Disregard house rules. For what purposes . Just completelyusrules on not i wanted to confirm point addressing the Minority Hearing today. If i hear t that one more time, of order is the rules of ill address that when were decorum. I dont believe the gentleman marking up impeachment articles. What is the use of a minority from florida meant to violate him andnt i want to give him to hearing day if youre going have benefit of o doubt. To hear evidence of the markup than once he referred if you get the confirmation of to a new york lawyer. If hek is prepared to explain what he meant, i will withdraw the master bedroomrkup yourself. My Point Of Order. Even the most heated development does not know show any way that that is not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order can be theyre. If you destroy the institutional regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order integrity, which again, the staff have talked about today, regarding the schedule. Well, onf this case there i if we destroy the institutional there is no Point Of Order integrity, there is nothing else regarding the schedule. For us to do. Will you answer my question . While we were here, there is the gentleman will suspend. Something that did happen. There is no recognizable point and as we were, sitting here a discussing whether to impeach of order regarding the future the president over asc call he d schedule. With the ukrainian president and okay. Parliamentary inquiry. Will you recognize that . President Zelensky Which took place on how there was a look at no. Ms. Mcbath is recognized. How it happened in 2016. Democrats are seeking to impeach thank you, mr. Chairman. The president over that, and mr. Goldman, i want to follow up were seeing the problems with on just one part of president the Russia Investigation play out again in front of our eyes. Trumps conduct that, excuse me, the fuss over the ukraine is the same thing, using the same ise asked our constitutional scholars about lastti week. Playbook. A select group of individuals the Investigative Committees
colluding against president found evidence that President Trump to ensure they get him. Trump intimidated, threatened, and theyre blowing through every procedure to ensure they and tampered with perspective get him in time. Ro so what happened today . And actual witnesses in the Impeachment Inquiry. While we were stuck here, the correct . Yes. Inspector general report, the and mr. Goldman, it is a review of applications of the federal crime to intimidate or toim seek to intimidate any fbi crossfire hurricane investigation. Here are some of the top witness appearing before congress. Is that right . Nt findings. The fbi included inaccurate yes there is a little bit information in the carter page more to it, but thats the gist of it, yes. Mr. Goldman, am i correct fisa application. That President Trump publicly failed to include exculpatory attacked witnesses before, information. After, and even during their therm fbi chose to defensively testimony . That is correct. Brief candidate clinton, not id like to quickly go candidate trump. Through some examples. The fbi failed to disclose bruce on twitter, the president tried orrs information that was still to smear ambassador bill taylor, going to the clinton campaign. A former Military Officer who and altered another agencys graduated at the top of his email to mislead about whether Carter Pageut had actually been class at west point, served as an Infantry Commander in intelligent eesource. Vietnam, and earned a bronze the bottom line shows the feiss have a should have never been star and an air medal for valor. Obtained. If you dont have the page fisa, you dont have a russia
he was attacked for doing his investigation. If you dont have a Russia Investigation, you cant knock duty to Tell The Truth to the out thet president and you can hamstring the president s First American thpeople. Two years with a Special Counsel correct . Er e. He did his duty by investigation. Testifying, yes. I could go wion, but well see President Trump also attacked other Trump Administration officials who testified before where it goes. I do want to take one last thing from our side, because this the Intelligence Committee, undoubtedly willse be the last including Lieutenant Colonel hearing because we have no desire to hear anything from our alexander s. Cbinman, who is t side, Minority Hearing or director for ukraine on the National Security council and otherwise. I want to take time to thank mr. Jenniferan williams, the Specia Adviser Onli Europe and russia castor and they have combined 15 with the e office of the vice to 20om Years Experience in the president. House conducting investigations am i right . That is right, yes. To protect american interests. Mr. Goldman, i think another what these Public Servants dont usually do is field questions troubling example of this is the from others from democrats, president s treatment of donors and pundits. Ambassador yovanovitch. They usually work for and when you questioned ambassador alongside members of the congress and fellow public yovanovitch, you asked her about servants. Im sorry today that the majority chose to highlight the president s remark that she their investigators and also the would, ands i quote, go throug onceal that have been brought i some things. Over these Public Servants. She told you that that remark im sorry that this is where sounded like a threat. Were at. But i would like to thank them isli that right . For their work today. Yes, in the july 25th call. I would like to thank them for thats when President Trump said their work on our behalf, but that. Also nor all the ones listed ambassador yovanovitch is a here. If you look around the room, this is what is happening to the American People. By the end of the day, most Career Professional who served inform the backy, left, most of in republican and democratic them members of the media are begging to go somewhere else, administrations. She was once caught in live because at the end of the day, the case isnt made. And one thing that keeps crossfire during a coup attempt. Amazingly said from mr. Goldman and heres how she described to the chairman to others, these that experience in her very own facts are undisputed. The very nature of the fact that words. I later served in moscow. I have to say i disagree and you say you dont is a disputed in 1993, during the attempted fact. These are disputed facts. Coup in russia, i was caught in it will be the first impeachment crossfire between president ial that thest partisan on facts th and parliamentary forces. Are not agreed to that. Is the state in which the it took us three tries, me Judiciary Has N become. We have become a rubber stamp, without a helmet or body armer just as the chairman predicted almost 20 yearsch ago when we to get into a vehicle to go to willingly accept from someone else a the embassy. We wentto because the ambassado project or a report that asked us to come, and we went we dont investigate ourselves. Because it was our duty. And with that, that is the problem we have, and that is the it was our duty. Farce called the Judiciary Committee impeachment scam today. I yield amback. Even under such duress, this is i now recognize myself for concluding remarks. A Public Servant who did with
her duty. After hearing the reports and the evidence today, we now know and as she testified before you several things with certainty. And the Intelligence Committee, we know that the president was the president tweeted yet at the center of a scheme to anotheren attack against her. That correct . Pressure ukraine to announce an during the testimony, yes. Investigation of the president s political rivals. At a rally, the president further attacked ambassador he applied that pressure by taylor and Deputy Assistant withholding both the white house meeting and vital military aid. Secretary of the state george kent, foreignte Affairs Officia he made that demand directly to with decades of bipartisan president zelensky and confirmed his personal involvement on the service. I just have to say i am so white house lawn. Deeply saddened that our president has attacked our brave we know that there are no excuses for this conduct. Public servants. It is no excuse that president these attacks are an abuse of trump eventually released the aid after his scheme was his power, and they betray our revealed to the public, and it national interests. Is no excuse that he insisted my republican colleagues until that there is no quid pro quo now have agreed with me that only after his scheme was this behavior is not okay. Revealed to the public. We know that his actions that in america we protect endangered National Security, witnesses and people who tell putting our alliances, our the truth. Reputation and our safety at we want people to come forward. Risk. We know that the president also we protect witnesses in our compromised the integrity of our electionsof for a corrupt priva community. I myself am no stranger to these
political purpose. Kinds of attacks. They are not okay. R we know that President Trump in i want to read a partial an unprecedented act of statement by Lieutenant Colonel obstruction ordered everybody in binman who is a officer and the Executive Branch to defy all Public Servant in his Opening Statement to the intelligence congressional subpoenas with committee. El mr. Itvinman said, and i quote, documents and subpoenas related want to say that the character to the Impeachment Inquiry. Attacks on these distinguished and we know that his attempts to and honorable Public Servants is solicit a political favor from the government of ukraine fit a reprehensible. I ran for congress because i pattern of conduct that the care urgently about health care, president established in 2016 when he solicited political gun violence prevention and our veterans. Assistance from the government of russia. Those are the urgent policies that pattern of misconduct for me and many of my colleagues. Undermines our National Security but these witnesses, these and Undermines Free and fair Public Servants stood up and elections. In abusing his office in this manner and then obstructing the courageously told the truth, and investigation that followed, we i must be courageous and stand know that President Trump has up for them as well. Put himself before his country. And i yield back the balance of my time. I am struck by the fact that my the gentle lady yields back republican colleagues have the balance of her time. Offered no serious scrutiny of the evidence at hand. A few minutes ago mr. Biggs they have talked about asked for consent to admit an everything else, but they have
offered not one substantive word article from politico into the in the president s defense. Record. Without objection, mr. T stanto. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I suspect that is because there is at base no real defense for weve heard today from some the president s actions. Suggesting that this process has been somehow unfair. Mr. Goldman, lets clear up that record. President trump put himself before his country. Minority members on the there is a constitutional remedy Investigative Committees had for c a president who undermine access h to all witness depositions. Is that correct . Yes, and all the documents. Our National Security and our elections, who puts his own and were they allowed to ask interests before those of the country. That remedy is impeachment. Questions of every witness . The minority was given equal the facts are clear. Time to the majority for every the danger to our democracy is clear. Single interview, deposition, or hearing that we did. And our duty is clear. And the minority were allowed to call their own witnesses to President Trump violated his the live hearings, is that oath to the American People. Correct . Yes. And they did. And they got three witnesses. He placed his own private they were alsohr allowed to cal interests ahead of our national their own witnesses for the security and the integrity of depositions. They chose not to do that. Our elections and constitutes a the only witness they requested Forhe The Deposition was chairm continuing threat to the integrity of our elections and schiff, who is not a fact to our democratic system of witness to this investigation. Mr. Goldman, why did the government. Such conduct is clearly Investigative Committees decide to conduct initial depositions impeachable. This committee will proceed Behind Closed Doors . Accordingly. This concludes tttodays hearin. Best investigative practice when youre doing a fact finding we thank all of our
representatives from mission is to keep the participating. Without objection, all members Whoje Have Legislative submit information closed. The reason is exactly what i additional written questions or described earlier with additional materials for the ambassador sondland, who first record. Of all, the day before his without objection, the hearing is adjourned. Deposition he spoke with Secretary Perry about his testimony. That is the type of tailoring you have been listening to a that can happen when people are Blockbuster Impeachment Hearing engaged in pmisconduct and the on capitol hill, 6 42 p. M. Try to line up their stories. So if you keep the information eastern in washington. A nine plus hour marathon that closed, they cant line up their ends with Chairman Nadler stories. And i think frankly part of the stating what many have been reasonpa why ambassador volker d expecting, the chairman saying what you just heard. Ambassador sondlands public this is clearly impeachable conduct, and we will proceed hearing testimony was so different from their deposition accordingly. A lot has been happening both in testimony is because the initial that room and throughout washington. I want to begin tonights coverage right now with maya depositions were in closed session before we then released wiley joining me on set for all Thee Transcripts to the legal analysis, former counsel public. To the mayor of new york city, and this isnt unprecedented, still a prosecutor in the Southern District of new york, because in both the nixon and Clinton Impeachment inquiries, and my favorite phone a friend there were either closed door depositions or grand jury lawyer. Proceedings at theti beginning nice to see you, maya. Inquiries . Nice to see you, ari. Thats correct. Nor it is unprecedented in a lot just happened. Congress. This is actually a rule in the a lot of our viewers have seen house rules that was passed by some of it. Republican congresses. It was used in benghazi. Not all have seen all of it. It was used by a number of this Cosm Abid The New Ig report committees for the past decade or so. And s for clarity, president which ill get to soon with a trump has received all very special guest. But before i turn to all of, proceduralce protections afford that and we have that covered for everyone, what do you see as to other president s facing the key takeaway, as the impeachment, is that correct . Thatac is right. In the Judiciary Committee he advancement of a hearing that to has had all of the options. Those who have been following it closely was picking back over a our inquiry was not the lot of meat that we have seen Judiciary Committees from the Intelligence Report . Investigation that is where the yeah, i think the key president s ability to present evidence. Of course, if the president wanted to present evidence in the Intelligence Committee,wa h takeaways were really, one, that could have provided documents. The democrats, particularly he could have provided the through dan goldman laid out witnesses we asked for him, but he obstructed rather than exactly why there is so much cooperated. And the president has been invited tosi participate in the evidence that donald trump was the center of this steam to call houses Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. And the president declined in a Foreign Government and push the invitation . Them to open politically thats myth understanding. Twice . Twicend thus far, yes. In fact, the president not advantageous investigations to only refused to participate, but he haso also tried to stop him and in addition of Course Congress from obtaining the obstruction of congress. Evidence. And one of the things that i isnt it true that the president has atrefused to produce any think was so important and documents in response to the impactful about what dan did is Impeachment Inquiries subpoenaed to the white house . He he really laid out all of the toyes. Not a single one . Not a single document. The president also directed effort to get the ukrainians, to
all of his agencies to refuse to produce documents. Get president zelensky to that that right . That is also true. July 25th call ready to be based on the president s order, federal agencies have compliant. And the reason thats so ignored more than 70 specific important is because the requests for demands for records from the investigative republicans, one of the kernels committees. That correct . Yes. Of their defense seems to be and if i could just add. There is nothing wrong with that quickly. This would ordinarily be a call and the ukrainians arent document case. If you were prosecuting this complaining about it. Case, you would be basing it on this is, to put it in less the b documents. Legal terms, the argument that so the fact that those documents it was more than a phone call, are being withheld is quite more than a phone call to me. Significant,ld and its quite exactly. Remarkable that we built the record we have on the witnesses and the reason thats so the president s order to obstruct congress didnt just important is, i mean, on its face, i think its a pretty extend tos documents. At the president s direction, damning phone call. But if youre going to make the witnesses also refused to argument that this is really the testify. Is that right . Thats correct. Ukrainians were not complaining. And inha total, more than a the people who were being dozen members of the extorted, who were deeply dependent on the United States, administration defied lawful who were in a hot war with subpoenas or requests for russia, that laying out all the testimony or documents as we see on the slide . Contact of the people that right. Between testimony and documents, thats correct. Sondland himself, gordon and isnt it also true that sondland himself said were central and involved and looped when witnesses chose to follow and part of this from the the laws and testify, the
president denied those witnesses access to the documents they beginning means that all that work they did to lay out and needed to properly prepare for prepare for that call was in their testimony . For some of them, thats correct. Fact unsuccessful. And that goes to the plotting. I was just reading today two report, the nadler report on the legal case as well as the ig but i also must acknowledge report. In the nadler report, they talk that this process has been about how the founders, challenging. And in many respects, less than listening before there were statutes barring all this stuff, fair. I haveress not had access to al the founders said unsuccessful abuse, attempted abuse, my phone records, state attempted bribery, that is Still Department emails, and many, something you could oust a public official for. And youre talking about the many other state Department Evidence for that. Stay with me. Before i bring in my next guest, documents. And i was told i could not work this is what i want to do right with mys eu staff to pull now. If you watch the beat, you together the relevant files and information. Know how we try to do this. These documents are not fast, clear highlights. Let me show you some of the key things that happened in this classified, and in fairness, and committee hearing. In fairness, should have been nine plus hours on the case for impeaching donald trump. The witnesses were something a made available. The State Department has collected all materials in little different, lawyers for responseri to the september 27 the Intelligence Committee, subpoena that may contain facts faces americans have come to relevant to my testimony. Know here, presenting their i have no such documents or materials with me today. Ny findings from other hearings and closed door depositions and the president was not denied evidentiary reviews and emails, the right to participate. Quite the opposite. And those controversial call
thee president has chosen not records. They souped it all up and tried participate, and he has to present both sides of the consistently tried to obstruct the Impeachment Investigation to case to the committee and to the ensure no one testifies against him, that no onee produces a country, republican lawyer claiming the whole case built document that may incriminate around only the calls i was him, and to engage in a coverup to prevent the American People discussing with maya wiley while the democrats went back to this from learning the ritruth. I yield back. Key point that they think will mr. Chairman, may i Say Something for m five seconds . Inform the articles of impeachment. This was part of a months long this is the witness. Scheme. Can i Say Something for five. This case in many respects seconds . No. Comes down the eight lines in a the gentle lady ms. Dean is caltrans script. Impeach a president who 63 recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. , goldman, some have argued Million People voted for over eight lines in a Call Transcript that we should wait, that were is baloney. Moving too fast, that we should President Trumps persistent try to get more evidence. And continuing effort to coerce lets examine why these arguments are without merit. A foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a president nixon stated during the Senate Watergate Clear And Present Danger to our investigation, quote, Allat Membersst of the white house stf free and Fair Elections and to will appear voluntarily when our National Security. And then in a scene that only requested bywh the committee. They will testify under oath, and theyif will answer fully Al Washington and certain law proper questions, end quote. Schools could love, we departed during the investigation of from politician versus
president clinton, ken starr politician or politician very interviewed white house staff. Witness or lawyer versus witness, and we got today in the president clinton also provided written responses to 81 Impeachment Process to lawyer interrogatories from the house versus lawyer. Let me show you the highlights. Judiciary committee. Judiciary Committee Staff questioning those intelligence unlike his predecessors, committee lawyers, which led to President Trump has even some strange moments. Categorically stonewalled here was republican counsel Congress Investigation at every castor, who would not concede even basic facts of the case. Turn. St indeed, as far back as april, the president expressed his so President Trump by intent to stonewall. Right, President Trump was asking ukrainian president were fighting all the subpoenas. Zelensky to have the ukrainian more recently, on october 8th, white House Counsel pat officials look into Vice President joe biden. Correct . Is that correct . I dont think the record supports that. Cipollone echoed this sentiment. It doesnt say can you look into it . President trump is not asking in a letter with instruction him i dont think it supports that all Executive Branch that. I think its ambiguous. Officials not testify in this Impeachment Inquiry. Mr. Goldman, youre an are you aware oft that letter, mr. Goldman . Yes, i am. Experienced federal prosecutor. I know that firsthand. And mr. Goldman, is it fair to saydm that President Trump i is this President Trump asking the only president en in the historyon of our country to see president zelensky to tour completely obstruct an investigate his political rival Impeachment Inquiry undertaken joe biden . I dont think there is any by this house . Rt that is correct. Other way to read the words on
it is unprecedented. The page than to conclude that. The lawyering there for the and in fact pursuant to President Trumps order, 12 rest of the country is to show executive Branch Officials refuse toec testify as part of e one type of answer or nonanswer house Impeachment Inquiry. And compare it to another. Ten of whome defied congressiol the public will decide what they make of that. Subpoenas. Another contentious part of this am i right . Bp yes. Given the president s hearing came when republicans sweeping directive not to hit on something that is more cooperate with congress, did the potentially legitimate than all Investigative Committees believe that there was any chance that the ukraine conspiracy theories, other Administration Officials and this is doug collins pushing would come forward if subpoenaed . The democratic counsel daniel no, it became clear that the goldman about a revelation that president wasle trying to block seemed both important but also potentially controversial. Everything and block everyone, that someone on the very and eventually, they came up Intelligence Committee, devin with an alternative reason to nunes had these phone calls with Rudy Giuliani, and whether any of this was potentially write anre opinion to prevent people from coming, which is inappropriate. Obviously, you dont want the wrong people coming up in surveillance. Lets look at that exchange. Quite an aggressive view that they took. You came out with a report but it was quite clear that they that actually showed these were trying to block every people, such as chairman nunes single rywitness. Some have said that the and others were actually on Investigative Committee should these calls . Have gone toco court. Yes. Did you decide not to go to now someone, and you and i, court . We thought about it a lot were not going play cute here. Because obviously there are somebody took the four records that you asked for, at least additional witnesses, and we want this to be as thorough an four, took those numbers and then said hey, lets play match investigation. But as you can see from the Deutsche Bank case or the mcgahn game. Who ordered the match game for case, it takes months and months to go through the appeals court, members of congress and the and thats effectively what the press . Was it you . President wants is just to delay i dont think anyone did, this as long as possible and to sir. Who did it . Was it chairman schiff or was it you . The next election. Lets take a look at that exact case, the mcgahn case, be careful. Youre under oath. Because were all intimately i know im under oath, sir. Aware of e it. On april 22nd, this judiciary im going go on record and tell you that im not going to tell you how we conducted this committee served a subpoena for investigation. Testimony to white House Counsel thats the problem we have don mcgahn. W and after mcgahn refused to this entire thing. Testify on may 21st, the im done with you for right now. Were done. Committee filed a lawsuit on they may be done, but were august 27th to compel his testimony. Not. Richard painter joins the and even though we did request conversation. Expedited ruling, it was another three and a half months before judge jackson found the constitution does notdg allow a president to kneecap your take away on what we congressional investigations learned today. Well, its ridiculous theyre because, as the judge wrote, and i putdg up on this screen, quot getting into a side show here. President s are not kings. The evidence is overwhelming as you know, mcgahn has appealed that donald trump seeked to use and a hearing is set for january United States military aid to 3rd now of next year. Ukraine to extort ukraine to say as weye sit here today, eight months since we issued that youve got to provide the dirt subpoena, would you agree its likely leag we will not have an on joe biden and also
appeals court ruling for many investigate what happened in months to come . Co its quite possible that it 2016 and blame yourselves, in could be several moreit months, fact Blame Ukrainians for what and then there may be the supreme court. Exactly. Russia did in 2016 or we wont give you hundreds of millions of Mcgahn Appeal to the supreme dollars in military aid. Court and conceivably, that its extorsion its right there in the phon could take another many months, we didnt need much more by an year, more . Investigation. It depends on whether its we didnt need nine hours of this term or gets pushed over to hearing on it. The next term, yes. We just need articles of xt and given this delay impeachment. Illustrated bys the mcgahn this argument that ukraine example specifically, would you doesnt object, thats crazy. Agree if we go to court to of course ukraine is not going enforce the investigative to object to anything donald committee subpoenas, we could face anothersu months or years trump does or trump will feed them to the russian bear. Long delay to hear testimony . Thats what this is all about. Absolutely. Russia wants to regain control an ongoing threat of ukraine. Because the president is trying ukraine wants its independence. To cheat to win the next United States policy has been to election. Its not something that happened support b ukraine and their in the past. Its continuing in the future. Independence from russia. So we cannot delay and just wait right. Of course ukraine is not for the courts to resolve this going to alienate donald trump. When the reason we would havereo richard, when you looked at go r to the courts is because t todays hahearing, what article of impeachment did you see president is obstructing an investigation into himself. Advancedea if any . And the urgency is not just First Extorsion and bribery about our i elections, but also our National Security, am i right . That is ay, Critical Compone in the ukraine scandal, but they to it. Letmp me end with this. Also do need to impeach this what is plain is that we cannot president for obstruction of wait. Justice in the russia what is plain is that wait means never. We must not let this president investigation as outlined in the disregard, defy and delay second part of the Mueller Report. Justice. This president has shown that he that Mueller Report is a roadmap for impeachment of obstruction repeatedly abuses the power of justice even if they didnt entrusted to him by the people. Find that President Trump in his every moment we wait is another campaign engaged in criminal opportunity to chip away at the conspiracy with the russians. Foundation of our constitution he obstructed justice. Third, obstruction of congress. So carefully crafted by our refusal to answer subpoenas. Founders. I thank you, mr. Chairman, and refusal to testify. Yield back. Telling other people not to nd the gentle lady yields bac. Testify. Obstruction of congress is i yield to ms. Jackson lee for impeachable. He also should be impeached consent request. Under the emoluments clause of thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Goldman, mr. The constitution. This president has been receiving profits and benefits castor. Id like to submit or ask from Foreign Governments. Unanimous consent to insert in thats unconstitutional. Members of his family have been the record statement of receiving profits and benefits from Foreign Governments. Ill tell you, if the members of administration policy. Without objection Congress Want to hold joe biden and the call dated july 25th. And his son i want to see them without objection, mr. Haul in ivanka trump, eric, don armstrong. Thank you, mr. Ecchairman. Mr. Castor, its been a long day. Jr. And talk about the
its been a long couple of months. Youve been in the middle of this, andn i know previously y unconstitutional ee mol u minutes, Foreign Government, wanted to Say Something. Thank you. Payments that the trump family ive resist Ed My Willingness T has been receivingha in violati of the constitution. We sued him on day one of his be athletic here in the afternoon. Administration over these but i want to say a few things. Unconstitutional emoluments and first of all, the republicans on its about time that congress thee Intelligence Committee submitted a number of subpoenas, enforce Theon Constitution Ther and we never got a vote, and and call the necessary there was a motion to table it witnesses. Richard painter, blazing as disposed of o them. Always. Webl appreciate your legal Ranking Member nunes sent a analysis and also your patience letter on november 8th asking as we watched the end of that for witnesses. Hearing, sir. Ranking member collins sent a thank you, maya, i put the same letter Onol December 6th asking for witnesses. Question to you here with me in witnesses would new york. When you look at the bottom have o touched at the heart of e issue that our members are concerned about, and that is, line, richards laying out the you know, Weret Ukrainians Tryg kitchen sink argument. Throw it all at him. To interfere with our elections. Weve seen though some this is a fact that is indications while there is a legal case on obstruction and meritorious of investigation. The ukrainians ought to bribery, there were some that investigate it. Were very narrow and not using and to the extent it happened some of those buzz words. Here in the u. S. , we ought to be yeah. So i think we heard very clearly in investigating it. To the extent that hasnt this committee that ukraine and the having the president happened, republicans have
abuse his office, undermine his attempted to do that during this oath of office, use the powers process. Of the presidency for his own id like to say that. Personal gain are clearly going to be articles of impeachment and there are any number of ways and i have a couple of other you can slice how theyre things, mr. Armstrong. Stated, including abusing your go ahead. You know, ambassador sondland power in order for bribery, for extorsion and to interfere in our election. Is relied on and he went from a i think obstruction is crit witness that was not very critically important and i agree favorable to very favorable at that it is important to pull his hearing. Andhi one of the remarkable forward the t roadmap that robe mueller shared on obstruction of statements at his hearing was justice and, you know, barry that everyone was in the loop. He types up this email to burke kind k of left the door on to that by making some of those points in hisso opening about t pompeo, to the secretary, and continuing pattern of his obstruction. Right. I think that on emoluments, i the emails that he used to certainly did not hear that demonstrate that everyone was in obviously today. The loop are not conclusive at not att all. All. I think theres a real question about how much the American Public yet understands you know, he talks about this statement that was going back about what some of the facts are there and what some of the and forth during thet early pa of e august. Constitutional issues are. And alsoon why are we still first of all, volker said all along that he didnt think the using theti word emolument, if statement was a good idea. Of may. Ive got to get to this. I only have five minutes to do
it. Volk i know you were looking at it. Great to see you. Volker and yermak toyed around let me tell you what comes now. With the statement and the other huge legal story which ultimately both sides decided is also in here, bad news for that it wasnt a good plan. Te they didnt do it. Donald trump. Im going to tell you everything you need to know right now about President Trumps own department so the fact that sondland is of justice validating the emailing the secretaryan talkin about this t statement and so origins, legally and forth, it just doesnt show that everyone is int the loop. Constitutionally of the Russia Investigation. This is all about Donald Trumps Ambassadoroo Hale testified. Famed plan and many, many tweets the people at the State Department, they dont just about investigating the investigators to find something email the secretary. Wrong. Well, the doj watchdog unloading i mean, the secretary gets emailed, of course, but its not thisnl 400 page report finding like this. There is a whole secretariat evidence that, quote, political that filters his email. Bias or improper influence influenced this investigation. So its not emailing the these investigations began with Secretary Of State is not quite something very similar. The fbi was looking at four as simple as i think ambassador Trump Campaign advisers. Sondland made it seem here. Remember what happened to them . So i just wanted to address well, three of t them have now that. Been convicted of crimes. One remaining, carter page, was we talked a couple of times about the reliability of george surveilled. The question was was any of that kents notes. One of ambassador volkers illegal or improper . Well, theil findings here are n. Assistants, Catherine Croft these four were legally investigated according to Donald Trumps own justice department. And Donald Trumps hand picked testified and it was rather startlinging piece of testimony. Attorney general, mr. Ed barr, shete was asked whether kents meanwhile, weighing in in a way notes would be reliable. That is unusual to say the sort of a typical question. Least. He claims today the evidence presented didnt justify the everyone expecting the answer to be yes, except she said no, i Russia Investigation which dont think kents notes would be reliable. Ai presents these duelling so i think thats important to put onso the record that, you statements. Hers heres the actual facts know, there is evidence that from the justice department. Perhaps mr. Kent felt some no evidence of political bias and heres mr. Barr opposing his emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least own justice departments report. According to onees State Department officialco might notn fact be reliable. Ia my view is actually it was insufficient to justify the the cnn interview that there has probe the material they have. The headline is no bias found by been discussion about, okay, the doj. A lot of people saying this is there is discussion about possibly doing a statement which clearing not only the fbi but was canned. Senior leadership like then fbi there was maybe there was a discussion of a cnn interview. Director james comey who actually came out blazing today but we did not really get to the as well speaking on msnbc late bottom of that. That was sort of this amorphous this afternoon to explain why he fact that was out there. Sees this as such good news. Were joined by someone ambassador taylor testified that he was worried it would happen. Connected to this, james comeys but we didntd we didnt own lawyer, david kelly, whos a really talk to anyone that former u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york that could tell us precisely and as i always mention, once what was going to occur in the upon a time my old boss. Thanks for coming in on a busy cnn interview and whether president zelensky was actually it. G to do if you looked back at the night. Statement that yermak and volker youre welcome. What does this say to you . Were both talking about, yermak whats they most important thi for people to understand . You summed it up really well. Wasnt comfortable doing it. So when it comes to the cnn im not going to repeat that. Interview, its possible that ill go back and comment. Yermak wouldss have advised at the conclusion of the hearing president zelensky not to say the Ranking Members comments what people thought he was going to say. Was something without the page sooi anyway, im sorry, mr. Or the investigation, theres no armstrong for taking your time. Youve worked hard and you russian investigation. Deserve it. I want to end and summarize with that couldnt be the biggest this, that you can because you cannot prove and chairman wentro on tv yesterday said the piece of bologna. The bureau didnt want to do it, get a conviction in three minutes, Buta My Question for they had to do it. What crime. If they didnt do it, wed be the mueller conspiracy fell flat. Sitting here having hearings why the Obstruction Charge was they didnt do it given what abandoned when the hearing was over. They were confronted with. Campaign finance is ang the pagent aspect of it was nonstarter. Victim of conspiracy or the ultimately it went nowhere and victim ofcy bribery and extorti says hes not a victim, because so that often happens. You cant prove anyvi of it doe and mr. Page sat at this not mean you can use all of it. Table where you sit and i said that is no way the prosecute a to him, it looks like this case and that is no way to process resulted in them not proceed with impeachment. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Finding anything wrong with youw legally. Thats how its w supposed to. Mr. Chairman . Work. What does it mean here when the doj says some things could have been done better, policy, but mr. Chairman . Ms. Carson powell. Nobody had bias or broke the law thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to come back and in how they conducted the probe . Highlight what i think is the well, very clear. They went through everybodys biggest National Security threat, andna thats foreign emails and texts and so forth interference into our elections. And i can tell you that in and despite what the president has said about it, there was no florida, were extremely bias. There was no retreason. Concerned about the security of im a little surprised at the our elections and the potential attorney generals comments for Election Interference by about insufficient evidence and Foreign Government, especially no predication for the evidence. Russia, because florida, my home id like to see what his bar, no state was a victim of russian pun intended, what his threshold hacking in 2016, and there is is for conducting the investigation. Every indication that theyre trying to do the same thing its always been fairly low. Its going to be interesting to see if hes created a new right now. Our country was founded on the premise that our elected threshold. You mentioned durham. Officials are electedur by the this is a lot right here. People. But President Trump doesnt share these ideas. Mr. Barr appears to have brought he has and continues to demand a tweet to a book fight with his own staff, with his own team. Foreign interference into our elections. He doesnt want the american you worked at doj obviously at a
people to decide. He is inviting foreign senior level. Interference,s Allowing Foreig ive got to think there are people who worked on this for governments to decide that for us. Months, professionally, mr. E orgoldman, its been confd carefully, seriously who see mr. That President Trumps campaign barr come out and mr. Durham who actively sought russias interferencely in our 2016 until today is. Thought to hava good reputation. Elections, correct . Mr. Durham Out Of The Blue what Special Counsel mueller without offering any receipts, said is that President Trump did we dont agree with some of the invite them and solicit them to hack Hillary Clintons emails. Reports conclusions to the predication of how the fbi case ultimately, the Trumpma Campaigi think wastr welcomed, knew abou was opened. Helpe me out here, david. The interference, welcomed it i thought its the i. G. That and utilized it. Right. Audits the u. S. Attorneys. And in 2016, trump said russia, why does mr. Durham think that if youre listening. Doesnt apply to him today . Within five hours, russian im unclear. Intelligence targeted the emails ive known john for a long time. Of trumps opponent. Do you think durhams out of on october 3rd, 2019, when asked line . Im not going to say that. What he hoped president zelensky what he doesnt say is there would do about the bidens, this isnt predication for the russia is what President Trump said. Investigation. He disagrees with the well, i would think that if predication for the analysis. They were honest about it, given the standards for opening theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. An investigation that, There Wasnt Predication for the its a very simple answer. Russia investigation note, ularly as you everything is they should investigate the ive got 30 seconds. Bidens, because how does a after everything doj learned ini
2016, is it wise for mr. Durham company thatsdo newly formed a to come out in the middle of his all these companies and by the way, likewise china should investigation and make statements like this . Ike dont think its ever wi start an investigation. To come out in the middle of an into the bide dense. And let me just point out the investigation and make statements. David, wen wanted to fit yo president doesnt mention corruption, does he, mr. Goldman . No, he doesnt. In. As i said, it bachl quite clear thanks for being here. In all of his comments and all thanks to everyone who rode along on a partial episode and e of the other witnesses that any partial hearing. We have a lot more keeping you mention ofss corruption or anticorruption was really meant covered on everything thats happening today on msnbc. And the evidence showed this was really a euphemism for the investigations. Correct. W starting with hardball with and trump is not only asking Chris Matthews. Battle to the finish. President trump, excuse me, is lets play hardball. Not only asking ukraine, but he also says china should start investigating his politicalou opponents. The atpresident s pattern of behaviores is incredibly disturbing. Russia, ukraine, china. Good evening. Im Chris Matthews up in new york. Today thes country heard the he is inviting three countries to help him in his reelection final case for the impeachment campaign. And mr. Goldman, i dont see any of donald j. Trump. Like a prosecutors summation to reason to believe he wouldnt ask any other governments, for theto jury, docounsel for the h example, venezuela, correct . He could i mean, at this point he has shown not only a judiciary told them how they willingness to do it multiple times, but i think more importantly for all ofs, the obstructed congress. Today articles of impeachment this week against president members consideration, he has trump. Also shownde a lack of contriti, lawmakers heard from lawyers representing both the democratic majority and the republica a lack of acknowledgment that what he is doing is wrong and that it i is wrong. And if you dont recognize that it is wrong, then there is no reason why you wont do it again if youve already done it. E exactly. We saw giuliani in ukraine just three days ago, and last night, i want to point out that the Washington Post actually released an article saying that Rudy Giuliani has been now advisingan on how to open a bac channel between President Trump and maduro. So im very worried about that. Now, i dont think we have any time to d wait to see if any countries are now going to take him up on the offer to help him in his reelection campaign. Mr. Goldman, did the Investigative Committees reach any conclusions about the ongoing threats, the continuing
risk that the president poses . Yes, for the same reasons that we just discussed. And i think the june Television Interview with stephanopoulos this yearth where the president indicated her would once again welcome foreign interference is another data point to understand where it is. And i would just say who was saying hes got just a great record and the democrats just dont want himco to win, the question is if that is the case, and that very well may be the case, then why does he need to cheat to win the election . Why cant he just go on his own platform . Exactly. I think the constitution demands that theth president follow the rule of law and fight to keep our elections fair, free of corruption and free of russian interference excuse me, foreign interference. Now i know i was elected by the people of florida, and i work only for the people of this country. Impl not going to let while i in Office Anyone interfere in
our i elections or threaten our democracy. The continuing pattern of behavior weve seen from this president should be a warning to the American People that it is theic beginning of a dictatorsh which have i seen in latin america. Ive seen men in office abuse the power, inviting foreign interference and also i invitin anyce checks on their power. The constitution, the constitution has no partisan allegiance. We cannotrt allow this behavior from this president or any future president. Our democracy depends on it. The gentle lady yields back. Recognize mr. Jordan forie the purpose ofjo unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman . I recognize mr. Jordan for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you, mr. Uchairman. The majoritys witness was wrong when he said we were able to subpoena people and get our witnesses here. T we were not. I asked to enter into the record the two letters sent to Chairman Nadler. Without objection the material will be entered into
the record. Ms. Escobar is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and many thanks to our witnesses who have spent the entire day with us. Were very grateful. Despite what our republican colleagues have stated over and over again, their own witness, mr. Castor, has agreed that theseag investigations have indd produced direct evidence. Direct evidence which any objectiveic observer in my opinn would regard as overwhelming. That evidence proves that the president solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election, pressured ukrainian president zelensky to publicly announce unfounded investigations, conditioned a white house meeting. The president conditioned a white house meeting and 391 million on the announcement of the investigations, and then the president covered up his conduct and obstructed the investigation. Those findings reflect a serious abuse of power by the president. Yet we are being asked to ignore what weve seen with our own eyes o and what weve heard wit
our own ears. So mr. Goldman, id like your help in responding to some of the claims that my republican colleagues have made today. Happily. The president and his allies say that there was no quid pro quo. In other words, They Claimhe Th the president Wasnt Withholding the aid in exchange for the manufactured political investigation. Isnt it true that the aid was withheld andas that there has bn no logical explanation for the withholding of that aid . There is common sense that leads one to conclude that the aid was withheld for the investigations, and then there is also direct evidence in that the president s own words to ambassador Sondland On September 7th said the same thing. Thank you. President trump knew he had leverage over president e zelensky, and in fact david holmes testified that ambassador sondland told President Trump that president zelensky will, quote, do anything you ask him. That correct . That is what ambassador sondland said or actually, thats what President Trump ambassador sondland said to President Trump. Apologies. You testified earlier that evidence shows that the ukrainians in fact did know that the aid was being withheld. My colleagues continue to say and their witness continue to say thatue there couldnt be leverage because theyat had no idea that the aid was being withheld, yet there has been evidence that shows that they knew. Is thatt at correct . Well, i think its important just for a second here to take a step back. It doesnt matter when they knew as long as they knew at some point. Then theyso realized at that pot that the investigations were dependent on the aid. But in addition, there is a lot of evidence a that they knew before it t became public on august 28th. And youre right. It doesnt matter. If youre about to be held up at gunpoint by a u burglar, It Doesnt Matter whether yourg kn ort not. The intent is still there by the criminal about to commit the act. My republican colleagues also make much about the fact that the aid was finally released, but isnt it true that it wasnt released until the president got caught . It wasnt released until the president got caught and all of the money didnt actually get to ukraine in that fiscal year, and you all in congress had to pass another law to allow for the money to get to ukraine. Thank you. He earlier today, mr. Castor attempted to explain away the president s requeste for forei interference in our election by claiming that the president had three concerns, that number one, the president was concerned about ukraine corruption, that number two, he was concerned about burdensharing with europe, and number three, he brought up the debunked Conspiracy Theory about ukraine Election Interference, which by the way, that last point we know is a russian talking point. Mr. Al goldman, did the Investigative Committees
consider those three explanations . And if so, What Didmm The Evidee show about whether President Trumps request was actually motivated by those concerns . Its a very good question. There are two things that were discussed here today. One is evidence and one is assertions andd opinions. Based on the evidence, there is noe, evidence to support any of those three things that you just mentioned. There is no evidence to think that the president acted towards ukraine because of his concerns about corruption, even if he held those concerns. That was not the motivating factor. There is no evidence that his concern Aboutha Other european countriesab giving enough money motivated him, and there is certainly not a reasonable belief given all of the evidence that he believed that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. Thank you. Id like to close with what our scholars explained to us last week about why all of this is so important. T drawing a Foreign Government
into our elections is an especially abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. A because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. If what were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is chimpeachable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. May i respond toe that . This concludes the th fiveminute round of questioning. I now recognize mr. Raskin for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. Mr. Mo chairman, aye seeking introduce a statement by the late congressman Elijah Cummings of the oversight committee. On examining Prescription Drug prices. His first hearingreio was not a Michael Cohen as asserted earlier. With that objection, i now recognize the Ranking Member for any concluding remarks he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One quick thing. It does matter when they knew and didnt know, because after they supposedly found out, it does matter because after they had two meetings with officials from the United States, it was never talked and no linkage was made. The reason it matters is because if there is no understanding that this is being withheld, there is no threat, there is no quid pro quo, and it also goes to the State Of Mind of mr. Zelensky who says im not being pressured, im not there is nothing ihere. And again, it goes back to the amazing thought of this Majority Whoou keeps calling the ukraini leader a liar. Its just amazing that we continue toaz propagate that my here tonight. But what did we learn today . Here are w some things we did learn today. This unprecedented hearing that mr. U sensenbrenner and others talken about in which staff basically not members gave testimony and questioned each other and got into very heated debates with each other. This is not what the Judiciary Committee should be doing. Its not the way this should be held. Again, the reason it is, mr. Goldman handled himself very
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.