ahead of National Security by mentioning former Vice President joe biden
by name and raising the allegations of ukrainian influence in the 2016 election on the july 25th call. Theyll try to convince you that the Trump Administration, the sameon administration Democrats Regularlyio accuse of being incompetent, orchestrated a conspiracy at the highest levels. None of this adds up. It may be a great screen play, but it ist not what the eviden shows. 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 listenic 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 wont provide a detailed presentation now, but allow me to highlight a few points. First, the summery 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 reelection. He was asking for assistance in helping our country move forward from Thetr Divisiveness of the russia collusionen investigatio. Second, since President Trump has declassified and publicly released the Callub Summery 75 days ago, president zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. He said it on September 25th at thept 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 justy last week in time magazine. Other senior ukrainian officials have 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 wasno pause. They did not learn it was paused until the pause was reported publicly in the u. S. Media on august 28th o. As8t ambassador Volker Testifie because the highest levels of the Ukrainian Government did not know aboutnt the pause, there w nose leverage implied. Finally, president zelensky met with President Trump in new york on Septembern 25th at the unit
nations. Shortly thereafter or shortly beforert 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 democrats assertion of some malicious intent. Witnesses testified that President Trump has a deeply rooted, genuine and reasonable skepticisman of Ukraine Stemmin from its history of corruption. President trump is skeptical of u. S. Taxpayer funded foreign assistance and believes that our alliesat should share more of t burden of o ukraines defense. Uk ukrainian politicians openly spoke out against President Trump during the 2016 election. These bore directly on the president s state of mind. President zelensky had run a an
anticorruption platform, but he was an untried politician with a relationship to a controversial ukrainian oligarch. When Vice President pence met with president zelensky in im sorry, when Vice Presiden Pence met with president zelensky ine war saw on septemr 1, he stressed to him the need for reform and reiterated the president s concern about burden sharing, especially young european allies. In late august and early accept afterly his party took control the ukrainian parliament, they passed reforms to fight corruption. These included removing Par Rimtrim Limitary immunity. Imagine if members of our congress had immunity. President trump then lifted the assistance and wet p president zelensky two weeks later. The aid was paused for 55 days. Very simply, the evidence does
not support the conclude that President Trump abused his power foris his own personal politica benefit. There is simply no clear evidence thatpl President Trump acted with malicious intent in withholding a meeting or securityin 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 the manner in which he governs, but those disagreements are not enoughnt to justify the irrevocable action of removing him from office. The democrats hyperbole 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 theenru procedural defects i touched on earlier. Additionally as a factual matter, the only direct Testimony Theth Investigation H obtained about the president s Reaction Tohe the inquiry, is fm ambassador sondland, who testified President Trump told him to cooperate and tell the truth. President trump has also declassifiedso and released the summaries of his two phone calls with the president , president zelensky. President trump has said that he would like witnesses to testify, but hes been forced to resist the unfair and abusive process. I believece strongly in the prerogativesth of the congress. Its awful to hear president turleys testimony from last week wheney he spoke to the hou on for impeachment so rapidly and on such a thin record. Professor turley said to set this abbreviated schedule, Demand Documents and then impeach because they havent been turned over, when they go to court, i think is an abuse of power. The impeachment of a duly elected president as chairman snad ler said in 1988, is the undoing of a national election. Now, i understand democrats issued a report over the weekend arguing that contrary to the chairmans statement in 1988, impeachment is not on doing an election. I would justn respond by sayini dont 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 lessbe than 11 months before the next election. There still is no compelling argument for why democrats and the house must take this decision out of the hands of the
voters and do it before christmas. During the Clinton Impeachment in 1988, the chairman said that a bearha minimum, the president accuserse must go beyond hears and innuendo and beyond the demands that the president prove 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 1988. The Impeachment Record is heavily reliant on hearsay, innuendo and presumptions. Democrats have lobbed vague and everchanging charges for Impeachment Goingev as far backs the president s inauguration. For all these reasons, the extraordinary exercise of the houses Impeachment Authority is not warranted on the evidentiary record presented. Thank you for allowing me to present this information this morning, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Thank anyou, both for your presentations. Mr. Burke, you are now excused. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Pursuant to house b of the house torules, the chairman is allowed to administer an oath, notr mandated to. But it has been the practice of this committee to administer oaths to witnesses. Im wondering why we have not administered the oathwe in this situation. Im going to administer the oath to the two witnesses who are now coming up before us to makere presentation. The two gentlemen who just testified were not witnesses. They were making Opening Statements for the committees. We will now administer an oath to mr. Castor and goldman who
are now testifying in the capacity of witnesses. Typically we administer oaths before Opening Statements. For witnesses. For witnesses. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Castor was here with mr. Burke presenting the Opening Statement for the committee. They were not witnesses before this committee. Mr. Castor now and mr. Goldman arend witnesses for this commite and i willth administer the oat mr. Chairman, if they were making a presentation, the rules wouldnt apply. The gentleman is not recognized. Mr. Chairman, may i have a Point Of Order . I have a Point Of Order. Who is seeking recognition . Right here. Theit gentleman will state h Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, despite our repeated request for o access t the fevidence, we received les than r 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. The gentleman will state his Point Of Order. How aree we supposed to process over 8,000 pages of documents that came from various committees that is not a Point Of Order. I will now proceed with the oath. The Gentleman Willth suspend an not makell a speech. Mr. Goldman, mr. Castor, please rise and raise your right hand. , do you wear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony youre about to give is correct toyo the best of you knowledge, information and belief so help you god . Let the record show the presenters answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated each ofyo you will have 45 minus to present. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the y light turns red, it signals your time is expired. Mr. Goldman, you may began. Mr. Chairman, i have a Point Of Order. The gentleman will state his Point Of Order. My Point Of Order is this, in the previous Point Of Order issued by mr. Johnston of louisiana, you ruled against his Point Of Order because you said that mr. Burke was a witness. You have just told us he was not a witness but he was a staffer. As such, a staffer must avoid impugning motivations. The gentleman will will youtl let him finish hi Point Of Order . He made his Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, i havent completed yet. The rule requires that members and staff not impugn the motivations of the president. Re what you ruled was that he was a witness. Youve just told us he wasnt a witness. My point of w order is that you were out of orderor in your ruling. The Point Of Order is not sustained. Ive already ruled on it. He was not a witness. I appeal the decision of the chair. That is not it most certainly is. The ruling is not the Point Of Orderot is not sustain. I appeal the decision of the chair. I move to table the the appeal of the ruling of the chairul is tabled. All in favor of the motion to table say aye. The motion to table is approved. I see the roll call vote. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Ms. Jackson lee votes ay. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnstons votes aye. Mr. Toich votes aye. Mrs. Bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Yedemmings votes aye. Mr. Correa. Mrs. Scanlon. Ms. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Mcbath votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Dean votes aye. Ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Gomert votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Ratcliffe notes no. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnston of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcclint tock votes no. Mr. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steube notes no. Mr. Biggs, you are not recorded. Mr. Biggs notes no. Has everyone voted that wishesas to vote . Am i recorded . Ms. Scanlon, you are not recorded. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. The clerk will report. There arel 24 ayes and 17 n. Mr. Goldman, you may begin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler and ranking Memberr Collins and members of the committee, we are here today because donald j. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, abused the power of his office. American presidency, for his political and personal benefit. President trump directed a months Long Campaign to solicit foreign help in his 2020 reelection efforts, Withholding 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 reelection 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 taxpayerfunded congressionally
appropriated securityio assistance, vitalap to ukraine ability to fend off russia aggression. And he conditioned that on the announcement ofhe 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. Theai Oval Office Meeting still hase not happened. And when faced with the opening of an official impeachment 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 zelensky on july 25thn of this year. During that call, President Trump asked president zelensky for a personalke favor, to initiate the two investigations that President Trump hoped could ultimately help his reelection in 2020. First investigation involved former Vice President joe biden and was an effort to smear his reputation as he seeks the democratic nomination in next years president ial election. Thede second investigation soug to elevate an entirely debunked
Conspiracy Theory promoted by russian president Vladimir Putin that ukraine interfered in the last president ial election to support the democraticec nomine. In truth, as has been made clear byde irrefutable evidence from throughout the government, russia interfered in the last election in order to help thenCandidate Trump. The allegations about Vice President biden and the 2016 election are patently false. But thattl did not defer Presidt Trump during his phone call with the Ukrainian President , and it does notes 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. Giulianis efforts in ukraine last week to pursue these false allegations meant to tarnish Vice President
biden. President trumps 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 ander Fair Elections and t our National Security. The overwhelming evidence of this scheme is described in detail in a nailer 300page document entitled the trumpukraine Impeachment Inquiry report. Formally transmitted from the House Committee on intelligence to this committee a few days ago. The report relies on testimony from numerous current and former Government Officials, the Vast Majoritye of whom are nonpartin career professionals responsible forio keeping our nation safe a promoting American Values around the globe. The evidence from these witnesses cannot seriously be disputed. The president placed his
personal interests above the nations interests in order to help his own reelection efforts. Before i highlight the evidence and the findings of this report, i want to take just a moment to introduce myself and discuss todays testimony. I joinedda the House Intelligen Committee as Senior Adviser and director of investigations at the beginning of this year. Previously i served for ten years as a prosecutor in the southernr district of new york. When i n joined the Department Justice under the george w. Bush administration. The team that ish led on the intelligence Communityd Includ other former federal prosecutors, a retired fbi agent, and investigators with significant National Security ent enter tees. The report that i am presenting today is basedam entirely on th evidence that we collected in Coordination Withle the oversig and Foreign Affairs committees
that wered gathered as part of the Impeachment Inquiry into President Trumps actions. Nothing more and nothing less. The three investigating committees ran a fair, professional and thorough investigation. Wero followed the house rules f depositionss and public hearin, 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 weresu 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 Morebe Context and deta about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that President Trump obstructed Thetr Inquiry and refused refused to make them available. Nevertheless the extensive ne 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 indues the newly elected president of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 president ial election t for President Trumps personal and political benefit. Second, in order to increase the pressure on ukraine to announce theuk politically motivated investigations that President Trumpmo wanted, President Trump withheld a coveted Oval Office Meeting and 391 of his Central Military assistance from ukraine. Third, President Trumps 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 congresss Impeachment Inquiry conduct. With that context in mind i would like toco turn to the evidence of President Trumps conduct concerning ukraine. My colleague mr. Castor just said it revolves around eight lines in one call record. But that sorely ignores the vast amount of evidence that we collected of a months 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. Thera first in april was short d cordial, following the Ukrainian President s election success. But the second call would diverge dramatically from those
listening had expected. Now just prior to this Telephone Call, President Trumpne spoke t gordon sondland, u. S. Ambassador to the European Union who had donated 1 million to the president s inaugural campaign. Andgu who had been directed by e president himself to take on a leading role in ukraine issues. Ambassador Sondland Relayed Theh President s message to president zelensky through Ambassador Kurt Volker who had lunch that day with president t zelenskys top aide who appears repeatedly through this scheme as president zelenskys righthand man. Ambassador kurt volker texted him with President Trumps direction. Good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house. Assuming president z convinces trump hell investigate get to the bottom ofve what happened i
2016, well nail down visit for well nail down for a visit to fwashington. Goodsi luck. See you tomorrow. Kurt. So evenmo 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 heth desperately coveted. Ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid t pro quo. Frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simplete 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 notin discuss Mattersf Importancesc to the united stat, such asth ukraines efforts to root outs corruption. Instead President Trump veered quickly into the personal favor that he wanted president zelensky to do. Two investigations that would help President Trumps nt reelection 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 callg step by step because it is evidence that is central to the president s scheme. Near the beginning of the call president ca zelensky said, i wod 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. It included nearly 400 million of Military Assistance to ukraine,it which one Witness Testifiedne was nearly 10 of ukraines defense budget. Thiss support comes as a resul russiasre invasion of ukraine 2014, when russia illegally annexed nearly 7 of ukraines territory. Since sthen, the United States and our allies have provide support for ukraine, an emerging postsoviet democracy to fend off russiaac in the east. Yet just a few weeks before this july b 25th call, president tru had inexplicably placed a hold once Military Assistance to ukraine without providing any reason to his own Cabinet Members or National Security officials. The evidence the committee 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 ukrains needed to give more to the United States. What did he mean . It became clear, because immediately after b president Zelensky Broughtaf up u. S. Military support and purchased javelin antitank weapons President Trump responded, i would like to you do us a favor, though, because our country has been throughus a lot and ukrain knows a lot about it. Now the favor that he referenced there included two demands that had nothing the to do with official u. S. Policy or Foreign Policy. First,cy President Trump said i to find out what happened withfi this whole situation with ukraine. They said crowdstrike. As You Saw Yesterday, excuse mex i guess you have one of your
wealthy people it says the server they sayhe ukraine has i. There are a lot of things that went loon. The whole situation. I think youre surrounding yourself with hek 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 name named Robert Mueller an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with ukraine. Whatever youwi can do, its ver important that you do it, if thats 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 anyif factual support for this allegation. Tor the contrary, a unanimous assessment of the u. S. Intelligence Community Found thatig russia alone interfered theed 2016 u. S. Election and Special Counsel muellerti who indicted 12 russians for this conspiracy testified before congress that the russian government interferedth in the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Dr. Fiona hill an expert on russia and President Putin who served on p the National Securi council until july testified that theun president was told b his own former senior advisors including his Homeland Security adviser andur National Security adviser thatti The Alternative Theory that ukraine 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 Putin. In february of 2017, President Putin said, second as we all know, during the president ial
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.