You talk about a political spin. You know, they were blaming it on a video. You know, i know, the American People know it wasnt a video. Did that have a political consequence . Yes, it was right before an election. And yet he didnt get impeached for that. So when we Start Talking about the standards, ill be glad to come back on and debate those standards all day long. But heres the bottom line. No facts, no credible facts, three of the top people in ukraine that continue, they continue to say, there was no linkage, no pressure. I mean, at what point do you say, where is the victim of this crime . Its not the American People, because the president was looking out for their best interest. I want to ask you about that because you say no facts, but we heard from the u. S. Ambassador to the eu, we heard from the top u. S. Diplomat in ukraine, we talked to the Top State Department official who oversees ukraine, we heard from yeah, none officials appointed by the president. All of them said t
Them in the right direction. Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry testified that the allegation of ukrainian influence in the 2016 election was appropriate to examine. Ambassador volker testified that he thought it was fine to investigate allegations about 2016 influence. Ambassador taylor said, for example, that the allegations surprised and disappointed him, on this record i do not believe one could conclude that President Trump had no legitimate basis to raise a concern about efforts by ukrainians to influence the 2016 election. Let me now turn to the first assertion that President Trump withheld a meeting with president zelensky as a way of pressuring him to investigate the former vp. Here it is important to note ukraines long, profound history of endemic corruption. Several witnesses during the inquiry have testified about these problems. Ambassador marie yovanovitch, for example, said ukraines corruption is not just prevalent but, frankly, is the system. Witnesses testified to ha
Volker saying i spoke to the president and ive spoke to the ukrainians, neither of which believe aid was conditioned, neither of which believed that the president was requiring it. And ambassador sondland, which said no one on the planet told him that that was the case. Thats the sole evidence. Ambassador sondland believed a meeting was conditioned upon investigations, ambassador volker who i think is a man of very significant integrity said that was not the case. Even if ambassador sondland is correct, that somebody and dr. Hill, you testified, and again its hearsay, you dont know, that supposedly mulvaney told him that, because he didnt testify to that, but lets say somebody besides the president told him that, you guys want to be the laughing stock of history to impeach a president of the United States because he didnt take a meeting. Oh, please, dear god. Please undertake that. Now, mr. Holmes, i got to tell you. Is there a question for dr. Hill . Mr. Holmes, in your testimony, you
Thank you, dr. Hill, mr. Holmes for your years of service to this country. And i appreciate yall being here today. Throughout this process i have said that i want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth. So why are we here . Because of two things that occurred during the president s july 25th phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. The use of the phrase, do us a favor, though, in reference to the 2016 president ial election and the mention of the word biden. I believe both statements were inappropriate, misguided Foreign Policy. And its certainly not how the executive current or in the future should handle such a call. Over the course of the hearings, the American People have learned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our National Security and undercut ukraine, a key partner on the front lines against russian aggression. We have heard of u. S. Officials carrying uncoordinated confusing and conflicting messages creating doubt and uncertainty in kyiv at
The committee will reconvene. When we recessed we were about to hear from mr. Castor. Mr. Castor, youre recognized for 45 minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for having me back, giving me the opportunity to testify about the evidence gathered during our impeachment inquiry. At the outset let me say the evidence does not support the allegations that my democrat colleagues have made. And i dont believe the evidence leads to the conclusions they suggest. Im hopeful to add some important perspective and context to the facts under discussion today. The chief allegation that the impeachment inquiry has been trying to assess over the last 66 days is this whether President Trump abused the power of his office through quid pro quo, extortion or whatever, by withholding a meeting or Security Assistance as a way of pressuring ukrainian president zelensky to investigate the president s political rival, former vp biden, for the president s political benefit in the upcoming election. The sec