Were not going to issue that statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. Soon became clear to them that the Security Assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. Following the July 25th Call, it had to include that they would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the Biden Investigation into the ukraine interference. Was their concern about doing
the investigations or what . Where they supposed to make a statement about it . Ambassador sondland very clearly testified that all he ever heard mr. Giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigation. Without that Public Statement that there would be no white house meeting. Yes. I was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point and id like to play another example. Was they were a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call, the answer is
have you given over 100,000? you don t care about it. i don t know the number. do you know how much money mr. burke has given democrats? is it surprising that it s more than 100,000? a mech i m here to talk about this report. more than 100,000, do you think if you d given more money, you might ve been able to ask questions and answer them like mr. burke did? i guess it s something you are still pondering. mr. castor, have you ever tweeted anything at the president? mr. goldman, same question. i have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before i came to this job when i was working in the media, yes. this is one of those tweets, right? you said nothing in the dossier is proven false but in fact the dossier said there was a russian consulate in miami when there
the president of the united states donald j. trump knew everything. i yield back. the gentleman yields back. mr. castor, what is direct evidence? when a witness personally observed a fact and testifies to it. out-of-court statements to the truth of the matter, it is something you learned in law school. and adopted by most states, hearsay is inadmissible in us a testimony falls under defining. plus a residual exception. when every witness testified including mr. sondland, right? that is a yes. yes. much of the democrats report is based on the sondland testimony, is that correct? how many times did mr. sondland mentioned in the intel committee s report? data search and the name sondland shows up 611 times. just to refresh your mind, sondland himself told the world
chairman schiff s spokesman acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistle-blower s accusations against the president had been disclosed that has intelligent staff and shared with chairman schiff. is that disclosure and the admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report? i don t remember seeing it. if not, i think all members of congress should be held accountable during this impeachment process and to that end if i have made any false statements about the whistle-blower or the inspector general s testimony today, than i should be held accountable. the way to do that would be to release the inspector general s testimony or even just pages 53 to 73. i would add that there was nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistle-blower s identity, nor would it reveal any information that relates to much less jeopardizes national security.
impartial, and empire. the problem with all of this in the proper everybody at home can see with their own eyes is at the umpires in this high-stakes game are parading around the field and the majority teams jerseys. the report of evidence released by republican committee staff on december 2nd carefully documents it in the hearings that led us to this point today, chairman schiff directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer republican questions. he rejected witness and denied republican subpoenas for testimony and documents violating the democrats own rules to vote down those subpoenas with no notice to republicans. chairman schiff also publicly fabricated evidence about president trump s july 25th phone call and misled the american public about his interactions with the anonymous whistle-blower to selectively seek information to paint misleading public narratives. the anonymous whistle-blower reportedly acknowledged having a professional relationship with vice president bi