House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing Transcript – Day 2

Jerry Nadler Opening Statement

Jerry Nadler: (00:00)
We are conducting this hearing on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump. Presentations from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4A of that resolution.

Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing, I will make an opening statement and then I will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. After that, we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and the minority-

Protestor: (00:38)
Jerry Nadler and the Democrat [inaudible 00:00:38] are committing treason in this country. You can kick me out, but he’s the one committing crimes, you are, Chairman Nadler. You’re the one committing treason. America is done with this. America is sick of the treason committed by Democrat [crosstalk 00:00:51].

Order in the room. Order in the room.

Protestor: (00:55)
We’re not going to sit here and watch you run an impeachment scam-

Order in the committee room.

Protestor: (00:56)
… and remove our vote. We voted for Donald Trump and they’re attempting to remove him because they don’t like him. Americans are sick of your impeachment scam. They are sick of the Democrat treatment. We know who committed the crimes and it wasn’t Trump. Trump is innocent.

The committee will come to order. Obviously, I shouldn’t have to remind everyone present that the audience is here to observe but not to demonstrate, not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or with any member of the committee. The audience is here to observe only and we will maintain decorum in the hearing room.

And again I will say here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing, I will make an opening statement and then I will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. After that, we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and the minority of this committee. Then we will hear 45 minute presentations of evidence from majority and minority counsel from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and ranking member who may yield to counsel for questioning during this period.

Finally, all of our members will have the opportunity to question the presenters from the Intelligence Committee under the five minute rule. I would note that the president’s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today, but the White House as declined the invitation. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

No matter his party or his politics, if the president places his own interests above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office. The president of the United States, the speaker of the house, the majority leader of the Senate, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the chairman and ranking members of the House Committee on the Judiciary all have one important thing in common. We have each taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If the president puts himself before the country, he violates the president’s most basic responsibility, he breaks his oath to the American people. If he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath, our promise to the American people requires us to come to the defense of the nation. That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism, even when it might cost us our jobs as members of Congress, and even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath, I am compelled to honor mine.

As we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the Constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for the new nation. They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms, that we must protect against them. They warned us against the dangers of would be monarchs, fake populace, and charismatic demigods. They knew that the most dangerous threat to our country might come from within in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the interests of the nation.

They also knew that they could not anticipate every threat a president might someday pose, so they adopted the phrase treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors to capture the full spectrum of possible presidential misconduct. George Mason, who proposed this standard, said that, “It was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the Constitution.”

The debates around the framing made clear that the most serious of such offenses include abuse of power, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public office. Any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this committee to take action. When combined in a single course of action, they state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office. President Trump put himself before country.

Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, I believe that there is common ground around some of these ideas, common ground in this hearing room and common grounds across the country at large. We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious undertaking. We agree that it is meant to address serious threats to democratic institutions like our free and fair elections. We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies, foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official, including and especially the president of the United States should use his public office for private gain. And we agree that no president may put himself before the country, the Constitution and his oath of office. This promise to America’s citizens require the president to put the country first.

If we could drop our blinders for just one moment, I think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. On July 25th, President Trump called President Zelenskyi of Ukraine and asked him for a favor. That call was part of a concerted effort by President Trump to compel the government of Ukraine to announce an investigation, not an investigation of corruption at writ large, but an investigation of President Trump’s political rivals and only his political rivals. President Trump put himself before country.

The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid allocated by the United States Congress from Ukraine. It also shows that he withheld a White House meeting from President Zelenskyi. Multiple witnesses, including respected diplomats, national security professionals and decorated war veterans all testified to the same basic fact, President Trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a foreign government to do him that favor. President Trump put himself before country. And when the president got caught, when Congress discovered that the aid has been withheld from Ukraine, the president took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from Congress and from the American people. These facts are not in dispute. In fact, most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point.

As we review the evidence today, I expect we will hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the July 25th call to the inspector general of the intelligence community. Let me be clear. Every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by Democrats and Republicans alike. The allegations also match up with the president’s own words as released by the White House. Words that he still says we’re, “perfect.”

I also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo, as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all. The record on this point is also clear. Multiple officials testified that the president’s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal political agenda and not related to the foreign policy objectives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to withhold the aid until Ukraine announced the investigations. And yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president’s personal political benefit. President Trump put himself before country.

The president’s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair. The record before us is clear on this point as well. We invited the president to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President Trump chose not to show. He may not have much to say in his own defense, but he cannot claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard.

Finally, as we proceed today, we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the House is addressing the president’s actions. To the members of the committee, to the members of the house and to my fellow citizens, I want to be absolutely clear, the integrity of our next election is at stake. Nothing could be more urgent. The president welcomed foreign interference in our elections in 2016. He demanded it for 2020. Then he got caught. If you do not believe that he will do it again, let me remind you that the president’s personal lawyer spent last week back in Ukraine meeting with government officials in an apparent attempt to gin up the same so-called favors that brought us here today and forced Congress to consider the impeachment of a sitting president. This pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country.

The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you would honor yours, then I would urge you to do your duty. Let us review the record here in full view of the American people and then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would.

I now recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee-

Speaker 3: (11:20)
Mr. Chairman.

… the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins-

Speaker 3: (11:21)
Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent.

… and his opening statement.

Speaker 3: (11:23)
Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent.

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. Collins: (11:29)
[inaudible 00:11:29] someone is asking you for [inaudible 00:11:26].

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. [inaudible 00:11:28]. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

So, you’re not going to recognize a possible motion before me?

Speaker 5: (11:35)
Unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman?

Unanimous consent request.

Speaker 6: (11:37)
It’s a unanimous consent. [inaudible 00:11:38].

It’s a unanimous consent request.

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. We’ll entertain that later.

Mr. Biggs: (11:43)
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. Biggs: (11:46)
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Point of order, the gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. Biggs: (11:49)
Mr. Chairman, last week, you were furnished with a proper demand for minority hearing pursuant to clause 2J1 of rule 11. In a blatant and egregious violation of the rules you are refusing to schedule that hearing. Therefore, I insist on my point of order unless you are willing to immediately schedule a minority hearing day.

That is not a proper point of order in today’s hearing. As I have told the ranking member several times now, I am considering the minority’s request.

Mr. Biggs: (12:11)
It’s not to be considered, Mr. Chairman.

The gentlemen will suspend. If the ranking member thinks we would be violating the rules of the House if we considered articles of impeachment before holding a minority day hearing, his point of order would be timely at a meeting where we considered articles of impeachment. That is not the purpose of today’s hearing and the point of order is not timely. The gentleman from Georgia.

Doug Collins Opening Statement

Doug Collins: (00:00)
Well that got us started, again. The chairman completely not answering a question. It is timely and it’s frankly not up to his discretion. But again, we’ve not really cared about that from the start, to begin with. So my question is, is just schedule the hearing, but undoubtedly that’s not what they want out there. So let’s start over. Now the chairman is recognized and we’ve got that point. There’ve been famous moments and impeachment. There’ve been famous moments and impeachment as we’ve gone forward. There are famous lines from Nixon like, what did the president know and when did he know it? From the Clinton impeachment there was, I did not have sex with that woman.

What would be known about this one is probably, where’s the impeachable offense? Why are we here? I’ll tell you, this may though become known as the focus group impeachment because we don’t have a crime, we don’t have anything we can actually pin, and nobody understands really what the majority is trying to do, except to interfere and basically make sure that they believe the president can’t win next year if he’s impeached. The focus group impeachment takes words and then takes them to people and say, how can we explain this better because we don’t have the facts to match it?

A focus group impeachment says, we really aren’t working with good facts but we need a good PR move. That’s why we’re here today. This is all about, as I said last week, a clock and a calendar. And it really became evident to me that this was true because last Wednesday, after we had a long day of hearing here. The next morning, before anything else could get started, the speaker of the house walked up to the podium and said, “go write articles of impeachment.” She just quit. She just stopped, go write articles of impeachment. I appreciate that the majority practice for two days this weekend on this hearing. I appreciate the fact that you got to try and get it right, to try and convince the American people of your problem. But your speaker has already undercut you. She took the thrill out of the room.

You’re rotting artists of impeachment. Why couldn’t we just save that time today? And if you’re going to write the dog’s impeachment, go ahead and write them. Well, there’s probably a reason for that because the chairman laid out some amazing claims, none of which I think after this hearing today, the American people can honestly look at and see that there was overwhelming evidence. There is a proper reason he abused these power because as the speaker, another statement, she said, that to do impeachment, you have to be so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, all of which we are not. So why not? Why are we here? Well, I think we can do this. Let’s look at the three things that typically are associated with making your case or a crime. Let’s do it against what the majority has said. And I think they have motive they have means and they have opportunity.

What’s their motive? It’s November, 2020. It’s been said over and over and over again. The chairman said it again this morning. It’s been said all along that we have to do this because if we don’t impeach him, he’ll win again next year. The reason is shown is clearly as last week on the jobs report and the economy. And as I had a man come up to me in the grocery store this weekend, he said, keep doing what you’re doing. He said, I’ve never seen an economy this good. He said, “people are working, people are being taken care of.” And this is just a fatal distraction on a president that they don’t like. Motive as easy. November, 2016 they lost. January, 2017, just a few minutes in, the Washington Post confirmed what every Democrat had been talking about. Now’s the time for impeachment. We see tweet after tweet saying, now let’s get it. It’s amazing that they start with impeachment and then they spent two years trying to figure out what do we impeach him on?

Well, the means became what we see now. The means is to always talk about impeachment, to always say, this president is doing something wrong. To say he is illegitimate, as the chairman has said before, that he’s not even a legitimate president, is to constantly tear down at a president who is working on behalf of the American people. The sham impeachment. When we go through this, I think the chairman said something that was interesting. He said that the president should not be above the law and should be held accountable for the oath of their office. I think Congress ought to be held accountable for their oath of office as well and not to do what we’re doing right now, and that is run a process that doesn’t fit fairness or decorum, to run a process and a fact pattern that you’re having to force against a president you don’t like. But what was the opportunity?

The opportunity came last November, when they got the majority and they began their impeachment run. They began in the process, even as they’re selecting the chairman, the chairman said, “I would be the best person for impeachment.” This is November of last year. Before we had any hearings, before we had even more sworn in to this Congress for anyone, the media or watching on TV or watching in this room, for anyone to think that this was not a baked deal is not being honest with themselves. You see, presumption has now become the standard instead of proof. It should cause anyone to begin to question, because the entire case is built on a presumption. Or as we found out last week from three scholars, that inference is okay. If you just infer that that’s what they mean, then we’ll take that. That was an interesting line.

You know, it’s interesting they made their whole case built on Gordon Sandlin. You’re going to see that a lot today. He testified that he presumed that the aid was connected to an investigation, but he said nobody ever told him that. When Sandlin even asked the president directly, he said, “what do you want?” The president said, “I want nothing.” I almost want Zielinski to do what he ran on, Ukraine, did nothing and got the aid anyway. But you know how I know that this is also a problematic experience. Just look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the intelligence committee, who by the way is absent today, I guess he can’t back up his own report, but he started his own hearing by making up the factual call. When he made it up, he started the fairy tale that we’re having today. If you can’t even put the transcript in the right context, just read it. Chairman Schiff couldn’t even read the transcript.

He had to make it up because if he didn’t make it up, it didn’t sound as bad. It didn’t sound as bad. He said, let’s make up some dirt. That’s not what was said. The transcript. The chairman misled the American people as an attorney, as a chairman, as a member of Congress who swore an oath to tell the, basically to be honest with the American people and uphold the constitution. That was such a massive malpractice I’ve never seen, because you know why? Again, they don’t care about what actually was in the transcript. They don’t actually care what happened and we heard last week from witnesses, they don’t even care that the aid was released. They’re simply looking at the facts to make it fit their narrative. What else happened? You know, this is also the chairman Schiff who also said, that he had seen collusion in plain sight, that it was already there before the Mueller Report ever came out, that all of this was going to happen.

But you know, I guess maybe I might need to just not stop commenting on chairman Schiff and his guidance because I may end up on the next phone records subpoena, as we go forward. You see we’ve taken a dangerous turn in this Congress. Subpoenas are fine, properly done, and should be done properly. But they should never be at the expense of a political vendetta. Professor Turley testified last week; presumption is no substitute for proof. The current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate and in some respects dangerous and the basis for impeachment of an American president. Today what we were supposed to get was like a lot of my friends on the majority of this committee said, Mueller, when we got the Mueller Report, it didn’t go real well, so we had a lot of hearings. Didn’t go real well.

Then we finally got Bob Mueller and they said, this is going to be the movie version. In fact, what happened, they did. My colleagues on the majority had a live readings from Capitol Hill. They made dramatic broadcasts. They even wrote a comic book rendition that breathed life into the Mueller report and it didn’t work. So they brought Bob Mueller. This was the movie version. They told us. Robert Mueller’s testimony would be the thing that people watched and would be convinced. Guess what? They wasn’t convinced. In fact, it fell flat. But you know today I guess is the movie version of the Schiff report, except one thing, the star witness failed to show up. Mr. Nunez is here, his staff is here. The leading headline is there, Schiff report? But where’s Mr Schiff? And Mueller, Robert Mueller testified. The Ken Starr report, Ken Starr testified. The author of the Schiff report is not here.

Instead he’s sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess that’s what you get when you’re making up impeachment as you go. So as we look forward here, there’s going to be plenty of time to discuss the factual case for this and the statements that are not being made. What is very detrimental to me though is this. This committee is hearing from a factual witness. This committee is not doing anything past hearing from law school professors and staff. The chairman said something about the president not being able to come. Show me where he would actually have a proper process in this that’s not talking to staff and not talking to law school professors, when we could actually have witnesses that will be called by both sides?

But I want to say this, I love this institution. I was here as a 19 year old kid, as an intern, almost 32 years ago. This institution, as we see it today is in danger. We see chairman who are issuing subpoenas for personal vendettas. We see committees such as the judiciary committee that has held many, many substantive hearings, has been the very center point of impeachment, being used as a rubber stamp because we get not our marching orders from this committee and what it should be doing, but from the speaker and the intelligence committee chairman. We’re not able to do what we need to do because we’re a rubber stamp. I love this institution. But in the last three or four days, I’ve seen stuff that just bothered me to no end, and it should bother everyone. The speaker of the house after hearing one day of testimony and the judiciary committee said, “go write articles.” Facts be damned.

Al green, another member of the house majority said, “we can keep impeaching him over and over and over and over again.” Adam Schiff, when he told us he wasn’t going to come, instead hide behind his staff. He also told us that we’re going to keep investigating because they know this is going nowhere in the Senate, and they’re desperate to have a impeachment vote on this president. The economy’s good, job creation is up, military is strong, our country is safe and the judiciary committee has been relegated to this.

Why? Because they have the means, they have the motive, and they have the opportunity, and at the end of the day, all this is about, it’s about a clock and a calendar because they can’t get over the fact, Donald Trump is president of the United States and they don’t have a candidate that they think can beat him. It’s all political, and as we have talked about before, this is a show. Unfortunately today, the witness who was supposed to be the star witness, chose to take a pass and let a staff answer for him. With that, I yield back.

Democratic Counsel Barry Berke Opening Statement

Barry Berke: (00:00)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [crosstalk 00:00:01], Ranking Member Collins, and all the members. Before I had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question. He said, “Dad, does the president have to be a good person?” Like many questions by young children, it had a certain clarity but it was hard to answer. I said, “Son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person, but that is the hope.” And it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. That is not why we are here today. That is not the issue.

But the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers that we have made clear, it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not abuse his power. It is a requirement that the president be a person who does not risk national security of this nation and the integrity of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects. It is a requirement that the president not be a person who acts as though he is above the law in putting his personal and political interests above the nation’s interests. That is the lesson of the constitution. That is the lesson of the founders.

They were concerned that someone would be elected president who would use all the power of that office to serve his own personal interests at the expense of the people who elected him. They decided there needed to be a remedy because they had suffered the abuses of King George where they had no remedy. The remedy they imposed was that if a president commits a grave offense, a high crime or misdemeanor, this body has the power to impeach that president. They wanted to ensure that a president could not serve his own interests over that of the nation. It flows from the very oath that all members of this body must take to support and defend the constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

That is why we are here today, and it is an unfortunate occasion that these proceedings are necessary. But the president’s actions have left no choice. The founders were very clear in spelling out what they saw to be the greatest abuses that would raise the most concerns for our nation. They spelled them out as warning signals that if a president violated or committed one of these, that would be a reason to potentially impeach that president. They were abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest, corruption of elections. And what is so extraordinary is the conduct we’re going to be talking about today of President Trump didn’t violate one of these but all three.

First, the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by pressuring Ukraine and its new president to investigate a political opponent. The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by ramping up that pressure by conditioning a wanted White House meeting and a needed military aid that had been approved in order to get that president to investigate a political rival. It is clear and overwhelming that in abusing that power, the president betrayed the national interest by putting his own political prospects over the national security of our country. It is clear that the president risks corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference to knock out an adversary to help his prospects in reelection.

It is why in debating the constitution, James Madison warned that because the presidency, “Was to be administered by a single man,” his corruption, “might be fatal to the Republic.” The scheme by President Trump was so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted, contemporaneous records that it’s hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offenses. This is a big deal. President Trump did what a president of our nation is not allowed to do. It is why last week, the constitutional scholar, Professor Michael Gearhart said, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.” President Trump’s actions are impeachable offenses. They threaten our rule of law. They threaten our institutions and as James Madison warned us, they threaten our Republic.

Let me begin where we must with the facts and evidence. First, it’s important to understand why Ukraine was so important to our national security. Ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbor, Russia. They had already encroached on its territories. The Ukraine was at great risk that Russia would again take further territory or try. Europe had a stake in this and so did we. I’m going to turn to an expert on this, Ambassador Taylor, who is one of the most highly-decorated and recognized diplomats. For over 40 years, he served our country honorably and he was appointed by President Trump himself to be in charge of the U.S. embassy in Ukraine.

William Taylor: (06:09)
The Russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in Europe for nearly 70 years. That rule of law, that order that kept the peace in Europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in Europe was violated by the Russians. It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. This affects the kind of world that we want to see overall.

That is Ambassador Taylor explaining why Ukraine was so important and explaining why the president’s actions so significantly risked hurting our national security, our national defense policy, and our national interest. Now, you’ve already heard there is significant proof that President Trump himself told the new president of the Ukraine, President Zelensky, that he wanted him to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. You’ll hear a lot about that today, but that proof is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many more events, and meetings, and contemporaneous text messages, emails, other documents that show this happened and happened exactly as it is alleged. And it is clear that in this scheme to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival, the person at the center of that scheme was President Donald Trump.

The facts cannot be disputed. President Trump use the powers of government for a domestic political errand to put his political interests above that of the nation. I’m going to turn to another expert. I’m going to turn to Dr. Fiona Hill, the National Security Council senior director in the Trump administration, and she’s going to explain what happened.

Fiona Hill: (08:03)
But it struck me on yesterday when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails and who was on these emails and he said, “These are the people who need to know that he was absolutely right.” Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things had just diverged.

And that tells you what the evidence shows. The president put his own domestic political interests over the nation’s national security and foreign policy. A president cannot abuse his power to secure an election. He cannot do that at the expense of the American people. That is an impeachable offense. The president has tried to make excuses for his conduct, why it’s not wrongful, or corrupt, or an abuse of power. But the truth holds together. It makes sense. It’s consistent with the evidence. When someone is offering an excuse that is not true, it is not consistent with the evidence, it does not make sense, it cannot be squared with what the facts show, and you will see these excuses do not make sense.

The facts are clear that President Trump put his own political and personal interests over the nation’s interest. I’d like to go through what you are going to see about the president’s scheme and you’re going to hear about today from the facts that we have. First, you’re going to hear that President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushed Ukraine to open an investigation of his political rival. Mr. Giuliani, prior to the July, 25th call, he made public statements that Ukraine should investigate the former Vice President Joe Biden. He tweeted about it, putting pressure on the new president. He went to Ukraine and later, went again with the assist and direction of U.S. officials who were told to aid the president’s personal lawyer on the president’s behalf.

You’ll hear that President Trump told his aides that he was relying on for Ukraine, that he wanted them to, “Talk to Rudy.” What you’re going to hear is that his close advisors had just gotten back on May, 23rd from the inauguration of the new president, President Zelensky. They told President Trump, “We were impressed. He was elected on an anti-corruption platform, a reform platform. You should schedule a White House meeting. It’s very important. This is very good for the United States.” And the president’s response was, “Talk to Rudy,” who had been out there claiming what the Ukrainian president had to do was investigate his political rival. You’ll hear that President Trump’s advisers told President-

President Trump’s advisers told President Zelensky that President Trump would not schedule the wanted White House meeting unless he announced a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Biden. There are documents. There’s sworn testimony. This happened and there is no question from the evidence that the president did this. President Zelensky desperately needed a white house meeting both to show Russia that the US was still supporting Ukraine and for his own credibility as a new president.

You’ll hear then, to ramp up the pressure, what President Trump did is he told his agencies to withhold military and security aid that had been approved and was supposed to be released to Ukraine, hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to put more pressure on Ukraine. All the agencies involved, state department, feds department, national security council said it should be released. It had been approved. It was going to be released until President Trump personally stopped it. Again, contemporaneous evidence and documents show it and prove it.

People said that they were shocked. Ambassador Taylor said he was in astonishment. Witnesses said that it was illogical to do this and the president never offered an explanation, but ultimately it was discovered why he did it. Then on the July 25th call, President Trump explicitly told him he wanted him to do two Ukrainian investigations, one of a US citizen and his political rival and the other about the origins of interference in the 2016 election, some conspiracy theory that Russia, who all the intelligence agencies agreed, interfered with the 2016 election. Maybe it was Ukraine. Again, another investigation intended to help the president politically. That is it.

You know, the president cared about the investigations that would help him politically and not Ukraine and not the national security interest. You don’t have to take my word. I’m going to play something from David Holmes, who had worked in the US Embassy in Ukraine and was speaking to Ambassador Sondland, who president Trump appointed. Ambassador Sondland that had just come to the Ukraine on the 26th. He met with President Zelensky. He went to a restaurant with Mr. Holmes, the US Political Affairs Counselor in Ukraine. He called President Trump on his cell phone and Mr. Holmes could hear that call. Then he spoke to Mr. Sondland. Let’s see what happened on July 26, the day after that call.

Mr. Holmes: (13:28)
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from [inaudible 00:02:31]. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, “Yes, he was in Ukraine,” and went on to state that President Zelensky, “Loves your ass.” I then heard President Trump ask, “So he’s going to do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland and replied that he’s going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do.

That is sworn testimony by David Holmes who heard it from the president himself. It was clear to everyone, the most experienced people in government who Donald Trump himself appointed in their positions, they knew what was going on. Let’s look at a text message from Ambassador Taylor. Around this time on September 9th he said, “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Again, that is President Trump putting his own political and personal interests over the nation’s interests to hold aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order to combat Russia and show the support. He did it to help his own campaign.

Now there’ve been excuses offered by the president. I’d like to briefly talk about those excuses. The first excuse offered by President Trump is that the aid was ultimately released and President Trump met with Mr. Zelensky. We heard it today. The challenge with that, though, as an excuse is the aid was only released after President Trump got caught doing this scheme. On September 9th, the committees of this house started their investigation and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to Ukraine. Two days later was when he released the aid. There also was a news article which we’ll talk about in a moment by the Washington Post on September 5th exposing his scheme. It was only after that, that he met with President Zelensky, not in the White House, but in New York.

Another excuse offered, the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. Again, the evidence shows that is not true that, that’s what caused him to withhold the aid. President Zelensky in fact was elected on an anticorruption platform. He was a reform candidate. His own people told them again and again, President Zelensky is a hope. He’s doing it the right way. They urged him just be supportive.

On his call with President Zelensky on July 25th, President Trump ignored the talking points that were prepared to talk about corruption. He only wanted to talk about two things: the two investigations that helped him politically. Every intelligence agency unanimously supported releasing the to Ukraine, that it was appropriate. They did a corruption study. They said, “Release it.” The White House never provided an explanation. The aid had already been approved and it was not for any corruption issues that President Trump withheld it.

The next is Ukraine was not pressured. The argument about that is, well, today they haven’t said they were pressured. Well, Ukraine was pressured then and still is pressured. They are desperately in need of the United States support as they battle the threat of Russia. Of course they have to be careful what they said, but contemporaneous documents, emails, texts from the Ukrainian officials themselves show the pressure they felt, showed they knew what the President Trump was doing, showed what they had to do.

This is one from Bill Taylor to, again, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Ambassador Kurt Volker: “Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s, a senior aide of President Zelensky, point that President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely an instrument in Washington’s domestic reelection politics.” They not only felt the pressure, they got the message. They were not going to get a White House meeting. They were ultimately not going to get military aid unless they furthered President Trump’s reelection efforts. That is a corrupt abuse of power.

Another argument that’s made is that Trump never said quid pro quo. What you’re going to hear is on a call with Ambassador Sondland, after a Washington Post article came out on September 5th, which we will look at. After that, there was a Washington Post article that came out that, again, exposed the Ukrainian scheme. Days after that President Trump was on a phone call with Ambassador Sondland and without prompting said, “There was no quid pro quo,” because he got caught. He’s offering his defense, but even Ambassador Sondland, in his sworn testimony, didn’t buy it because ultimately then President Trump not only was not dissuaded, he again described what he wanted. He didn’t want Ukraine to actually conduct these investigations. He wanted them to announce the investigations of his political rival to help him politically. He continued and you’ll hear more about that. Again, none of these excuses hold any water and they are refuted by testimony, contemporaneous records, and more.

Now, some have suggested that we should wait to proceed with these impeachment proceedings because we’ve not heard from all of the witnesses or obtained all the documents, but the reason we have not heard from all the witnesses or documents is because President Trump himself has obstructed the investigation. He’s directed his most senior aides who are involved in some of these events not to come testify, to defy subpoenas. He has told every one of his agencies with records that could be relevant not to produce those records to us, to try to obstruct our investigation.

Now this is evidence that President Trump is replaying the playbook used in the prior Department of Justice investigation. In that investigation he directed his White House council to create a false, phony record and document and lie, denying that President Trump had told him to fire the special counsel. He did many other things to try to interfere with that investigation. He attacked the investigators, and witnesses, and called them horrible names just as he has done here. President Trump thought he got away with it. On July 24th was the day that the special counsel testified before this committee and the House Intelligence Committee, the 24th.

It was exactly the following day, the 25th, that President Trump spoke to Presidents Zelensky and in furtherance of Ukrainian scheme. He thought he got away with it. Not only that he thought he could use his powers to interfere with that investigation so he could do what he wanted, he could act like he was above the law. If he got caught, he would again use his powers to try to obstruct the investigation and prevent the facts from coming out.

That’s exactly what he did, but fortunately, because of the true American Patriots who came forward to testify despite the threats by the president against the people who worked in his own administration, they told the story. They, on their own, produced documents that provide uncontroverted, clear, and overwhelming evidence that President Trump did this scheme. He put his political reelection interests over the nation’s national security and the integrity of its elections. He did it intentionally. He did it corruptly. He abused his powers in ways that the founders feared the most. No person in this country has the ability to prevent investigations and neither does the president. Our constitution does not allow it. No one is above the law, not even the president. One of the concerns and requirements of finding an impeachable offense, is there an urgency? Is there a sense that you have to move because it could be repeated? Well, again, first, all the constitutional experts who testified recognize that obstructing an investigation is an impeachable offense, but here, the offense we’re talking about that’s being interfered or obstructed with is interfering with this very election that’s coming up. I submit to you, given what happened with the department of justice …

And I submit to you, given what happened with the Department of Justice investigation, given what’s happening here, if in fact President Trump can get away with what he did again, our imagination is the only limit to what President Trump may do next or what a future president may do next, to try to abuse his or her power to serve his own personal interest over the nation’s interest.

I’d like to turn back to what the founders most cared about and we talked about the ABCs of of potential presidential abuses. It is extraordinary that the president’s conduct was a trifecta, checking all three boxes. Let’s begin with abuse of power.

What that means, it’s to use the power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or 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 president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this Congress considered the impeachment of President Nixon and after action was taken, President Nixon famously said, “If the president does it, it is not illegal,” and this body rejected that because that’s not so that goes directly contrary to what the founder said. But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by the Department of Justice in defending his conduct. Here’s what he said.

Donald Trump: (23:40)
Then I have an article to, 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. That is not what the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants.

Turning to the second abuse of power, most of the concerned betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers. The American people have suffered that foreign influence. When President Trump treated military aid that had been approved, taxpayers’ dollars and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own re-election chances, that reflects what the founders were concerned about it.

And finally, corruption of our elections. The framers knew that corrupt leaders or leaders acting corruptly concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. That is why the framers thought electoral treasury, particularly involving foreign powers, was a critical abuse and and that could support and lead to impeachment. Now, the American people learned last election how dangerous foreign intervention or elections can be.

Let me show another clip from President… from candidate Trump on the campaign trail.

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re 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 Trump’s invitation to Russia to interfere in our election by trying to hack in, 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 candidate Trump’s invitation.

Now the American people learned a lesson. President Trump unfortunately, apparently learned a different lesson. Let’s look.

Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens’. It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens’.

So this was President Trump answering a question about what did he want President Zelensky to do. So even after he got caught, he is saying again, this vulnerable nation, dependent on US support militarily and otherwise, again, he’s telling them what to do and unlike in 2016 when he only had a campaign platform, which to extend the invitation to a foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it, but to pressure that country to do it and that’s exactly what he did and you’ll hear more about that in the presentation for the House Intelligence Committee.

What’s most striking as we 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 doesn’t 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 put his personal and political interests over the nation’s interest, over the nation’s national security interests, over the nations integrity of its elections.

So of course we do have an election coming up. That’s not a reason to postpone this discussion. That’s a reason we must have this discussion; to make sure it is not interfered with to make sure this president doesn’t do it, to make sure future presidents do not do it.

It is the hope that in these discussions can put aside political rancor, disagreements and have a fair discussion about the facts in this conduct, not just as it relates to President Trump, but as to the presidency itself and future presidents. 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 in cannot happen again with this president or any president. It is a reason to talk about whether we want our children and 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 we’re going to hear will not distort the record. Focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really are intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the country’s best interest. History, future generations will be the judge.

Republican Counsel Stephen Castor’s Opening Statement

Stephen Castor: (00:00)
Morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, members of the Committee and members of the staff. My name is Steve Castor. I’m a congressional staff member. I serve with the Oversight Committee on the Republican staff with Mr. Jordan. I’m also, for purposes of this investigation, I’m a shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Collins and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Mr. Nunez. It sure is atypical for a staffer to be presenting, but again, thanks for having me.

The purpose of this hearing, as we understand it, is to discuss whether President Donald J Trump’s conduct fits the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. It does not, such that the Committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office and it should 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 have 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 in 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 stymieing Trump’s agenda, and noted that impeachment strategists believed the Constitution’s emoluments clause would be the vehicle.

In the first two years of the administration, Democrats in the House introduced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office on several very different factual bases. On January 3rd, the very first day of the new Congress, Congressman Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against the president. The same day Representative Tlaib said, “We’re going to go in there. We’re going to impeach the president.”

In May 2019, Representative Green said on MSNBC, “If we don’t 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 impostor and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020.

The obsession with impeaching the president is reflected in House Democrats, have used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. In the Oversight Committee, the Democrats’ 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, Mazar, for large swaths of sensitive and personal financial information about the entire Trump Family. The subpoena was issued over the objection of 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 wanting the president’s tax returns, they said was to oversee the IRS’s audit process for presidential tax returns. You can judge that for yourself.

In the Financial Services Committee, Democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president’s bank records, going back 10 years. The Financial Services Committee Staff, the Republicans tell me the information demanded would cover every withdrawal, credit card swipe, or debit card purchase of every member of the Trump Family, including his minor child. The reason that the Democrats gave for why they needed such voluminous and intrusive 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 evidentiary basis for impeaching the president.

Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2,800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants, and spending $25 million, the Special Counsel’s 19 attorneys and 40 FBI agents, analysts, and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.

After the Trump/Russia collusion allegations did not pan out, Democrats focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They criticized the Attorney General Bar for concluding that no crime of obstruction had occurred in the Special Counsel Investigation, but in fact 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 the sequel with Corey Lewandowski definitely did not move the impeachment needle either.

The Intelligence Committee, too, is heavily invested in the Russia Collusion Investigation. Committee Democrats hired former 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 wasn’t the committee leading the impeachment inquiry or holding the hearings. Neither was the Oversight Committee, the House’s chief investigative entity. The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix after fact finding concluded.

Instead, the impeachment inquiry was run by the House Intelligence Committee and these former federal prosecutors. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a manifestly unfair way. All the fact finding was unclassified and that was made clear at the top of every single deposition, but the Democrats took advantage of the closed door process in the Capitol basement bunker, the skiff, to control access to information.

The secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowing 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 not to answer our questions.

In the public hearings, many of 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. I’ll 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 has tightly scripted every step of the impeachment inquiry. Democrats have reportedly convened focus groups to test which allegations, whether it be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion, were most compelling to the American Public.

Speaker 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 rush process and missed opportunities to obtain relevant information. Democrats avoided the accommodations process required by federal courts and disputes between Congress and the executive. Democrats declined to attempt to negotiate with the administration for the production of documents and witnesses. Democrats did not exhaust all their options to entice witnesses or agencies to cooperate, such as allowing witnesses to appear with agency lawyers or initiating contempt proceedings. Sometimes the threat of a contempt proceeding gets you a different result. Sometimes the 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 the executive, either because the Democrats did not want to wait for the court to rule or they didn’t 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 their salaries could be withheld for not meeting committee demands. These tactics are fundamentally unfair and counterproductive for gathering information in any serious inquiry.

This rushed and take it or leave it approach to investigating is contrary to how successful congressional investigations typically work. Congressional investigations take time. There is no easy button. In this job, you must take the information that’s offered even if you don’t like the terms. You should not say no to taking a witness’s testimony because you would prefer the agency counsel is not present. If that’s the only means of obtaining the testimony, you should take it. Your priority must not be on blocking information out. It must be on seeking information.

In all recent major congressional investigations, for example, Chairman Goodlatte and Gowdy’s investigation into the Justice Department’s decision during 2016, the IRS targeting investigation, the Bengazi investigation, and Fast and Furious, there have been give and take between Congress and the executive. In the Goodlatte/Gowdy investigation, for example, it took two months; two months of negotiations before the committees conducted the first witness interview with 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 60 or 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 an investigation into 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 Democrats sought to interview career staff who perform these security clearance reviews, but declined the witness initially to appear with agency counsel.

The House and the White House were at an impasse. However, after a little bit of time, we, 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 to obtain the evidence to get to the bottom of what was going on and it wasn’t 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 to accompany witnesses. Democrats have turned away information by declining to negotiate in good faith with the administration about the scope of document requests. As a result of these failures, the evidentiary record and 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, “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of 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 abbreviated investigation into this matter is so damaging for the case of impeachment.

The substantive case for impeaching President Trump as a result of an artificial arbitrary and political schedule relies heavily on ambiguous facts, presumptions, and speculation. President Turley warned here too that impeachments have been based on proof, not presumptions. The Democrats do not have the proof.

Now, my Democrat counterparts on the Intelligence Committee are talented attorneys. I’m sure they will tell you a riveting story about a shadow or irregular foreign policy apparatus and a smear campaign designed to extort Ukraine for the president’s political benefit. They’ll 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. They’ll try to convince you that the Trump Administration, the same administration Democrats regularly accused of being incompetent, orchestrated an international conspiracy at the highest levels.

None of this adds up. It may be a great screenplay, but it’s not what the evidence shows. The 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 listen 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 won’t provide a detailed presentation now, but allow me to highlight a few points. First, the summary 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 the divisiveness of the Russia collusion investigation.

Second, since President Trump has declassified and publicly released the call summary 75 days ago, President Zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. He said it on September 25th at the 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 just 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 was paused. They did not learn it was paused until the pause was reported publicly in the U.S. media on August 28th. As Ambassador Volker testified, because the highest levels of the Ukrainian government did not know about the pause, there was no leverage implied.

Finally, President Zelensky met with President Trump in New York on September 25th at the United Nations. Shortly thereafter, or shortly before 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 skepticism of Ukraine, stemming from its history of corruption. President Trump is skeptical of U.S. taxpayer funded foreign assistance and believes that our allies should share more of the burden of Ukraine’s defense.

Ukrainian politicians openly spoke out against President Trump during the 2016 election. These events bear directly on the president’s state of mind. President Zelensky had run on an anti-corruption platform, but he was an untried politician with a relationship to a controversial Ukrainian oligarch. When Vice President Pence met with Presidents Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1, he stressed to him the need for reform and reiterated the president’s concern about burden sharing, especially among European allies.

In late August and early September, after his party took control of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ukraine passed historic reforms to fight corruption. These reforms, including removing parliamentary immunity, which witnesses said had been a historic source of corruption. Imagine if members of our Congress had immunity. President Trump later lifted the pause on security assistance and met with presidents Zelensky two weeks later. The aid was paused for 55 days.

Very simply, the evidence in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry does not support the conclusion that President Trump abused his power for his own personal political benefit. There is simply no clear evidence that President Trump acted with malicious intent, in withholding a meeting, or security 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 matter in which he governs, but those disagreements are not enough to justify the irrevocable action of removing him from office. The Democrats hyperbole and histrionics 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 the next president.

This record also does not support a conclusion that President Trump obstructed Congress during the impeachment inquiry for many of the procedural defects I touched on earlier. Additionally, as a factual matter, the only direct testimony the investigation has obtained about the president’s reaction to the inquiry is from Ambassador Sondland, who testified President Trump told him to cooperate and tell the truth. President Trump has also declassified and released the summaries of his two phone calls with President Zelensky. President Trump has said that he would like witnesses to testify, but he’s been forced to resist the unfair and abusive process.

I believe strongly in the prerogatives of the Congress. It’s awful to hear President Turley’s testimony from last week when he critiqued the House for proceeding on impeachment so rapidly and on such a thin record. Professor Turley said, “To set this abbreviated schedule, demand documents, and then impeach because they haven’t been turned over when they go to court, I think is an abuse of power.”

“The Impeachment of a duly elected president,” as Chairman Nadler said in 1998, “is the undoing of a national election.” Now, I understand Democrats’ issue to report over the weekend, arguing that contrary to the Chairman’s statement in the 1998 Impeachment is not undoing an election. I would just respond by saying that I don’t 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 less than 11 months before the next election.

There still is no compelling argument for why Democrats in the House must take this decision out of the hands of the voters and do it before Christmas. During the Clinton Impeachment in 1998, the Chairman said that at bare minimum, the president’s accusers must go beyond hearsay 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 1998.

The impeachment record is heavily reliant on hearsay, innuendo, and presumptions. Democrats have lobbed vague and ever changing charges for impeachment, going as far back as the president’s inauguration. For all these reasons, the extraordinary exercise of the House’s 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.

Democratic Counsel Daniel Goldman Opening Statement

Mr. Goldman, you may begin.

Daniel Goldman: (00:02)
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, 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, the 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 US government, by conditioning a desperately sought oval office meeting and $391 million in taxpayer funded, congressionally appropriated security assistance, vital to Ukraine’s ability to fend off Russian aggression. And he conditioned that on the announcement of 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. The Oval Office meeting still has not happened. And when faced with the opening of an official impeachment inquiry into 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 Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25th of this year. During that call, President Trump asked President Zelensky for a personal favor, to initiate the two investigations that President Trump hoped could ultimately help his reelection in 2020.

The first investigation involved former Vice President Joe Biden, and was an effort to smear his reputation as he seeks the democratic nomination in next year’s presidential election. The second investigation sought to elevate an entirely debunked conspiracy theory, promoted by Russian President Vladimir Putin, that Ukraine interfered in the last presidential election to support the democratic nominee. In truth, as has been made clear by irrefutable evidence from throughout the government, Russia interfered in the last election in order to help then-candidate Trump. The allegations about Vice President Biden and the 2016 election are patently false, but that did not deter president Trump during his phone call with the Ukrainian president and it does not 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. Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine last week, to pursue these false allegations meant to tarnish vice president Biden. President Trump’s 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 and fair elections and to our national security.

The overwhelming evidence of this scheme is described in detail in a nearly 300 page document entitled The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report, formerly transmitted from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to this committee a few days ago. The report relies on testimony from numerous current and former government officials, the vast majority of whom are nonpartisan, career professionals, responsible for keeping our nation safe and promoting American values around the globe. The evidence from these witnesses cannot seriously be disputed. The president placed his personal interests above the nation’s 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 today’s testimony. I joined the house intelligence committee as Senior Advisor and Director of Investigations at the beginning of this year. Previously, I served for 10 years as a prosecutor in the Southern district of New York, when I joined the Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration. The team that I led on the intelligence community includes other former federal prosecutors, a retired FBI agent, and investigators with significant national security expertise. The report that I am presenting today is based entirely on the evidence that we collected in coordination with the Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees that were gathered as part of the impeachment inquiry into president Trump’s actions. Nothing more and nothing less.

The three investigating committees ran a fair, professional, and thorough investigation. We followed the house rules for depositions and public hearings, 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 were prevented from being asked and answered. This investigation moved swiftly and intensively as all good investigation should, to the extent that other witnesses would be able to provide more context and detail about this scheme, their failure to testify is due solely to the fact that President Trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available.

Nevertheless, the extensive evidence that the committee’s uncovered during this investigation led to the following critical findings. First, President Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly elected president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for president Trump’s personal and political benefit. Second, in order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically motivated investigations that President Trump wanted, President Trump withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391 of essential military assistance from Ukraine. Third, President Trump’s conduct sought to undermine our free and fair elections and poses an imminent threat to our national security. And forth, faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, President Trump directed an unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress’s impeachment inquiry into his conduct.

And with that context in mind, I would like to turn to the evidence of President Trump’s conduct concerning Ukraine. My colleague, Mr. Castro, just said that 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. The first in April was short and cordial, following the Ukrainian president’s election success. But this second call would diverge dramatically from what those listening had expected. Now just prior to this telephone call, President Trump spoke to Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, who had donated $1 million to the president’s inaugural campaign and who had been directed by the president himself to take on a leading role in Ukraine issues.

Ambassador Sondland relayed the president’s message to President Zelensky through Ambassador Kurt Volker, who had had lunch that day with President Zelensky’s top aid, Andriy Yermak, who appears repeatedly through this scheme as President Zelensky’s right hand man. Ambassador Volker texted Mr. Yermak with President Trump’s direction. “Good lunch – thanks. Heard from White House – assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016 we will nail down for a visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow – Kurt.” So even 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 he desperately coveted. Ambassador Sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo.

Gordon Sondland: (11:07)
Frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple 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 not discuss matters of import to the United States, such as Ukraine’s efforts to root out corruption. Instead, president Trump veered quickly into the personal favor that he wanted President Zelensky to do. Two investigations that would help President Trump’s reelection effort. Witnesses who listened to the call described it as unusual, improper, inappropriate, and concerning. To of them immediately reported their concerns to White House lawyers. Now, let me just take a few minutes walking through that important call step-by-step, because it is evidence that is central to the president’s scheme. Near the beginning of the call, President Zelensky said, I would 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.”

The great support in the area of defense included the nearly $400 million of US military assistance to Ukraine, which one witness testified was nearly 10% of Ukraine’s defense budget. And this support comes as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed nearly 7% of Ukraine’s territory. Since then, the United States and our allies have provided support for Ukraine, an emerging post-Soviet democracy, to fend off Russia in the East. Yet just a few weeks before this July 25th call, President Trump had inexplicably placed a hold on military assistance to Ukraine without providing any reason to his own cabinet members or national security officials. The evidence the committee’s 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 US support for Ukraine was not reciprocal, that somehow Ukraine needed to give more to the United States.

What did he mean? Well, it became clear, because immediately after President Zelensky brought up us military support and purchasing Javelin anti-tank weapons, President Trump responded, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” Now, the favor that he referenced there included two demands that had nothing to do with official US policy or foreign policy. First, President Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike” As you saw yesterday, excuse me, “I guess you have one of your wealthy people,” it says. “The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with 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 man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s 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 any factual support for this allegation. To the contrary, a unanimous assessment of the US intelligence community found that Russia alone interfered in the 2016 US election. And Special Counsel Mueller, who indicted 12 Russians for this conspiracy, testified before Congress that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Dr. Fiona Hill, an expert on Russia and President Putin, who served on the National Security Council until July, testified that the president was told by his own former senior advisors, including his Homeland Security Advisor and his former National Security Advisor, that the alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election was false.

Alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election, was false. And although no one in the US government knew of any factual support for this theory, it did have one significant supporter, Russian President Vladimir Putin. In February of 2017, President Putin said “Second, as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the United States, the Ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs certainly with the approval of the political leadership, funded this candidate or female candidate to be more precise.”

And if there was ever any doubt about how benefits from this unfounded theory put forward by President Trump and his associates, President Putin made it clear very recently when he said “Than God no one is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. elections. Now they’re accusing Ukraine.” In the face of clear evidence, not only from intelligence community experts, but from his own national security team, that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election for the benefit of Donald Trump. President Trump still pressed the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into this conspiracy theory. And why? Because it would help his own political standing.

President Trump even sought to withhold and Oval Office meeting from the President of Ukraine until he fell in line with President Putin’s lies. The leader who had actually invaded Ukraine.

The second demand that President Trump made of President Zelensky during the July 25th call was to investigate the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. President Trump stated “The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.”

Witnesses unanimously testified that there was no factual support for this claim. Rather, they noted that Vice President Biden was acting in support of an international consensus and official U.S. policy to clean up the Prosecutor General’s office in Ukraine. Despite these facts, by the time of the July 25th call, Mr. Giuliani had been publicly advocating for these two investigations for months, while also using back channels to press Ukrainian officials to initiate them in support of his client, Donald Trump.

Ambassador Sondland understood Mr. Giuliani’s role very clearly. He testified “Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the President.” To others, Mr. Giuliani was working at cross purposes with official policy channels toward Ukraine, even as he was working on behalf of President Trump. According to former National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton, Mr. Giuliani was a quote “Hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up” un quote.

Near the end of the July 25th call, President Zelensky circled back to the precooked message that Ambassador Volker had relayed to President Zelensky’s top aide before the call. President Zelensky said “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and we will work on the investigation.”

In other words, on one hand is the White House visit, while on the other hand, he agreed to pursue the investigations. This statement shows the President Zelensky fully understood at the time of the July 25th call, the quid pro quo between these investigations and the White House meeting that President Trump required, and that Ambassador Sondland had testified so clearly about.

Numerous witnesses testified about the importance of a White House meeting with the President of the United States, specifically a meeting in the Oval Office, an official act by President Trump. As David Holmes, Senior Official in the U.S. embassy in Ukraine said “It is important to understand that a White House visit was critical to President Zelensky. President Zelensky need to show U.S. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had U.S. backing as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda at home.”

In other words, the White House visit would help Zelensky’s anti-corruption reforms. And that support remains critical as President Zelensky meets today with President Putin to try to resolve the conflict in the East. Now the day after this phone call, President Trump sought to ensure that President Zelensky got the message. On July 26th, U.S. officials met with President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials in Kyiv. And President Zelensky mentioned that President Trump had brought up some quote “Very sensitive issues” un quote.

After that meeting, Ambassador Sondland had a private, one on one meeting with Andrey Yermak, President Zelensky’s top aide, during which Ambassador Sondland said that they probably discussed the issue of investigations. At lunch right after that with Mr. Holmes and tow other state department officers, Ambassador Sondland pulled out his cell phone and called President Trump. Somewhat shocked, Mr. Holmes recounted the conversation that followed. “I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote “loves your ass.” Un quote. I then heard President ask “So he’s going to do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that he is gong to do it, adding the President Zelensky will do “anything you ask him to do.”

After the call, Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Holmes that President Trump did not give a bleep about Ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the President himself, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. To repeat, and this is very important, Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump before the July 25th call with President Zelensky and relayed to Ukrainian officials President Trump’s requirement of political investigations in exchange for a White House meeting.

And during that call, President Trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the Ukrainian President brought up U.S. military support for Ukraine, which President Trump had recently suspended or put on hold. And at the end of the call, President Zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that President Trump requested and the White House meeting that President Zelensky desperately wanted.

And then the following day, Ambassador Sondland confirmed to President Trump on the telephone in person, that the Ukrainians would indeed initiate the investigations discussed on the call, which was the only thing about Ukraine that President Trump cared about.

Now, it’s very important to understand that this investigation revealed that the July 25th call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to use the powers of his office for personal political gain. And you have to look at all of the evidence in context, as a whole. Prior to the call, the President had removed the former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, to clear the way for his three handpicked agents to spearhead his corrupt agenda in Ukraine, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker, all of whom attended President Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20th. All political appointees, they proved to be more than willing to engage in what Dr. Hill later described as an “improper domestic political errand for the President.”

On April 21, President Zelensky won the Ukrainian election with 73 percent of the vote. And he had two primary platforms. To resolve the war in the East with Russia and to root out corruption. That same day, President Trump called to congratulate him on his win. Even though the White House press release following the call stated that President Trump expressed his shared commitment to quote “Root out corruption” un quote, President Trump in fact did not mention corruption at all on this call, just like he did not mention corruption on the July 25th call.

Shortly after this call, President Trump asked Vice President Mike Pence to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration. But on May 13, President Trump did an about face and directed Vice President Pence not to attend. An advisor to Vice President Pence testified that the inauguration had not yet been scheduled and therefore the reason for the abrupt change of plans was not related to any scheduling issues.

So what had happened in the three weeks between April 21 and May 13 when Vice President Pence was originally invited and then disinvited or removed from the delegation? A few things. First, on April 25th, Vice President Biden formally announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Then about a week later on May 3, President Trump spoke with President Putin on the telephone. One Senior State Department official testified that the conversation between President Trump and President Putin included a discussion of Ukraine. Third, on May 9th, Mr. Giuliani told the New York Times that he intended to travel to Ukraine on behalf of his client, President Trump, in order to quote “Meddle in an investigation” un quote.

But after public backlash and apparent pushback from the Ukrainians, Mr. Giuliani canceled his trip the next day, claiming the President Zelensky was surrounded by enemies of President Trump.

At a critical May 23 meeting in the Oval Office, President Trump said that Ukraine was corrupt and tried to take him down in 2016. The same false narrative pushed by President Putin and Mr. Giuliani. And in order for the White House meeting to occur, President Trump told the delegation they must talk to Rudy to get the visit scheduled.

These comments from President Trump were the first of many subsequent indications that in his mind, corruption equals investigations. In the weeks and months following, Mr. Giuliani relayed to both Ukrainian officials and the government officials that President Trump had designated at the May 23 meeting to take a lead on Ukraine policy. The directive from President Trump that a White House meeting would not occur until Ukraine announced the two political investigations that President Trump required. And well before the July 25th call, Ambassador Sondland and Volker also relayed this quid pro quo to the Ukrainians, including to President Zelensky himself.

Ambassador Volker conveyed the message directly to President Zelensky at the beginning of July, urging him to reference investigations associated with the Giuliani factor with President Trump. And in meetings at the White House on July 10, Ambassador Sondland told other U.S. officials and two of President Zelensky’s advisors, including Mr. Yermak, that he had an agreement with acting Chief of Staff Mich Mulvaney that the White House visit would be scheduled if Ukraine announced the investigations.

One witness testified that during the second of the meetings, Ambassador Sondland began to review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting, referring to an investigation of the Bidens. The witness told the committee that the request was explicit. There was no ambiguity. And then Ambassador Sondland also mentioned Burisma, a major Ukrainian energy company that Hunter Biden sat on the board of.

To the witnesses that testified before the committee, the references to Burisma was shorthand for an investigation into the Bidens. Ambassador Bolton as well as his staff members, objected to this meeting for an investigations trade. And Ambassador Bolton told Dr. Hill “You go and tell Eisenberg, John Eisenberg, the Legal Advisor for the National Security Council. That I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go ahead and tell him what you’ve heard and what I’ve said.”

Yet this was not a rogue operation by Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Sondland and Volker. As Ambassador Sondland testified, everyone was in the loop, including Mr. Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry and their top advisors. On July 19th, Ambassador Sondland emailed Mr. Mulvaney, Secretary Perry, Secretary Pompeo and others after speaking with President Zelensky. The subject was “I talked to Zelensky just now.”

And Ambassador Sondland wrote “He is prepared to receive POTUS’ call.” POTUS is the President of the United States. “We’ll assure him the he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will quote ‘turn over every stone’ un quote.” Both Secretary Perry and Chief of Staff Mulvaney quickly responded to the email, noting that given that conversation, a date would soon be set to schedule the White House telephone call.

The evidence also unambiguously shows that the Ukrainians understood this quid pro quo and had serious reservations, particularly because President Zelensky had won the election on an anti-corruption platform. In fact, a few days before the July 25th call, Ambassador William Taylor, the acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and the former permanent Ambassador to Ukraine, texted Ambassador Sondland and Volker. Or rather, he stated in his testimony “On July 20th, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Danyliuk, during which he conveyed to me that President Zelensky did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign.”

But President Trump’s pressure campaign on President Zelensky did not relent. And just four days later, President Zelensky received that message via Kurt Volker, that he needed to convince President Trump that he would do the investigations in order to get that White House meeting. And as I have described, President Zelensky tried to do exactly that on the July 25th call with President …

He tried to do exactly that on the July 25th call with President Trump. In the weeks following the July 25th call, President Zelensky headed President Trump’s request sending his top aid, Mr. Yermak to Madrid to meet with Mr. Giuliani in coordination with Mr. Giuliani and the President Trump’s handpicked representatives. They continued this pressure campaign to secure a public announcement of the investigations. Now, according to Ambassador Sondland, and this is very important, President Trump did not require that Ukraine actually conduct the investigations as a prerequisite for the White House meeting. Instead, the Ukrainian government needed only to publicly announce the investigations.

It is clear that the goal was not the investigations themselves or not any corruption that those investigations might’ve entailed, but the political benefit that President Trump would enjoy from an announcement of investigations into his 2020 political rival and against a unanimous assessment that showed that he received foreign support in the 2016 election. For that reason, the facts didn’t actually matter to President Trump because he only cared about the personal and political benefit from the announcement of the investigation. Over the next couple of weeks, Ambassador Sondland and Volcker worked with President Trump’s aid, Mr Yermak to draft a statement for President Zelensky to issue.

When the aid proposed a statement that did not include specific references to the investigations that President Trump wanted, the Burisma and Biden investigation and the 2016 election investigation, Mr Giuliani relayed that that would not be good enough to get a White House meeting. And here you can see a comparison on the left of the original statement drafted by Mr. Yermak, the top aid to President Zelensky, and on the right, a revised statement with Mr. Giuliani’s requirements. It says we intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, and here’s the critical difference, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 US elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.

The only difference in the statement that Giuliani required and the statement that the Ukrainians had drafted was this reference to the two investigations that President Trump wanted and told President Zelensky about on the July 25th call. Now, ultimately, President Zelensky’s administration temporarily shelved this announcement though efforts to press Ukraine would remain ongoing. By mid August, Ukraine did not make a public announcement of the investigations that President Trump required, and as a result, no White House meeting was scheduled. But by this time the president was pushing on another pressure point to coerce Ukraine to announce the investigations, the hold on the vital military assistance that the president had put in place for more than a month and still without any explanation to any of the policy experts.

Our investigation revealed that a number of Ukrainian officials had made quiet inquiries to various US officials about the aid as early as July 25th the day of the phone call. Inquiries by Ukrainian officials continued in the weeks that followed until the hold was revealed at the end of August. But this is important. It was important for the Ukrainian officials to keep it quiet because if it became public, then Russia would know that the US support for Ukraine might be on ice. So by the end of that month, the evidence revealed several facts. One, the president demanded that Ukraine publicly announced two politically motivated investigations to benefit his reelection. Two, A coveted white house meeting was expressly conditioned on Ukraine announcing those investigations. Three, President Trump had placed a hold on vital military assistance to Ukraine without any explanation and not withstanding the uniform support for that assistance from the relevant federal agencies and Congress.

Ambassador Taylor testified that this quid pro quo between the investigations President Trump wanted and the security assistance that President Trump needed was crazy. And he told Ambassador Sondland, “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Now, in an effort to move the White House meeting and the military aid along, Ambassador Sondland wrote an email to Secretary Pompeo on August 22nd. He wrote, “Mike, should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull aside for POTUS to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place, parentheses, mid September, Ze, President Zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to POTUS and to the US. Hopefully that will break the logjam. Ambassador Sondland testified that this was a reference to the political investigations that President Trump discussed on the July 25th call, which Secretary Pompeo ultimately admitted to that he listened to in real time.

Ambassador Sondland hoped that this would help lift the logjam, which he meant the hold on critical security assistance to Ukraine and the White House meeting. And what was Secretary Pompeo’s response three minutes later, “Yes.” After the hold on, military assistance became public on August 28th, senior Ukrainian officials expressed grave concern, deeply worried of course about the practical impact on their efforts to fight Russian aggression, but also, and this goes back to why it remained confidential, also about the public message that it sent to the Russian government. On September 1st at a pre-briefing with Vice President Pence before he met with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland raised the issue of the hold on security assistance. He said, “I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations.”

Vice President Pence simply nodded in response expressing neither surprise nor dismay at the linkage between the two. And following Vice President Pence’s meeting with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland went over to Mr. Yermak again, President Zelensky’s top aide and pulled him aside to explain that the hold on security assistance was also now conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma, Biden, and the 2016 election interference investigations. Ambassador Sondland then explained to Ambassador Taylor that he had previously made a mistake in telling Ukrainian officials that only the White House meeting was conditioned on a public announcement of the political investigations beneficial to President Trump.

In truth, everything, the White House meeting and the vital security assistance to Ukraine was now conditioned on the public announcement. President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box, a private commitment was not good enough. Nearly one week later on September 7th, the hold remained and President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke on the phone. The president immediately told Ambassador Sondland that there was no quid pro quo, but, and this is very important, President Zelensky would still be required to announce the investigations in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted, and he should want to do it.

In effect, this is the equivalent of saying there is no quid pro quo, no this for that, before then demanding precisely that quid pro quo. And immediately after this phone call with President Trump, this was the precise message that Ambassador Sondland passed directly to President Zelensky. According to Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to Presidents Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. And I understood a stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance.

Needing the military assistance and hoping for the White House meeting, President Zelensky finally relented to President Trump’s pressure campaign and arrangements were soon made for the Ukrainian president to make a statement during an interview on CNN where he would make a public announcement of the two investigations that President Trump wanted in order for President Zelensky to secure the White House meeting and for Ukraine to get that much needed military assistance. And although there is no doubt that President Trump had ordered the military aid held up until the Ukrainians committed to the investigations, on October 17th acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney confirmed in public that there was such a quid pro quo. Let’s watch what he said.

Mick Mulvaney: (41:53)
Those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. Now, there was a report-

Speaker 1: (42:05)
So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (42:12)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

There you have it. By early September, the president’s scheme was unraveling. On September 9th, the intelligence oversight and foreign affairs committees announced an investigation into President Trump and Mr. Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine. And later that same day, the intelligence committee learned that a whistleblower had filed a complaint nearly a month earlier related to some unknown issue, but which the president and the White House knew was related to Ukraine and had been circulating among them for some time. And then two days later on September 11th in the face of growing public and congressional scrutiny, President Trump lifted the hold on security assistance to Ukraine.

As with the implementation of the hold, no reason was provided. Put simply, President Trump got caught, so he released the aid. But even since this investigation began, the president has demonstrated no contrition or acknowledgement that his demand for a foreign country to interfere in our election is wrong. In fact, he has repeatedly called on Ukraine to investigate Vice President Biden, his rival. These and other actions by the president and his associates demonstrate that his determination to solicit foreign interference in our election continues today. It did not end with Russia’s support for Trump in 2016, which President Trump invited by asking for his opponent to be hacked by Russia. And it did not end when his Ukrainian scheme was exposed in September of this year.

President Trump also engaged once this investigation began in an unprecedented effort to obstruct the inquiry, and I look forward to answering your questions about that unprecedented obstruction. But in conclusion, I want to say that the intelligence committee has produced to you a nearly 300-page report, and I am grateful that you have offered me the opportunity today to walk you through some of the evidence underlying it. Admittedly, it is a lot to digest, but let me just say this. The president’s scheme is actually quite simple and the facts are not seriously in dispute. It can be boiled down to four key takeaways. First that President Trump directed a scheme to pressure Ukraine into opening two investigations that would benefit his 2020 reelection campaign and not the US national interest.

Second, President Trump used his official office and the official tools of US foreign policy, the withholding of an oval office meeting and $391 million in security assistance to pressure Ukraine into meeting his demands. Third, everyone was in the loop, his chief of staff, the secretary of state, and vice president. And forth, despite the public discovery of this scheme, which prompted the president to release the aid, he has not given up. He and his agents continue to solicit Ukrainian interference in our election causing an imminent threat to our elections and our national security.

Part 1

The committee will reconvene when we recess. We’re about to hear from Mr. Caster. Mr. Caster, you are recognized for 45 minutes.

Afternoon, chairman, ranking member Collins, members of the committee, members of the staff. Thank you again for having me back and giving me the opportunity to testify about the evidence gathered during our impeachment inquiry. At the outset, let me say that the evidence does not support the allegations that my Democrat colleagues have made. I don’t believe the evidence leads to the conclusions they suggest. I’m hopeful to add some important perspective and context to the facts under discussion today.

The chief allegation that the Democrat’s impeachment inquiry has been trying to assess over the last 76 days is this: Whether President Trump abused the power of his office through a quid pro quo bribery, 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 secondary allegation that has been levied is whether President Trump obstructed Congress during the inquiry. The evidence obtained during the inquiry does not support either of those allegations. The Republican report of evidence lays out the reasons in more detail, but I will summarize. I will begin with the substantive allegation about an abuse of power. The inquiry has returned no direct evidence that President Trump withheld a meeting or security assistance in order to pressure President Zelensky to investigate former VP Biden. Witnesses who testified in the inquiry have denied having awareness of criminal activity or even an impeachable offense. On the key question of the President’s state of mind, there is no clear evidence that President Trump acted with malicious intent.

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

I’ll make a few points that seem to have gone under noticed. The call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or conditionality. President Zelensky vocalized no concerns with the subject matters discussed, and there is no indication of bribery, extortion, or other illegal conduct on the call. The call summary shows President Trump and President Zelensky engaged in pleasantries and cordialities. The call summary reveals laughter. Simply put, the call is not the sinister mob shakedown that some Democrats have described. President Trump raised his concerns about European allies paying their fair share and security assistance to Ukraine, a concern that President Trump would continue to raise both publicly and privately. There is no discussion on the call, I repeat no discussion on the call, about the upcoming 2020 election or security sectors assistance to Ukraine.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

Other senior Ukrainian government officials confirmed President Zelensky’s statements. Foreign minister Prystaiko said on September 21st, ” I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure.” Oleksandr Danylyuk, who was then secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Counsel told Ambassador Bill Taylor on the night of the call that the Ukrainian government was not disturbed by anything on the call. President Trump, of course, has also said that he did not pressure President Zelensky. On September 25th, President Trump said there was no pressure when asked if he wanted President Zelensky to do more to investigate the former VP, President Trump responded, “No, I want him to do whatever he can. Whatever he he can do in terms of corruption, because corruption is massive. That’s what he should do.”

Several witnesses attested to the president’s concerns about Ukrainian corruption. The initial readouts of the July 25th call from both the Ukrainian government and the state department raised no concerns. Although Lieutenant Colonel Veneman noted concerns, those concerns were not shared by National Security Council leadership. They were not shared by General Keith Kellogg who listened on the call. Lieutenant General Kellogg said in a statement, “I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.” Lieutenant Colonel Veneman superior, Tim Morrison, testified that he was concerned the call would leak and be misused in Washington’s political process, but he did not believe that anything discussed on the call was illegal or improper.

Much has also been made about President Trump’s reference on the July 25th call to Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company and the actions of certain Ukrainian officials in the run up to the 2016 election. Democrats dismissed these conspiracy theories to suggest that the president has no legitimate reason other than his own political interests to raise these issues with President Zelensky. The evidence, however, shows that there are legitimate questions about both issues. With respect to Burisma, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that the company had a reputation for corruption. The company was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky who served as Ukraine’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. When Zlochevsky served in that role, his company Burisma received oil exploration licenses without public auctions. Burisma brought Hunter Biden onto its board of directors, according to the New York Times, as part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces, but by officials in the Obama administration. George can’t testify about these efforts. Hunter Biden reportedly received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month as compensation for his position on Burisma’s board. At the time that Hunter Biden joined the board, his father, the former VP, was the Obama administration’s point person for Ukraine. Biden has no specific corporate governance expertise and we don’t believe he speaks Ukrainian or Russian. We don’t believe he moved there. So he’s getting this gigantic paycheck for what? The Washington Post wrote at the time of Biden’s appointment to Burisma’s board that it looked nepotistic at best and the Washington Post said, The Washington Post, “Nefarious at worst.” According to the Wall Street Journal, anti-corruption activists in Ukraine also raised concerns that the former VP’s son received money from Zlochevsky and worried that that would mean Zlochevsky would be protected and not prosecuted.

Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted Hunter Biden’s role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. Lieutenant Colonel Veneman testified that Hunter Biden did not appear qualified to serve on Burisma’s board. Witnesses testified that Hunter Biden’s role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise. In fact, George can’t explain that in 2015, he raised a concern to the office of former Vice President Biden at Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board presented a potential conflict of interest. However, Hunter Biden’s role did not change and former Vice President Biden continued to lead US policy in Ukraine. On this record, there is a legitimate basis for President Trump to have concern about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board.

The prospect that some senior Ukrainian officials worked against President Trump in the run up to the 2016 election draws an even more visceral reaction from most Democrats. Let me say very, very clearly that election interference is not binary. I’m not saying that it was Ukraine and not Russia. I am saying that both countries can work to influence an election. A systemic coordinated Russian interference effort does not mean that some Ukrainian officials, some Ukrainian officials, did not work to oppose President Trump’s candidacy, did not make statements against President Trump during the election. Ambassador Volker testified in his public hearing that it is possible for more than one country to seek influence in US elections. Dr. Hill testified likewise at her public hearing.

Contemporaneous news articles in 2016 noted how President Trump’s candidacy led Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before intervene, however indirectly, in a US election. In August, 2016 the Ukrainian ambassador to the US published an oped in the Hill criticizing candidate Trump. Other senior Ukrainian officials called candidate Trump a clown and other words. They alleged that he challenged the very values of the free world. One prominent Ukrainian parliamentarian explained that the majority of Ukraine’s political figures were on Hillary Clinton’s side. A January 2017 Politico article lays out in more detail efforts by the Ukrainian government officials to oppose President Trump’s candidacy. The article notes how Ukraine work to sabotage the Trump campaign by publicly questioning his fitness for office. The article detailed how a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American contractor paid by the DNC and working with the DNC and the Clinton campaign, traded information and leads about the Trump campaign with the staff at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington. Chalupa explained how the Ukrainian embassy worked directly with reporters to point 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 that 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 Ukraine’s long profound history of endemic corruption. Several witnesses in the inquiry have testified about these problems. Ambassador Marie Evanovich, for example, said Ukraine’s corruption is not just prevalent, but frankly is the system. Witnesses testified to having firsthand knowledge that President Trump is deeply skeptical of Ukraine due to its corruption dating back years, and that this skepticism contributed to President Trump’s initial hesitancy to meet with President Zelensky. Ambassador Volker testified, so I know he had a very deep rooted skeptical view and my understanding at the time was that even though he agreed in the meeting that we had with him and say, okay, “I’ll invite him, I’ll invite him.” “He didn’t really want to do it,” Volker said, “and that’s why the meeting kept getting delayed.”

Another relevant set of facts here is the effort of some Ukrainian officials to approach President Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election. Some of these Ukrainian politicians initially remained in government when President Zelensky took over. Witnesses testified that these Ukrainian efforts in 2016 colored how President Trump viewed Ukraine. It’s also important to note that President Zelensky was a relatively unknown quantity for US policymakers. Ambassador Evanovich called him an untried politician. Dr. Hill testified that there were concerns within the National Security Council about Zelensky’s relationship with Igor Kolomoisky, a controversial oligarch in Ukraine. Although President Zelensky ran on a reform platform, President Zelensky appointed Kolomoisky’s lawyer, Mr. Bogdan as his chief of staff. Both ambassador Volker and Senator Ron Johnson noted that this appointment raised concerns. These facts are important in assessing the president’s state of mind and understanding whether President Zelensky was truly committed to fighting corruption in Ukraine.

The evidence shows the President Trump invited President Zelensky to meet at the White House on three separate occasions, all without any conditions. The first was on April 21st during the initial congratulatory phone call. The second was via letter on May 29th. This letter followed an Oval Office meeting on May 23rd with the US Delegation to the inauguration. During this meeting, President Trump again expressed his skepticism about Ukraine. Ambassador Volker recalled the president saying, “These are terrible people and a corrupt country.” Ambassadors Sondland similarly testified that Ukraine, in the president’s view, tried to take them down in the 2016 election. Senator Ron Johnson confirmed this testimony in his submission to the impeachment inquiry.

Finally the third time that President Trump invited Zelensky to meet, again without any preconditions, was during the July 25th phone call. Although sometime time passed between May 2019 when the president formally invited Zelensky to meet and September 25th when the presidents met, the evidence does not show that the Ukrainian government felt additional pressure due to this delay. To the contrary, Ambassador Volker testified that the Ukrainian regime felt pretty good about its relationship with the Trump administration in this period. During those four months, senior Ukrainian government officials had at least nine meetings or phone calls with President Trump, Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, National Security Advisor Bolton and US ambassadors.

The evidence does not support a conclusion that President Trump conditioned to meeting with President Zelensky on investigating former Vice President Biden. Mr. Yermak, President Zelensky’s close advisor, said that explicitly in an August, 2019 New York Times story which was published before the beginning of the impeachment inquiry. In this article, Yermak said that he and Mayor Giuliani did not discuss a link between a presidential meeting and investigations. Witness testimony confirms Yermak’s statement. Ambassador Volker testified there was no linkage between a potential meeting and investigations. Although Ambassador Sondland testified that he believed there was a quid pro quo, his testimony is not as clear as it has been portrayed. In his deposition, Ambassador Sondland testified that he believed the meeting was conditioned on a public anti corruption statement, not on investigations themselves. A distinction that during his deposition he was keen to note, Ambassador Sondland said then that nothing about the request raised any red flags. In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland clarified that he had no firsthand knowledge of any linkage coming from the president and never discussed any preconditions with the president. He merely presumed there were preconditions. I’d also like to address the July 10th meeting and Ambassador Bolton’s office with two senior Ukrainian officials. Allow me to submit that here too there is conflicting evidence about the facts. Both Dr. Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Veneman testified that Ambassador Sondland raised investigations during this meeting causing Ambassador Bolton to abruptly end the meeting. Dr. Hill testified she confronted Ambassador Sondland over his discussion about investigations. Ambassador Sondland’s testimony about this meeting however, is scattered. In his closed door deposition, he testified that no National Security staff member ever once expressed concerns to him that he was acting improperly. He denied that he raised investigations during this meeting. But when he came here to testify in public, he acknowledged for the first time that he raised investigations, but he denied that the meeting ended abruptly. He maintained that Dr. Hill never raised concerns to him and that any discussion of investigations did not mention anything specific such as Biden or 2016.

Let me lastly address the allegation that President Trump directed Vice President Pence not to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration as another way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. Jennifer Williams, a senior advisor in the office of the Vice President, testified that a colleague, she said it was the Chief of Staff’s assistant, told her, the Chief of Staff’s assistant, that President Trump had directed Vice President Pence not to attend the inauguration. However, Williams had no firsthand knowledge of any such direction or the reasons given for any such direction. If indeed such a direction was given, it’s not clear from the evidence why it was done because the Vice President’s office was juggling other potential trips during that time and the Ukrainian parliament scheduled the election on an extremely short timeframe. It was just four days notice. Williams explained that there was a window, there was a window of dates May 30th through June 1st during which the Vice President could attend the inauguration, and that was communicated. And that if it wasn’t one of those dates, it would be difficult or impossible to attend the inauguration.

Separately, the office of the Vice President was also planning an unrelated trip to Canada to promote the USMCA during the same window. The USMCA was and still is a significant priority for the administration. Vice President Pence has done a number of public events in support of it. President Trump was also planning foreign travel during this time period. As Dr. Hill testified, both President Trump and Vice President Pence cannot both be out of the country at the same time. Williams explained that these factors created a narrow window for the Vice President’s participation in the inauguration.

Dr. Hill testified that she had no knowledge that the Vice President was directed not to attend. On May 16th, the outgoing Ukrainian parliament scheduled the inauguration for May 20th, only four days later. May 20th was not one of the three dates that Vice President Pence’s office had provided for his availability. Williams testified that, “This early date surprised the Vice President’s office because we weren’t expecting the Ukrainians to look at that time frame.” George Kent at the state department said that, “This short notice from the Ukrainians forced the state department to scramble to find a US official to lead the delegation.”

Finally, settling on Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry. On May 20th, the date of President Zelensky’s inauguration, Vice President Pence was in Jacksonville, Florida for an event promoting USMCA. Finally on September 25th, President Trump and President Zelensky met during the United Nations General Assembly. The two met without Ukraine ever taking action on investigations and according to Ambassador Taylor, there was no discussion of investigations during this meeting.

I will now turn to the second assertion that President Trump withheld taxpayer funded security assistance to Ukraine as a way of pressuring Zelensky to conduct these investigations. Here too context is critically important. President Trump has been skeptical of foreign assistance in general and believes quite strongly that our European allies should share more of the burden for regional defense. That’s an assertion he made the campaign trail. It’s something he’s raised consistently since. It’s also important to note that US security assistance is conditioned to countries around the world and that USAID, including aid to Ukraine, has been temporarily paused in the past for various reasons and even for no reason at all. Ambassador Volker testified the 55 day pause on security assistance did not strike him as uncommon and that the pause was not significant. Dr. Hill and state department official, Catherine Croft both testified that security assistance to Ukraine specifically had been temporarily paused in the past.

In fact, Ambassador David Hale, under Secretary of State for political affairs, the third most senior person at the state department, testified that the National Security Council had launched a review of US foreign assistance across the world to make sure taxpayer dollars were spent in the national interest and to advance the principle of burden sharing by our allies. Dr. Hill testified that as she was leaving the NSC in July, there had been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance. She said, “There had been more scrutiny on security assistance as a result.”

Another important data point is President Trump’s willingness to take a stronger stance in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression compared to the previous administration. Several witnesses testified the President Trump’s willingness to provide Ukraine with lethal defensive assistance, javelin anti-tank missiles was a substantial improvement, a stronger policy, and a significant decision. When we discuss Democrat allegations that President Trump withheld vital security assistant dollars from Ukraine, we should also remember that it was President Trump and not President Obama who provided Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons.

I make all of these points here because there are relevant pieces of information that bear on how the House should view the evidence in question. Although the security assistance was paused in July, the evidence is virtually silent on the definitive reason for the pause. In fact, the only direct evidence of the reason for the pause comes from OMB official Mark Sandy, who testified that he-

For the pause, comes from OMB official, Mark Sandy, who testified that he learned in September that the pause was related to the president’s concern about other countries contributing more to Ukraine. He explained how OMB received requests for information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine, which OMB provided in the first week of September. The aid, of course, was released September 11th. Several witnesses have testified that security assistance was not linked to Ukraine’s investigations. Ambassador Volker’s testimony is particularly relevant on this point, because he was a key intermediary with Ukrainian government, and someone who they trusted and sought for advice. Ambassador Volker testified that he was aware of no quid pro quo, and the Ukrainians never raised such concerns to him. When Ambassador Taylor raised the possibility of a quid pro quo to Ambassador Volker, Volker said he replied, “There’s no linkage here.” During his deposition, Chairman Schiff tried to pin him down on this point, but Ambassador Volker was clear, there was no connection.

In his public testimony. Ambassador Volker reiterated there was no linkage. Similarly, George Kent at the State Department said he did not associate aid to investigations, and he relayed how Ambassador Taylor told him that Tim Morrison and Ambassador Sondland also believed the two were not linked. Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, as we have seen already, is a bit more scattered. In his deposition, he said that he was never aware of preconditions on security assistance, or that the security assistance was tied to investigations. Ambassador Sondland then later provided a written statement, supplementing his deposition, in which he explained for the first time, that in the absence of any clear explanation, he presumed a link between security assistance and anti-corruption statement were linked. Ambassador Sondland also tested in his written supplement that he likely voiced this concern to Mr. Yermak, a close advisor of President Zelensky on September 1st in Warsaw.

Mr. Yermak, however, in a subsequent news account published on November 22nd, disputed Ambassadors Sondland’s account, and said he doesn’t remember any reference to the military aid. In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland reiterated that his testimony was based on a presumption, acknowledging to Congressman Turner, that no one on the planet told him that security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on investigations. Ambassador Taylor is the other relevant actor here. He testified in his deposition that he had a clear understanding that Ukraine would not receive security assistance until President Zelensky committed to the investigations. However, in his public testimony, Ambassador Taylor acknowledged that his clear understanding came from Ambassador Sondland, who was merely presuming that there was a link. President Trump, too, rejected any linkage between security assistance to Ukraine and investigations. The president’s statements in this regard, ought to be persuasive, because he made the same statement in two separate private conversations with two different U.S. officials 10 days apart.

There would be no reason for the president to be anything less than candid during these private conversations. On August 31st, President Trump spoke by phone with Senator Johnson, who was traveling to Ukraine in the coming days, and sought the president’s permission to tell President Zelensky that the security assistance would be forthcoming. President Trump responded that he was not ready to do that, citing Ukrainian corruption and burden sharing among European allies. When Senator Johnson raised the potential linkage between security assistance and investigation, President Trump vehemently denied any connection, saying, “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” In closing the call, President Trump told Senator Johnson that we’re reviewing it now, referring to this security assistance. “And guess what? You’ll probably like my final decision.” He told that to Senator Johnson on August 31st. This statement strongly suggests that President Trump was already leaning toward lifting the aid. Separately, on September 9th, President Trump spoke by phone with Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland asked the president, “What do you want from Ukraine?” President Trump responded, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”

In addition, senior Ukrainian government officials denied any awareness of a linkage between U.S. security assistance and investigations. These denials are persuasive because if there was, in fact, an orchestrated scheme to pressure Ukraine by withholding security assistance, one would think the pause on security assistance would have been clearly communicated to the Ukrainians. Foreign Minister Prystaiko told the media in November, following news of Ambassador Sondland’s written supplemental testimony, that Sondland never linked security assistance to investigations. Prystaiko said, “I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance.” Although there is some testimony that Ukrainian officials from the embassy in Washington, made informal inquiries to the State Department and Defense Department about these issues with security assistance in July and August, the evidence does not show President Zelensky or his senior advisors in Kiev, were aware of the pause, until it was publicly reported by Politico on August 28th.

A subsequent news article explained the conflicting testimony that embassy officials in Washington had made informal inquiries about issues with the aid, while senior officials Kiev denied awareness of the pause. The article explained that then Ukrainian Ambassador Chaly, who was appointed by President Zelensky’s predecessor, went rogue, and did not inform President Zelensky that there was any issue with the aid. According to the news account, President Zelensky and his senior team only learned of a pause when it was reported on August 28th. As Ambassador Volker testified, because senior Ukrainian officials were unaware of the pause, there was no leverage implied. The actions of senior Ukrainian government officials while the security assistance was paused, reinforces a conclusion that they did not know the aide was on hold. In the 55 days during which the security assistance was paused, President Zelensky had five discussions with U.S. senior officials. On the July 25th, he spoke with President Trump on the phone.

July 26th he met with Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Sondland in Kiev. On August 27th, he met with Ambassador Bolton. September 1st, he met with Vice President Pence in Warsaw, and on September 5th, he met with Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Chris Murphy in Kiev. In none of these meetings, did President Zelensky raise any concern about linkage between security assistance and investigations. In particular, the September 5th meeting with Senator Johnson and Senator Murphy is notable because they’re not part of the Trump Administration, and President Zelensky could be candid with them. What did occur during those 55 days, were historic efforts by Ukraine’s parliament called the Rada to implement anticorruption reform.

“Vice President Pence had pressed President Zelensky about these reforms during their September 1st meeting. In their depositions, Ambassador Taylor lauded President Zelesky’s rapid reforms and National Security Council Official Morrison testified that during a meeting in Kiev, they noted that everyone on the Ukrainian side of the table was exhausted because they’d been up all night working on these reforms. On September 11th, President Trump discussed the matter with Vice President Pence, Senator Portman, and acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney. According to Tim Morrison’s testimony, they discussed whether Ukraine’s progress on anticorruption reform was enough to justify releasing the security assistance. Morrison testified that Vice President Pence was obviously armed with the conversation he had with President Zelensky, and they convinced the president that the aid should be dispersed immediately. The president then lifted the hold. And concluding this point, we have considerable evidence that President Trump was skeptical of Ukraine due to its corruption. We have evidence the president was skeptical of foreign assistance, in general, and that he believes strongly our allies should share the burden for regional defense.

We know the white house was reviewing foreign assistance, in general, to ensure it furthered U.S. interests, and that OMB research provided information about which foreign countries were contributing money to Ukraine. President Trump told Senator Johnson on August 31st, “We’re reviewing it now, and you’ll probably like my final decision.” He told Ambassador Sondland on September 9th, “I want Zelensky to do what he ran on.” President Zelensky, who ran on an anti-corruption platform, was an untried politician with ties to a potential controversial oligarch. Vice President Pence reiterated President Zelensky, that on September 1st, the need for reform was paramount. After President Zelensky passed historic anti-corruption reforms, the pause on security assistance was lifted, and the presidents met two weeks later. The Ukrainian government never took any action on investigations at issue in the impeachment inquiry. Much has been made about a so-called shadow, or irregular foreign policy apparatus, that President Trump is alleged to have orchestrated as a mechanism to force Ukraine to initiate investigations. The allegation is President Trump conspired to recall Ambassador Yovanovitch from Ukraine, so his agents could pursue a scheme to pressure Ukraine to conduct these investigations, but there are logical flaws with these arguments. First, every ambassador interviewed in the impeachment inquiry, acknowledged the president has an absolute right to recall ambassadors for any reason or no reason. It’s apparent that President Trump lost confidence in Ambassador Yovanovitch, and it’s simply not an abuse of power for him to recall her. Beyond that, the Trump Administration replaced Ambassador Yovanovitch with Ambassador Bill Taylor, who became one of the first State Department officials to voice concerns discussed during the course of our inquiry here. In fact, Ambassador Taylor played a prominent role in some of the hearings last month. If President Trump truly sought to remove Ambassador Yovanovitch as part of a nefarious plan, he certainly would not have replaced her with someone of the likes of Ambassador Bill Taylor.

Second, the three U.S. officials who comprise the so called shadow foreign policy apparatus, Ambassador Volker, Sondland, and Secretary Perry can hardly be called irregular, and certainly not outlandish. All were senior U.S. officials with official interest in Ukraine policy. The three kept the State Department and the NSC informed of their activities. Finally, there is evidence that Mayor Giuliani did not speak on behalf of the president. According to a news story on November 22nd, Mr. Yermak asked Ambassador Volker to connect him with Mayor Giuliani because the Zelensky team was surprised by the mayor’s negative comments about Ukraine. They wanted to change his mind. Both Ambassador Volker, in his deposition, and Yermak in an August New York times article, denied that Mayor Giuliani was speaking on behalf of President Trump as his agent. Instead, as Ambassador Volker explained, the Ukrainian government saw Giuliani as a conduit through which they could change the president’s mind.

The second allegation at issue, of course, is whether the president obstructed Congress by not agreeing to all the demands for documents and testimony. As somebody with experience with congressional investigations and I strongly believe in Congress’s article one authority, but this impeachment inquiry is departed drastically from past bipartisan precedents for presidential impeachment, as well as the fundamental tenants of fair and effective congressional oversight. First, process matters. The bipartisan Rodino-Hyde precedents guaranteed fundamental fairness and due process to the president. It allowed substantive minority participation and participation from the president’s council in the fact finding process. Neither aspect was present in here. Democrats denied us witnesses. Democrats voted down subpoenas we sought to issue for both documents and testimony, and I’ll note Democrats never brought to a committee vote any of the subpoenas that were issued. They were all tabled. Democrats direct the witnesses not to answer our questions, and these sorts of actions de-legitimized the inquiry, and do not give the witnesses or the president confidence that the inquiry is fair.

Second, the president or any potential witness to this impeachment inquiry should be allowed to raise defenses without it being used as an adverse inference against him. Courts have held that The Constitution mandates an accommodations process between the branches. For this reason, congressional oversight is a time-intensive endeavor. It certainly takes longer than 76 days. Here, however, the initial letters from the Democrats instructed potential witnesses that if they did not cooperate in full, it shall constitute evidence of obstruction. Democrats wanted all their demands honored immediately, and were unwilling to consider the executive branch’s privileges or defenses.

Finally, there is no basis for obstruction. The one witness who said he spoke to President Trump about his appearance as a witness, Ambassador Sondland, testified the president told him to cooperate and tell the truth. The president has declassified and released the call summary of his July 25th and April 21st calls with President Zelensky. The White House wrote to Speaker Pelosi to say that it was willing to cooperate further if the House returned to a well-established, bipartisan, Constitutional-based impeachment process. As we know, these protections were never afforded. In closing, I’d like to briefly address the Democrats’ narrative as articulated in their report. The Democrat narrative virtually ignores any evidence that’s not helpful for their case. It ignores, for instance, that Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that he presented, that there was a quid pro quo, and it ignores the many public statements made by Ukrainian officials.

The report presents a story as if the evidence is clear, when in reality, it’s anything but. Democrats have gone to great lengths to gather information to build their case, and they’ve even obtained and released phone records relating to the communications of the president’s personal attorney, a reporter, and a member of Congress. There are additional phone records that have not yet been released, and our members remain concerned about the prospect of more phone records being released. There have been a lot of hyperbole and a lot of hysteria over the last three months about this inquiry and the underlying facts. I believe a lot of this can be traced back to the anonymous whistleblower complaint. I believe the whistleblower reframed a lot of the facts at issue, and caused witnesses in the inquiry to recast their views. And it’s unfortunate that we haven’t been able to interview the whistleblower.

Finally, some have likened the impeachment inquiry to a special prosecutor’s investigation. If one accepts that comparison, one should also expect that, like Ken Starr and Robert Mueller, the chairman should testify. And our members, all the committees believe very strongly that Chairman Schiff should testify and answer questions. With that, Mr. Chairman, the time is yours.

The gentleman’s time has expired. We will now proceed to the first round of questions.

Point of order.

Gentleman will state his point of order.

Louie Gohmert: (45:56)
We’ve been told that counsel for the Democrats was a witness, and that’s why he didn’t have to comport with the rules of decorum. And now he’s sitting up here-

Gentleman will state a point of order.

I’ve been a judge, and I know that you don’t get to be a witness and a judge in the same case. That’s my point of order. He should not be up here.

It’s not a point of order. Pursuant to House Resolution 660 and it’s accompanying judiciary committee procedures, there’ll be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman, or majority council, followed by 45 minutes by the ranking member, or minority council. Only the chair and ranking member, and their respective councils, may question witnesses during this period. Following that, unless I specify additional equal time for extending questioning, we will proceed under the five minute rule, and every member will have the chance to ask questions. I now recognize myself for the first round of questions. The Republican’s expert witness last week, Professor Turley, wrote in an article that, quote, “There is no question that the use of public office for personal gain is an impeachable offense, including the withholding of military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political opponent. You just have to prove it happened.” Close quote. That was Mr. Turley’s comment. Now Mr. Goldman, did the investigative committees conclude that the evidence proved that the president used his public office for personal gain?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

And in fact, finding of fact five said, “President Trump used the power of the office of the president to apply increasing pressure on the president of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically motivated investigations desired by President Trump.” And did the evidence also prove that President Trump withheld military aid in exchange for an announcement of an investigation of his political opponent?

Yes, it did.

In fact-finding of fact 5B said, quote, “President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he has suspended to Ukraine on the president of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.” And did the evidence demonstrate that President Trump undermined the national security interests of the United States?

Yes, in several ways.

And finding of fact six said, “In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote, or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the president sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations, lacking legitimate predication that the U.S. government otherwise discourages and opposes, as a matter of policy in that country in and around the world. In so doing, the present undermined U.S. policy supporting anti-corruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine, and undermined U S national security.” And did the evidence also show that President Trump compromised the national security of the United States?

Yes.

In fact-finding of fact seven said, “By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.” And did the evidence prove that President Trump engaged in a scheme to cover up his conduct and obstruct congressional investigators?

Yes, right from the outset.

And in fact-finding of fact nine says, “Using the power of the office of the president and exercising his authority over the executive branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct for the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry.” Finally, the constitutional scholars from our hearing last week testified that the president’s conduct toward Ukraine, and pattern of inviting foreign election interference was a continuing risk to our free and fair elections. Did the evidence prove that President Trump was a threat to our elections?

Yes, it did, Mr. Chairman.

And in fact-finding of fact eight says, “Faced with a revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the president will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.” Close quote. I would add, in the next election. I now yield to my counsel, Mr. Berke, for additional questioning.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr Caster, as an experienced investigator, would you agree that it’s relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president’s state of mind that may help explain the president’s actions?

I think the evidence that we talked about show-

Use your mic please.

Sir, my only question to you is, is that a relevant thing to consider?

Right, like the call he had with Senator Johnson.

It’s relevant to consider. Sir, would you agree that Joe Biden was a leading democratic contender to face President Trump in 2020?

I wouldn’t agree with that.

You disagree with it? So sir, it’s your testimony-

It’s too early.

… that President Trump did not view President Biden to be a legitimate contender?

I don’t know what President Trump believed or didn’t believe, but it’s too early.

Sir, as part of your inquiry, did you determine whether President Trump tweeted at all about former Vice President Joe Biden between January and July 25th, and how many times?

I didn’t look at Twitter. I try to stay off Twitter lately.

Did you know President Trump tweeted about former Vice President Joe Biden over 25 times between January and July 25th?

I didn’t look at those tweets.

Did you look at how many times President Trump mentioned Vice President Biden in a speech or rally leading up to the July 25th call?

President Trump goes to a lot of rallies, he does a lot of tweeting. I think it’s pretty difficult to draw too many conclusions from his tweets or his statements at rallies.

Andy Biggs: (52:17)
Mr. Chairman, pardon my inquiry.

The Gentleman is not recognized for parliamentary inquiry.

Andy Biggs: (52:23)
Mr. Chairman, what is-

Gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman, Mr. Berke has the time.

We’re going to ignore the rules and allow [crosstalk 00:52:33] witnesses to ask the questions, then-

Gentleman will suspend.

… how many other rules are you just going to disregard?

Gentleman will suspend. Parliamentary inquiries are not in order at this time.

How about a point of order [crosstalk 00:52:45]? This is not appropriate to have a witness be a questioner of somebody that [crosstalk 00:52:51] was a witness when he was.

Gentleman will suspend.

It’s just wrong.

Gentleman will refrain from making-

Andy Biggs: (52:57)
Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry.

Gentleman will-

Well, I made a point of order, and you won’t rule on it.

I have not heard a point of order. If the gentleman has a state of point-

Andy Biggs: (53:04)
Mr. Chairman, point of order.

If the gentleman has a point of order, he will… State your point of order.

Andy Biggs: (53:08)
Yes, Mr. Chairman.

There is no rule nor precedent for anybody being a witness, and then getting to come up-

That is not a point of order.

… and question. And so-

I have ruled that is not-

The point of order is he’s inappropriate to be up here asking questions.

That is not a point of order. He’s here in accordance with Resolution 66-

How much money do you have to give to get to do that?

The gentleman will not cast dispersions on members of staff of the committee. Gentleman-

Andy Biggs: (53:33)
Mr. Chairman-

It was a legitimate question.

Mr. Berke has the time. Mr. Berke-

Andy Biggs: (53:45)
Is Mr. Berke a member of the committee?

Mr. Berke has the time. Mr. Berke has the time-

Andy Biggs: (53:45)
Mr. Chairman, I have a legitimate point of order.

Mr. Berke has the time.

Speaker 1: (53:47)
You have to recognize the point of order.

Point of order. The gentleman will state a point of order.

Speaker 1: (53:51)
This gentleman is presenting his opinions as a witness. He’s supposed to present the material facts-

Gentleman will state a point of order.

Speaker 1: (53:59)
… in the report, not to appear for his opinions. Is that right or not?

[inaudible 00:54:02] That is not a point of order. It is Mr. Berke’s time pursuant to rule 66-

Speaker 1: (54:08)
It’s inappropriate testimony to the committee.

I have ruled the gentleman has the time pursuant to rule 660.

Andy Biggs: (54:17)

Gentleman will state a point of order [crosstalk 00:54:20]. The gentleman will state a point of order if he has one.

Andy Biggs: (54:24)
Yes. The point of order is this. We operate by rules and if there’s nothing specifically in the rule permitting this, we go by precedent. It is unprecedented for a person to come and sit, who you’ve described as a witness to then return to the bench and begin questioning.

Gentleman has stated-

Andy Biggs: (54:43)
That is a point of order.

The gentleman has stated… Is that a point of order [inaudible 00:54:46]? It is not a cognizable point of order. I will point out that the gentleman has been designated by me to do this questioning, pursuant to House Resolution 660, which is part of the rules of the House. [crosstalk 00:55:03] It is in accordance with the rules of the House and the gentleman’s time will resume. Mr. Burke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Caster, you are aware that President Trump announced his candidacy for reelection in 2020, and he announced it the month before the July 25th call on June 21st?

Okay.

Did you look at that in your investigation, as part of looking at President Trump’s intent, and what he intended on the July 25th call?

I mean, he’s obviously running for reelection. What does the date he announced his intent to run for reelection matter?

And sir, you knew that president Biden had already announced his intent to run in April of that year too, correct?

It’s been related to me. I don’t know when Vice President Biden indicated he was going to run, as I sit here today.

So you would agree with me that if the Ukraine announced a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, that would hurt his credibility as a candidate. Would you agree with that basic principle, sir?

Well, nobody-

Yes or no sir? Would you agree with that principle?

Well, I slightly disagree with the premise of your question, because we’re talking about-

Sensenbrenner: (56:10)
Mr. Chairman, I object to the question that requests opinion-

Gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman has the floor.

I object to the question. Rule on whether the question is in order or not.

The question is in order. The question is in order, the gentlemen will continue.

Why?

The gentleman will continue. It’s his time.

Let’s get back to the fact that we’re talking about eight ambiguous lines in a call transcript. The president was not asking for a personal favor. He was speaking on behalf of the American people. He said, and I’ll read it, “I’d like you to find out what happened with the whole situation in Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike, I guess you have one of your wealthy people-”

Sir, I’m not asking you to read that. If you want to talk about the transcript, I want to talk to you about some… You said it’s eight lines. Let’s look at slide three, if we may, the reference to Biden. Sir, you see on the July 25th call, on page four, isn’t it the fact that President Trump in his call with President Zelensky said that he heard that former Vice President Joe Biden had stopped the prosecution of his son? Is that correct, sir? Yes or no?

It says the other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and-

That is correct. He said he stopped the prosecution.

Point of order. He’s entitled to answer the question fully, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman is not recognized.

There’s a video of the former VP. I think that’s what the president’s referring to. He was at the council on foreign relations, and the former VP was a little bit audacious in how he describes, he went over to the-

I’m only asking you what it says on the transcript. Is that what it says, sir?

It says.

… says, sir?

It says the other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son.

And that Biden stopped the prosecution. It says that, correct?

That’s what it says here, yes.

And then it also says, it goes on to say, President Trump asked President Zelensky if you can look into it, correct? Is that the words? If you can look into it, correct?

That’s what it says. And then he says it sounds horrible to me.

So President Trump, am I right, President Trump was asking Ukrainian President Zelensky to have the Ukrainian officials look into Vice President Joe Biden, correct? Is that correct, yes or no?

I don’t think the record supports that.

It doesn’t say can you look into it? President Trump is not asking him to-

I don’t think it supports that. I think it’s ambiguous.

Mr. Goldman, you’re an experienced federal prosecutor. I know that first hand. Is this President Trump asking President Zelensky to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden?

I don’t think there’s any other way to read the words on the page than to conclude that.

And Mr. Castor, you made the point… Let me ask you a question. As an experienced investigator is it your experience that when someone has done something wrongful or corrupt and they’re dealing with somebody who’s not in the scheme that they state they’re intentions to do something wrongful and corrupt? Is that your experience as an investigator?

Well, I mean, are you talking about the call transcript?

I’m just asking you in general.

In general?

In general.

You’re saying that the schemer-

Yes.

… would talk about his scheme?

Would he generally admit that he was doing something wrongful and corrupt to someone not in the scheme?

No.

And you made a bit point, sir, in your presentation that on that call, President Trump did not go further and tell President Zelensky that he wanted the investigation announced to help his 2020 election.

He definitely did not talk about 2020.

Yeah. And Mr. Goldman, would you agree that if President Trump was acting corruptly, wrongfully, abusing his power, that it was unlikely he was going to confess to President Zelensky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help his 2020 election prospects?

Daniel Goldman: (01:00:14)
Yeah, in my experience as 10 years as a prosecutor, you almost never have a defendant or someone who’s engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say, in this case, President Zelensky, I’m going to bribe you now. Or I’m going to ask for a bribe. Or I am now going to extort you. That’s not the way these things work.

Barry Berke: (01:00:38)
Thank you, Mr. Goldman. And Mr. Castor, getting back to you, you said that … You said about Hunter Biden and talked about it, Hunter Biden had been on the board of Burisma going back to 2014, correct?

Stephen Castor: (01:00:49)
Yes.

President Trump supported Ukraine with aid and otherwise both in 2017 and 2018, correct?

President Trump has done a lot for the Ukraine.

Yes. And sir, but isn’t it correct that President Trump did not raise anything about Hunter Biden and his father, Vice President Joe Biden, in 2017 or 2018. He only did it the year before his election in 2020 when both he and Vice President Joe Biden were leading candidates. Isn’t that true, sir?

I think what happened is the president saw this video of the former VP and I think it coalesced in his mind.

Sir, please answer my question. He didn’t raise any of these issues in 2017 or 2018.

I don’t know that he did or he didn’t. I mean, that is not something that we’ve looked at.

You’ve no evidence that he did, did you?

No, but I have no evidence he did not. I mean, this video is pretty remarkable.

All right, sir, let me ask you this. You talked about Lt. Col. Vindman who is a highly decorated Purple Heart recipient and worked in the Trump administration, correct?

Yes, sir.

He had a reaction to the call, didn’t he?

He did.

He was listening to it, correct?

He did. He was.

Let’s look at his reaction. He said, “I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the lead legal counsel. He said it is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent.” That was his testimony, correct? Yes or no. That was his testimony. Yes?

Yeah.

Yes. And let me ask you this, sir. You had said that the Intelligence Committee, Majority Report, that Mr. Goldman had talked about, you said it presents as if things are clear, but they’re not clear. Is that what you said, sir?

That’s absolutely correct.

And you also worked on, you were, personally, you said worked on the Minority Report, correct?

Yes, sir.

Was it important to you to be accurate in the Minority Report-

Of course.

… that you worked on?

Yes.

Was it important to be fair to witnesses, to be accurate about what they said?

Of course.

Was it important to be fair to the American people-

Of course.

… to accurately report what people said?

Of course.

Well, let me ask you about somebody else on that call. Let me ask you about Jennifer Williams. Now she was a special advisor to Vice President Pence on Europe and Russia affairs, is that correct?

Yes.

She worked for Vice President Pence, correct?

Correct.

And you said in your opening statement that these accusations that President Trump was trying to do something for political purpose, that was made by people who had pre-determined motives for impeachment. Isn’t that correct?

Some of them, but I also indicated that some of these, the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, I think, have revised their views after the call transcript came out and the whistle blower complaint was released.

Are you calling Vice President Pence’s special advisor a liar, sir?

No, I didn’t say that.

Are you saying she was predetermined to impeach?

I didn’t say that. You know what, the question about Jennifer Williams is interesting is-

I didn’t ask you, sir.

She never mentioned anything to her supervisor. She never mentioned anything to anybody in the Vice President’s office en route to Warsaw when the Vice President was going to meet with President Zelensky, she didn’t even raise it as a potential issue that might catch the Vice President off guard.

Well, Mr. Castor-

So her concern that she articulated during the course of the deposition and during the course of the hearing was incongruent, incongruent, with the facts and what she did during times relevant.

Mr. Castro, let’s look at your report, what you wrote in the report about Ms. Williams.

So if we could put up slide six, please. And sir, you made the same point that you tried to make to discount her testimony. You said, “She testified that although she found the call to be unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor.”

Right. Nobody in America knew about Jennifer Williams’ concerns until she walked in the door for her deposition.

Sir. Sir, when you said that although she found the call to be unusual, that wasn’t accurate. That’s not what she said about the call. She didn’t say that it was just unusual, did she?

She said it was unusual.

That’s not all she said about it, was it?

Okay, I mean, she was here for nine hours in the bunker, so she said a lot about the call.

Sir, that was you in the minority

Matt Gaetz: (01:05:23)
Mr. Chairman, could we get a copy of the slide deck? We can’t see… I just want to see-

Jerry Nadler: (01:05:26)
The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman has the time.

But we can’t see the stuff. Can we just get a copy of them?

The gentleman has the time.

I’m happy to read it. Jennifer Williams testified that “although she found the call to be unusual,” she did not raise concerns to her supervisor.

Isn’t it a fact, sir, that Ms. Williams said a lot more than that?

Jim S.: (01:05:47)
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Gentleman will state his point of order. The clock will stop.

Jim S.: (01:05:52)
The point of order is the gentleman from Florida is complain that he can’t see what the questioner is relying on and would like to see if and-

That is not a recognizable point of order and it was read to him. The gentleman will proceed.

Jim S.: (01:06:07)
Only half of it was read to him.

The relevant-

Jim S.: (01:06:10)
Now let’s slow down a bit here.

Gentleman, the gentleman-

Jim S.: (01:06:12)
Let’s slow down a bit here so that members are able to fully see what is being put in in support of what you’re trying to do. We can’t do that without being able to see it or read it.

Jim S.: (01:06:24)
Mr. Gaetz has said that. Now, let’s slow down so that we can see or hear what he is referring to. And you’re not letting that happen. And that goes to the privileges of the members and you are asking to sit in on this meeting and the vote.

Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will suspend.

Mr. Chairman. I can see now. I appreciate the accommodation. Well the monitor was turned. Now we can see, thank you.

Gentleman will resume.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So in here it says that you said Ms. Williams said that she found it to be “unusual” and nothing more.

Let’s look at like seven if we may.

I didn’t say and nothing more.

Let’s look at, it says “unusual,” correct?

Right but it doesn’t say and nothing more.

No, it says unusual. Isn’t it a fact, sir, that what Ms. Williams says is it struck her as unusual and inappropriate. Isn’t that correct, sir?

Okay.

That’s what she said in her testimony.

Okay.

In your staff report you left out the “inappropriate” part, didn’t you?

It wasn’t a block quote. She felt it was unusual. She didn’t raise the concerns to Lt. Gen. Kellogg.

So, sir, let me ask you. Were you as fair to the American people in describing what Ms. Williams said as you were in describing everything else in your report?

I don’t have an issue with the way we described Ms. Williams’ testimony.

Well, let’s look at what else Ms. Williams said. Can we put up slide eight? This is from Ms. Williams’ public testimony at 34.

She said, “I thought that the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President Biden and his son struck me as political in nature given that former Vice President is a political opponent of the president.”

Sir, you left that out of your staff report, too, didn’t you?

Ms. Williams-

Sir, did you leave that out of your report, yes or no?

If you’re telling me I did, I mean, I don’t know as I sit here right now if that’s in the report.

I’m telling you you did.

Okay.

And you have an explanation where you said Ms. Williams said that the call was unusual, when she in fact, she said it was unusual and inappropriate and of a political nature because it raised the Vice President who she recognized was a political opponent of the President.

Her views of the call differ remarkably from Mr. Morrison, also from Lt. Gen. Kellogg’s.

That’s not my question. My question is why did you misquote Ms. Williams in terms of-

I didn’t misquote her.

… Why did you do it?

We certainly didn’t misquote her.

So you stand… So from the standard that you apply to your fact finding in your report, you believe that it was entirely proper to say that Ms. Williams found the call to be unusual when, in fact, she found the call to be unusual and inappropriate and of a political nature given that the former Vice President is a political opponent of the President. Is that your testimony sir?

I mean, we described what Ms. Williams said. She said it was inappropriate.

Sir, is that your testimony? No you didn’t.

Doug Collins: (01:09:20)
Mr. Chairman, you can ask or you can-

The gentleman-

Mr. Chairman, I’m not. He can either ask or answer, he can’t do both. [inaudible 01:09:27] You can ask or answer, you can’t do both.

Gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman has the time [crosstalk 01:09:30].

Jim S.: (01:09:30)
Mr. Chairman I make the point of order that he’s badgering the witness.

The gentleman will continue.

And sir, you invoked, sir, you invoked Mr.-

Jim S.: (01:09:42)
Mr. Chairman can you rule on my point of order that he’s badgering the witness because he’s doing that.

Sir, you invoked-

That is not a recognizable motion. It does not call for a ruling and the time belongs to the gentleman.

Jim S.: (01:09:54)
A point of order the committee is not in order and the chairman is not in order.

That is not a point of order. The committee is in order.

Jim S.: (01:10:01)
Well, would you rule on my original point of order?

The original point of order was not recognizable and does not necessitate a ruling.

Jim S.: (01:10:09)
The lawyer is badgering the witness. We have to have some decorum in here and you have your rules of decorum, which aren’t comporting with everybody else’s rules of decorum.

I will say that sharp cross examination of a witness is not badgering the witness. The gentleman will continue.

Mike Johnson: (01:10:26)
Mr. Chairman.

Jim S.: (01:10:27)
It is if it’s by another witness.

The gentleman has the time.

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Gentleman will say the point of order.

Under Resolution 660 we’re supposed to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, is that right? What is it-

No it is not correct.

What are the rules? What are the objections that we’re able to me.

That is not a point of order.

It is a point of order. There’s no rules here.

It is not a point of order. The gentleman will continue.

Where’s the list of rules?


We allow for virtually anything then.

Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Castor, you just invoked Tim Morrison. He was someone on the call, too, correct?

Yep.

And let me put up slide nine of Mr. Morrison’s testimony on page 38 of his public testimony. And Mr. Morrison said… Well, the question was, question by Mr. Goldman. You heard the call. You recognized that President Trump was not discussing the talking points that the NSC had prepared based on official US policy and was instead talking about the investigations that Fiona Hill had warned you about. And then you reported it immediately to the NSC legal advisor, is that the correct [inaudible 01:11:39] events here?

And Mr. Morrison said, “That’s correct.” Before I ask you, Mr. Castor, let me ask you, Mr. Goldman, earlier, before your presentation, we showed the testimony of Ms. Hill where she referred to what President Trump was trying to do as running a domestic political errand. Is that what you intended to ask Mr. Morrison about in your question to him?

Yes, it was about these two specific investigations that President Trump ultimately did discuss and ask President Zelensky to do. These are the same two investigations that were discussed and were the only two investigations that were at issue throughout the entirety of the scheme. And so what our evidence found was that any time that there was a reference to investigations, it referenced the Biden investigation and the 2016 election investigation. And, in fact, Ambassador Volker actually said that whenever he was using the term corruption, what he meant was those specific two investigations.

And what was the significance to you that Mr. Morrison who Mr. Castor has, himself, relied on and invoked twice today where he said that he understood these were the investigations that Fiona Hill had warned him about, warned him about. What did you understand that to mean?

When Dr. Hill left and Tim Morrison replaced her, they had transition meetings and during one of those transition meetings, Dr. Hill told Tim Morrison about what she believed to be this irregular channel that Ambassador Sondland was operating where they were pushing for Ukraine to do these investigations. And Dr. Hill, in particular, was very concerned because as she said, as you pointed out, that was a domestic political errand and what she was working on and the National Security Council was working on related to national security and foreign policy and those were two entirely separate things.

And was she expressing the view that President Trump had chose his own personal political interest over the foreign policy positions that Ms. Hill was trying to pursue?

At the time that she said that to Tim Morrison, she was not aware of whether President Trump had actually endorsed these investigations but she did testify that after she read the call transcript, which she only read after it was released, like the rest of us, she said that she put two and two together and realized that that is exactly what he was talking about.

And what was two and two again?

It equals four.

And what is four in this investigation, sir?

Well, it was used by two witnesses, Ambassador Sondland and David Holmes as the only logical conclusion to explain why the security assistance was being withheld from Ukraine. And based on all of the various factors and their direct involvement in issues related to Ukraine, they concluded that the security assistance was being withheld to put pressure and as a condition on the initiation of the two investigations that are referenced here.

Yep. Turning to you, Mr.-

I’ve got to clear a couple things up here, though. I’ve got to clear a couple things up here, if I may.

First of all, Morrison didn’t think-

Sir, there’s no question.

The gentleman has the time not the witness.

I mean-

Sir, let me-

The question was concerned about leaks.

Sir, let me ask you, sir. Sir, you said-

And by the way Volker never meant-

The gentleman has the time. The clock will stop if he’s interrupted.

All right.

Thank you.

Louie Gohmert: (01:15:00)
Will this witness be able to cross examine Mr. Berke like he’s being able to cross examine the opposing witness?

Gentleman is not recognized.

Louie Gohmert: (01:15:07)
That a point of inquiry.

You will not shout out in the middle of testimony.

You need to call balls and strikes the right way. You don’t interrupt either one of them, Mr. Chairman. You’re the questioner or the witness. Bang it harder. It still doesn’t make it to the point that you’re not doing it right.


Sir, I believe it was your testimony, because I wrote it down, that Democrats are about blocking info when they should be seeking information.

Oh my goodness. That is absolutely right.

Okay. And then you said that the Trump administration has, in fact, cooperated and facilitated congressional oversight investigations. Is that correct, sir?

Am I, just yes or no. Is that correct?

Absolutely the Trump administration has participated in oversight during the entire Congress until it got to this impeachment inquiry.

So let me ask you about this call, sir. Robert Blair-

Because the terms are just not fair.

Robert Blair who was on this call, the Trump administration, the President, himself, directed him not to appear and give testimony, correct?

Robert Blair… I’m glad you-

No, I’m asking. Did the President direct him not to appear and give testimony? Yes or no.

I think he was allowed to come if agency counsel-

He was not allowed to come under the terms set by the House Intelligence Committee, correct?

I think he would have come with agency counsel.

The Trump administration directed him not to come, correct?

He would have provided testimony, I think, if agency counsel could have come. I mean, it’s really expensive to hire these outside lawyers.

John Eisenberg was directed not to come, correct? The lawyer-

Eisenberg presents another set of-

But he was directed not to come, the lawyer who Lt. Col. Vindman went to, correct?

Okay. Eisenberg is… He may have been able to come with agency counsel, but he presents some complexities. I mean, he’s the chief legal advisor for Ambassador Bolton.

So he was directed not to come, correct?

He may have been able to come with agency counsel, but his testimony does present complexities.

Sir, let me ask you this. Was is US policy of July 26 to request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden?

I think you’re reading a little too much into some of the eight lines. I don’t think the President was requesting an investigation into Joe Biden. He just mentions an offhand comment-

Sir, is that a no? It was not US policy to look into Joe Biden?

Yeah, but you’re presuming that then at some point it became US policy to investigate Joe Biden and I don’t think that’s the case.

Sir, let me show you what slide 10, testimony of, again, Lt. Col. Vindman.

And he was asked, “Are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations into the 2020 elections, the Bidens, or Burisma are part of the official policy of the United States?”

“No, I’m not.”

Now let me go also to Tim Morrison, who you invoked. If we could go to slide 11. Mr. Morrison was asked by our own Congressman Swalwell, who is also on the Intelligence Committee and said, I’m going to pick up in the middle of that long question. It said, “The one call that you listened to between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine, the President of the United States priorities were to investigate the Bidens and I’m asking you, sir, why didn’t you follow up on the President’s priorities when you talked to the Ukrainians?”

Mr. Morrison said, “Sir, I did not understand it as a policy objective.”

Mr. Goldman, let me ask you. There was a package prepared before that call of what President Trump was supposed to talk about with President Zelensky, correct?

Yes.

And am I correct, sir, that one of the things that he was supposed to talk about that was in his prepared remarks was the anti-corruption platform of President Zelensky that he ran and won on, correct?

Yes. The witnesses testified that that is a consistent and persistent policy objective for the United States.

Did President Trump mention corruption once in his call with Mr. Zelensky?

No, he did not.

Did he mention looking into anything other than the two investigations that were politically helpful to him, the 2016 election investigation and the investigation of his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

No, he did not.

May I add something there?

Mr. Castor… No, you can’t. Mr. Castor let me ask you a question.

President Trump did mention-

Speaker 2: (01:19:24)
Are you going to let him answer?

No.

There’s some very bad people there.

The gentleman will suspend. The time is the questioner’s and he can ask the questions of whoever he wants. When you question you’ll have the same rules.

And Mr. Castor, in fairness, you’ll be able to answer questions asked by minority counsel when it’s their turn. I have 45 minutes so let me ask you-

Come on, Barry, in fairness here, President Trump talks about very bad people.

Mr. Castor, if I can finish… Let me finish, sir. Let me ask you this, sir. Sir, there were two lawyers mentioned on the call. We’ve heard testimony already, President Trump said to President Zelensky that he should speak to two people, his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and the Attorney General Barr, correct.

Yep.

Okay. Immediately after this call memorandum was released, isn’t it the case that Attorney General Barr and the Department of Justice issued a statement about his role in all this?

He did.

Let’s put up the statement, slide 13 please. From the Department of Justice, the President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son. The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine on this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine on this or any other subject. So, Mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that the Attorney General didn’t want anything to do with these investigations that President Trump had raised with President Zelensky on the call?

I think it goes actually even a little further. I think, whether the Attorney General wanted anything to do or not is in addition to the fact that the Attorney General said he had nothing to do with Ukraine and, in fact, that there were no ongoing investigations at the time of this call or in August. And that became an issue in the investigation.

There is a formal channel that the Department of Justice has and the United States government has to obtain evidence related to an ongoing investigation and that is generally the proper way to engage a foreign country through treaties to get information. But several of the witnesses testified that they looked into that at the urging of the Ukrainians and they determined that there was no formal ongoing investigation, nor any formal request on these topics.

Now, the other lawyer on the call, Rudy Giuliani, he, however, he was more than happy to continue to be involved in trying to get Ukraine to investigate President Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, correct?

Mr. Giuliani was very active and involved in pushing for these investigations for several months before the July 25th call and then for several months after, including, apparently, three days ago.

And sir, Mr. Castro, you would agree… You wrote in your report that Rudy Giuliani, that the Ukrainians themselves, knew that Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer was a conduit to convince President Trump that President Zelensky was a serious reformer, correct?

Well, Ukrainians knew that-

Sir, wasn’t that what you said in your report?

Rudy had the President’s ear.

And he was a conduit… Let me put a slide, 14, if I may and we actually have your report here. And it says, the Ukrainians knew that he, meaning Rudy Giuliani, was a conduit to convince President Trump that President Zelensky was serious about reform. Is that what you wrote in your report, sir?

Yeah.

Okay. And, in fact, during the call, President Trump asked President Zelensky to speak directly to his personal lawyer about Ukrainian matters that President Trump was interested in, correct?

He referred them to Rudy, yeah.

Yes. And, in fact, President Zelensky said, oh we already knew that and he’s been in touch with my aides, correct?

That’s right. In fact, I mean the Ukrainians are the ones that first… President Zelensky is the one who first brings up Mr. Giuliani on the call.

Right, because they knew that Mr. Giuliani was a conduit to the President and if they made Mr. Giuliani happy, they’d make President Trump happy.

Ambassador Volker testified though that Mr. Giuliani had a negative impression of Ukraine and that he was possibly fueling the President’s views, and so there was some discussions about hey, if you can convince Rudy that President Zelensky is a true reformer, the real deal, that that would be a beneficial link.

Well, sir, you agree that President Giuliani, before the July 25th call and after was pushing for the Ukrainians to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, isn’t that correct. Yes or no.

Yeah, I mean, the record is somewhat spotty with Giuliani. I know that the New York Times reported in May but Ambassador Volker gave a pretty detailed account of his meeting in July 19th.

Well, let’s take a look. If we could put up slide 16, the New York Times article you referred to.

Yeah.

All right and the article says, I’ll read it. “Mr. Giuliani” and this is dated May 9, 2019, before the call, “Mr. Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries…” and then it continues “that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump. One is the origin of the Special Counsel’s investigation.” It goes on to describe it.

New sentence. “The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.”

Okay. And now that was in the New York Times article. And-

Are we going to talk about the breakfast with Volker?

If we… Not yet. If we could continue the rest of the article, to the next slide, which is slide 17. This is the same article.

And Mr. Giuliani was very explicit when he was interviewed. He said, “And this isn’t foreign policy” I’m now quoting the words that are highlighted. He says, “It will be very, very helpful to my client. My only client is the President of the United States. He’s the one I have an obligation to report to him what happened regarding the Ukraine.” Now, sir, were you aware on that same day, Mr. Giuliani gave an interview about what he intended to do? And let’s go to slide 18.

This is from RealClear Politics. And it should be on the screen in front of you as well. And what Mr. Giuliani said about the Ukraine, he said, “It’s a big story. It’s a dramatic story. And I guarantee you, Joe Biden will not get to election day without this being investigated. Not because I want to see him investigated. The collateral to what I was doing.”

So, sir, and you agree, election day refers to the 2020 election where President Trump will be running for reelection.

I don’t know what Giuliani was talking about but I guess you’re right. The-

Okay, so that was my only question to you. You’ll have a chance to answer questions to minority counsel.

Now, and President Trump, let me show you slide-

So we’re going to sidestep the Volker meeting on July 19th?

Sir you’ll have an opportunity to talk about that when minority counsel questions you.

Let me go to slide 19, please. And the President says, he’s being interviewed now the same-

Speaker 3: (01:27:03)
And, the president says, he’s being interviewed now the same day in a Politico, and he’s asked about Mr. Giuliani. “He’s leaving soon, I think in the next couple of days.” Mr. Trump says, “I see, well, I will speak to him about it before he leaves.” Now, let me go to slide 20 because president, excuse me, Mr. Giuliani continued his pressure on president Zelensky. And, this one, it’s actually a tweet that he put out on June 21st, 2019. Roughly a month before the call, he says, “New president of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and allege Biden bribery of the prior president.” And again, sir, as you said, the Ukrainians knew that Mr. Giuliani had the ear of his client, president Trump. Isn’t that correct, sir? Is that correct, sir? Yes or no.

Giuliani was doing some things in… out here. And, then, he became involved with the official channel. With Volker, with Sondland. And, at that meeting on July 19th, Volker counseled against the perspective Giuliani was taking.

So, my question to you, sir, is this tweet… what they’re talking about? Well, let me ask you, Mr. Goldman, you haven’t had a chance in a while. This tweet. Is that referring to a personal political issue of president Trump or official US policy?

That’s a personal political issue. If you don’t mind, I’ll just take a moment to respond to Mr. Caster because-

Please, do.

On that July 19th meeting between ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani, ambassador Volker told Mr. Giuliani that the allegations about Joe Biden were completely bogus and wrong. And, Mr. Giuliani actually told, according to ambassador Volker’s testimony, Mr. Giuliani said that he knew that. And, yet, for the next two months he continued to push for that same investigation at the direction of president Trump. Who had also directed presidents Zelensky to contact Mr. Giuliani. So, that July 19th meeting that Mr. Caster brought up is actually quite important to this investigation.

And, sir, you already explained that on May 23rd, when the official folks who went to the inauguration of president Zelensky came back to tell the president how impressed they were. The only thing he had to say to them was “Talk to Rudy.” He was taking his official government people responsible for Ukraine and handing them over to Rudy Giuliani so that they could work with him for the issues that he was focused on for the president as evidenced in the tweet. Is that fair?

I agree with Mr. Caster. I think that’s what the evidence shows. That at that May 23rd meeting, president Trump directed and delegated authority over Ukraine matters to ambassador Sondland, Volker, and secretary Perry, and told them to work with Rudy. And, then, over the next three months, that’s exactly what happened. At the president’s direction.

Okay. In fact, let me show you what is slide 22, if I may? That you understood the Ukrainians recognized how important Rudy Giuliani was. And, satisfying him in order to stay on good terms with president Trump?

Yes. They quickly realized it, I think, from their own internal conversations. Because, Mr. Giuliani had back channels to getting to the Ukrainian officials. And, ambassador Volker told to the Ukrainians as well that there was this, quote, Giuliani factor that presidents Zelensky… he actually told it to president Zelensky, that there was this Giuliani factor that they needed to deal with with the president.

And, in fact, this is the senior aide to president Zelensky saying to ambassador Volker on August 13th, which, is obviously after the July 25th call, “Thank you for meeting and your clear and very logical position. Will be great meet with you before my departure and discuss. I feel that the key for many things is Rudy and I am ready to talk to him with him at any point. Please. Let me know when you can meet. Audrey.” And again, that’s rooted… am I right? That’s the Ukrainians recognize that Rudy Giuliani, who’s demanding the investigation of Mr. Trump’s political rival, was key. To getting anything done. Correct?

I don’t mean to be a stickler, but I believe this text was actually July 10th. And, this was a critical text because what it is saying is Mr. Yermak, after having spoken to Mr. Volker a week before and learning about the importance of Giuliani, requested to ambassador Volker to meet… to set up a meeting with Mr. Giuliani. That, then, proceeded to this July 19th breakfast that Mr. Caster said. And, then, a July 22nd phone call. And, then, ultimately they met in Madrid on August 2nd.

Thank you Mr. Goldman. Further evidence of the meticulous investigation that chairman Schiff and his staff with you directed. We will stand corrected. Thank you. And, I will take that and ask that the record reflect that, that that is the correct date. In either case, Rudy was key whenever it was said, correct?

Certainly.

And, now let me ask, sir. Let me put up slide 24. And, Mr. Goldman, am I correct that there came a point in time when president Trump through his chief of staff, Mr. Mick Mulvaney, ordered that the approved military aid to Ukraine be withheld. As you previously indicated? Correct?

Yes.

And, this is the testimony of the people who were involved. Mr Kent said, when this happened, “There was great confusion among the rest of us. Because, we didn’t understand why that had happened. Since there was unanimity that this aid was in our national interest. It just surprised us all.” Mr. Holmes. “And, then, you had the additional hold of the security assistance with no explanation whatsoever. And, we still have an explanation… and, we still don’t have an explanation for why that happened or in the way that happened.” Ms. Croft, “The only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president.” So sir, let me ask a question. Did all the agencies involved believe that the aid should be given?

Yes. It was the unanimous view of all of the agencies, secretary of state, department of state, department of defense, national security council, literally every one of the inner agencies that believed that the aid was vital and had already been approved and should be released immediately.

And, in the minority staff report. And, in Mr. Caster’s testimony earlier, he said the US government did not convey the pause to the Ukrainians. Well, that wasn’t correct, was it? Didn’t Mr. Sondland convey that? According to Mr. Sondland’s affidavit and testimony.

Mr. Sondland ultimately conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations. And, if we could put up slide 26 from the affidavit-

Speaker 4: (01:34:01)
He presumed that, though. Is what he said.

Well, if I may just in response to this-

We’ll put up the slide.

Sure.

We can put up the actual affidavit that mister… ambassador Sondland, the president Trump’s ambassador to the European union, that he swore to under penalties of perjury. And he says, if we go read the highlighted, which, is also in front of you, “I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak where I said that… where I said, to Mr. Yermak, the Ukrainian aid, that we’re…” I’m going back to the quote “That resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.” Is that correct, sir?

Yes. He said that at a meeting on September 1st with Mr. Yermak In Warsaw.

And, the statement that they had been talking about, let me put up a slide that we put together, slide 27.

And, do you recall, sir, that, in the draft statement that the Ukrainians were going to have president Zelensky gifts so they could… was that statement on their minds so they could get a white house meeting and satisfying president Trump and have the aid released?

Yes. Ambassador Sondland testified to that. And, ambassador Volker also testified to that.

And, am I correct that Mr. Yermak gave a statement where he did not make any reference to vice president Biden, correct?

Correct.

And, then, was that Rudy Giuliani who said, in the second one, that it had to include a reference that they were going to investigate Burisma in the 2016 election?

That’s right.

And, what did Burisma stand for? Did all your witnesses say they had an understanding of what that meant? Or, did the witnesses say that?

So, every single witness said, after reading the phone call on July 25th, that it was clear Burisma equaled Biden, that they were one-in-the-same. There were only two witnesses who said that they did not know that until that time. And, there was ample testimony… there was a lot of testimony from people involved in all aspects of Ukraine policy, who indicated that it was completely unrealistic and unlikely that anyone who had anything to do with Ukraine would not know that the Burisma investigation related to the Bidens.

And, is that why, that’s how Mr. Giuliani publicly referred to it often as Burisma and vice president Biden, correct?

Correct, yes.

And, did the Ukrainians complain repeatedly? We talked a little bit about it. That they didn’t want to be a pawn and US democratic politics by helping president Trump’s reelection campaign by making such a statement.

They said that in July. And, in August, ultimately, they didn’t give the statement in large part because they had reservations given the president Zelensky was an anti-corruption reformer. They had reservations about engaging in US domestic politics. That’s right.

I want to go back to you, Mr. Caster. You said that when president Trump said to ambassador Sondland on September 17th, that he had no quid pro quo. You said he had no reason-

September 9th. September 9th.

September 9th. You said he had no reason to be any less than candid. That’s what you said. No reason to be any less than candidate. Let me show you, sir, what happened though on September 5th. Let me show you slide 52.

Days before he made that statement, The Washington Post printed an article that says Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections. And, goes on to describe some of those efforts. And, sir, let me show you whether president Trump was aware of that article before he volunteered no quid pro quo as a defense. Let me show you a tweet by president Trump on slide 53.

Now, and, again, this is, he is putting out a tweet that is essentially saying the Democrats… following up the article that they’re pursuing impeachment. Again, showing awareness that this has now been reported on. So, Mr. Goldman, is it fair to say what Mr. Caster said, that Mr. Trump… president Trump, had no reason to be any less than candid about saying no quid pro quo?

No, I think president Trump had every reason to try to put out that message at that point. As ambassador Sondland said, even when he… even if you credit ambassador Sondland’s version of the testimony, which, is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes. And, were far more credible than Mr. Sondland, who had to amend his testimony a couple times. He said, even in that comment, he said, no quid pro quo out of the blue without risk… without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo.

Mr. Nadler: (01:38:40)
Gentleman’s time has expired. Chair now recognizes the ranking members for his first round of questions. Pursuant to house resolution 660, the ranking member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses.

Doug: (01:38:55)
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well, it’s become very evident why this hearing is here. And, while the craziness of this hearing, especially not having Mr. Schiff here, but, please put back up the last slide. I have no idea what number it is. Not as good a councilor as Harping. 53.

Speaker 5: (01:39:10)
Yep.

Doug: (01:39:15)
Did we cut it off after they got through?

Speaker 5: (01:39:16)
There’s 11 seconds.

Doug: (01:39:19)
Okay, well, while we’re doing this, I mean, I think it’s just the most amazing statement came out that we’re proofing the tweet that said that he thought that he was getting… the Democrats were concerned about impeachment. There’s nothing the Democrats have not been concerned about for two and a half years. Since August… since November, 2016. The president is saying nothing new in that tweet, that’s now back up.

Doug: (01:39:40)
He’s known that they had been after impeachment. That’s why Mr. Goldman is here. That’s why Mr. Burke is here. That’s why we’re going through this charade of staff having to answer staff questions. And, basically, when we don’t like how it’s going, we start asking staff on staff and getting into a staff argument. Where’s Adam? Where’s Adam? It’s his report. His name. Mr. Goldman, you’re a great attorney, but you’re not Adam Schiff and you don’t wear a pin.

That’s true.

Doug: (01:40:07)
We got a problem here. And, the problem that’s developing is this. You said you were an attorney. You’re a very good prosecutor. I believe it. I’ve read your bio. You’re a good attorney. You understand what quid pro quo is, correct?

I do.

Doug: (01:40:18)
You understand what asking for something in exchange for something actually means, correct?

I do.

Doug: (01:40:23)
You know about the conversation of Mr. Bidden when he asked, and he said, “I’m not going to give you the billion dollars.” You know about that conversation, correct?

The 2000-

Doug: (01:40:29)
Do you want me to read it to you or do you know it?

Are you talking about in 2015?

Doug: (01:40:35)
No, I’m talking about the one from the national, where you did the… I’ll read it to you, since you were having trouble. As I remember going over to the Ukraine, convincing our team, our leaders, convincing them that we should provide for loan guarantees. I went over, I guess the 12th or 13th time to Kiev. I was supposed to announce that there was a billion dollar long guarantee. And, I’d gotten a commitment from Poroshenko, and they’re saying that I would take action against… that they would take action against the state prosecutor. They didn’t. So, they said they had, they were walking out to the press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to, or we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said… I said call him. Laughter. I said, I’m telling you, you’re getting… you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the being dollars I’m getting. I’m getting ready to be leaving here in, I think, about six hours. I looked at them and said, I’m leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.

Doug: (01:41:33)
Did he ask for something, request something, and hold something of value?

He did. George Kent testified that that was-

Doug: (01:41:39)
George Kent testified this. I’m asking about not George Kent. I’m asking about this question.

But, it’s important context.

Doug: (01:41:43)
It’s not. Answer this question. Did he or did he not? Either Joe Biden’s a liar telling a story to make people impressed. Or, he actually did this. Which is it?

He did it pursuant to US official policy.

Doug: (01:41:56)
So, he did it in holding… withholding actual dollars… actual thing, holding this out there. So, Joe Biden, of everybody that we discussed, is the only one that’s done a quid pro quo. He’s the only one that’s used taxpayer dollars to actually threaten a foreign government. And, yet, we’re sitting here pretending that this is not happening? We’re sitting here pretending that a president of the United States now would not be concerned?

Doug: (01:42:17)
Look, you look at it this way, Joe Biden’s a terrible candidate. He can destroy himself on the campaign trail, but he can’t get by this. And, it doesn’t matter who brings it up. It doesn’t matter who does it. Because, this is what happened. And, you can why wash it all you want. You can go over whatever you want. But, that’s what he did. He’s either a liar, or he did it. And, he did it.

Doug: (01:42:36)
I want to continue on. Question is, a question that you had earlier. You rely on… approximately, how many times do you rely on Gordon Sondland’s testimony? In your report.

Oh, it’s nearly a 300 page report. I can’t possibly count.

Doug: (01:42:52)
Would you be amazed if it was 600 times or better? I wouldn’t have any idea or not?

I have no idea.

Doug: (01:42:59)
Okay. You did. It’s over 600 times. Would you also understand if you do a simple check of your report that over 158 times Mr. Sondland said not knowing something to the best of my knowledge or I don’t know. Would that surprise you?

Are you talking about the report or his deposition?

Doug: (01:43:16)
The deposition and the closed door testimony.

Yes, and over time he remembered a lot more as he was refreshed by other people’s testimony.

Doug: (01:43:24)
Yes. It is. The question we’re having here though is Mr. Sondland also said, and many times he said he presumed what actually happened.

Doug: (01:43:31)
Let’s go back to something else. We’ll go and continue this in just a moment. According to your report, hipsy, and, we’ll classify that and, we’ll determine that to be the intelligence committee, and the other investigation with the other two committees, we okay with that?

Certainly.

Doug: (01:43:45)
Issued dozens of subpoenas. Is that right?

I’m not… certainly over a dozen, yes.

Doug: (01:43:52)
Some of the subpoenas were not publicly reported until the hipsy issued its majority report, correct?

Most of the subpoenas were not publicly-

Doug: (01:43:59)
Answer the question. Mr. Burke had so much free reign, let’s go at it. Either answer the question or elaborate. One or the other.

Sir, I’m trying to answer the question.

Doug: (01:44:08)
Did you or didn’t you? Did it come out or not?

Did what? Come out.

Doug: (01:44:12)
I’ll read it again. Some of the subpoenas were not publicly reported until the hipsy issued it’s majority report, correct?

Yes. They were given to the minority, but not the public. Yes.

Doug: (01:44:21)
Putting aside the witnesses who have publicly been identified, did you issue any other subpoenas for testimony other than the ones publicly identified?

I don’t… I’m not sure. I don’t think so.

Doug: (01:44:35)
Okay. Thank you.

But, I’m not sure.

Doug: (01:44:36)
How many subpoenas were issued for records?

Well, we issued a number of subpoenas for records. We did issue six subpoenas to executive branch agencies, and, they all defied our subpoenas.

Doug: (01:44:53)
Moving on to other issues here. The Wall Street Journal reported that the committee issued at least four subpoenas to Verizon and AT&T for call records. Is that correct?

We are-

Doug: (01:45:06)
Are we wondering?

Yes, we are. Because, there are multiple numbers. We only issued subpoenas for call records for people who were involved in the investigation and who had already been subpoenaed by the committee for documents and testimony of their own.

Doug: (01:45:24)
Absolutely. Wonderful. But, answer my question. For?

Well, I am trying to answer your question, sir.

Doug: (01:45:32)
Was it at least four?

Yes.

Doug: (01:45:34)
Thank you. Could have saved us a lot of time there. How many of these subpoenas were issued to AT&T?

I don’t know off the top of my-

Doug: (01:45:41)
Can you check your records? This is an important… because, we just found out about this over the weekend. We got a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing in which the chairman admitted, and, the staff admitted they’re not going to be able to read it all anyway. So, for all of you writing reports about this, all that massive document dump, we’re just simply going on a Schiff report. Which, Schiff refuses to come testify about, but sends his staff. So, this is important stuff. We just found out about this. So, how many subpoenas were issued to AT&T?

I don’t know. If you’d like me to find out during the break, I’d be happy to.

Doug: (01:46:08)
That’s fine. If you don’t know, then, again, maybe your chairman could be here to actually answer this. Was it targeted at a single telephone number or numbers?

We subpoenaed for call records. Multiple numbers.

Doug: (01:46:20)
How many?

I don’t know. None of-

Doug: (01:46:23)
Okay, let’s just stop here.

This is very important though. None of members of Congress. None of staff of Congress.

Doug: (01:46:27)
Oh, we’re getting to that. We’re getting to that.

None of journalists. We only did it to the subjects who were involved in the investigation. Which, is a very routine and standard investigative practice, sir.

Doug: (01:46:36)
And, you’re not going to hear anything from me about a subpoena. And, the legality of a subpoena. My problem is this. Who on the committee asked that those numbers that you actually did put into for subpoena and get those numbers back. Who was it that asked that they be crosschecked for members of the media and members of Congress? Who ordered that?

I don’t think that’s how we did it, sir.

Doug: (01:46:54)
No. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. You came out with a report that actually showed these people, such as Mr. Chairman Nunez and others, were actually on these calls.

Yes.

Doug: (01:47:03)
Now, someone… and, you and I, we’re not going to play cute here. Somebody took the four records that you asked for, the at least four. Took those numbers and then said, hey, let’s play match game. Who ordered the match game for members of Congress and the press? Was it you?

I don’t think anyone did, sir.

Doug: (01:47:22)
Then how did you get… okay, come on, that’s the most ridiculous item I’ve ever heard. You don’t just all of a sudden pick up numbers in which you have to match those numbers to actually show where they are and you don’t come up with them. Who ordered them to actually match for members of Congress and the press?

That’s actually… what you just described is exactly how it happens.

Doug: (01:47:38)
Who ordered to find out if Nuñez’ number was on those calls?

If I could just explain, sir. You pick an event of significance in the investigation and you look for sequencing and patterns surrounding that event. You look then at the numbers and you try to identify what those numbers are. And, then, you start to build the circumstantial case.

Doug: (01:47:56)
At this point. That’s a wonderful explanation, but not an answer to my question. Those are you looking for the four numbers you asked for and to see how they’re connected. I understand the subpoena that you issued. My question directly, was it you or was it chairman Schiff that said, “While we’re doing this, let’s see if this matches chairman Nunez’ number. Let’s see if this matches a member of the press’ number.” Somebody along the way just didn’t all of a sudden having an epiphany, unless you’re getting ready to throw a low level staffer under the bus, that these numbers might match. So, who did it? Was it chairman Schiff or was it you. Be careful. You’re under oath.

I know I’m under oath, sir. It doesn’t matter.

Doug: (01:48:31)
Then answer the question.

And, I will answer the question if you’ll give me a second here. It’s not a simple answer.

Doug: (01:48:36)
The same second that was not afforded in my witness, by the way.

Well, I think he was allowed to answer the question.

Doug: (01:48:40)
Who decided to leak it, by the way? If you’re not going to tell me the other story. While you’re thinking about how you’re going to answer that question, who decided to leak it? The information. Why did you include it in the report.

That’s not a leak, sir.

Doug: (01:48:49)
How did you include it in the report? After not saying anything else about this, not publicly known. So, two questions are hanging out that everybody’s looking for an answer for, including me. Who ordered it? Was it you or was it chairman Schiff? And, then, why was it decided, except for nothing but smear purposes, to be included in the Schiff report?

Well, I’m not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you. And, I will tell you the reason it was included in the report is because the calls were a surrounding important evidence to our investigation. And, I think that your question is, frankly, not better directed… not at me, but at the people who were having conversations.

Doug: (01:49:25)
Oh no, no, no. We’re not going to play that game.

The people involved in the president’s scheme.

Doug: (01:49:26)
We’re not going to play that game. You’re as good as Mr. Burke. You’re not going to play that game. You’re not answering a question. And, every member of the media, everybody here, when you start going into the decorum of this house, when you start looking at members’ telephone numbers, you start looking in reporters telephone numbers, which, they ought to be scared about. You took a subpoena for four. And, then, you decided to play match game. You found numbers that you thought were… some of them actually didn’t exist. Because, they claimed that they were for the white house budget office, and, they were not. So, we’re throwing stories out there because nobody was-

That’s not true.

Doug: (01:49:55)
Nobody was out there action. So, I go back to my question. Are you going to go on record, in front of everybody here today, and say that you will not tell who ordered this? You, or, Mr. Gold… Mr. Goldwin, you, or, Mr. Schiff?

I am going to go on record and tell you that I’m not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation.

Doug: (01:50:09)
And, that’s the problem we have with this entire thing. Mr. Schiff said behind closed doors the entire time.

I can tell you what the importance is-

Doug: (01:50:13)
I’m done with you for right now. We’re done. You’re not answering the question. You’re not being honest about this answer because you know who it is. You’re just not answering. Ms. Castor.

I have some information on the subpoenas.

Doug: (01:50:31)
Let’s go.

We did receive copies of the subpoenas. And, we tracked this. There were six, as I understand it. And, let me just say at the outset. Our members have concerns about this exercise for three reasons.

The subpoenas yielded information about members of Congress. Whether they were subpoenaed, the members phone records or not. It’s a concern when the information yields member of Congress’ phone records. And, then, the information is publicized.

Second is with journalists. It’s just generally a very tricky area to start investigating journalists’ call records. And, the third is with regard to Mr. Giuliani who was serving as the president’s personal attorney. But, there’s six subpoenas, as we understand it. The first went to AT&T for the Giuliani numbers. The second was in regard to Igor Fruman. To a company, CSC Holdings. The third related to Mr. Sondland. That was off to Verizon. The fourth was back to AT&T. Seeking information on a certain number. The fifth was back to AT&T. And, the sixth was seeking subscriber information. Which, impacted the veteran journalist John Solomon. And, also, involved with these are some of the attorneys involved such as-

Doug: (01:52:06)
Mr. Castor, can I ask you a question?

It’s Tunsing and just diGenova.

Doug: (01:52:11)
Mr. Castor, you’ve been a veteran of a hill investigation for 15 years. And, this is crazy. I’ve never seen anything like this. You never have either. Would it be interesting to note, because, Mr. Goldman chooses not to answer because he doesn’t want to incriminate, I believe, either himself or the chairman, or, somebody else. Would it be interesting to you to find, as you’ve dealt with committee staff for a long time, somebody to just have an epiphany, just to do those match records on their own? Or, were they under direction by somebody to do that?

Well, it’s obvious they were trying to figure something out.

Doug: (01:52:38)
That’s it. All right. One last… I’m getting ready to try… wait. I have one thing for Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman, we’re used to committees and people and witnesses coming, taking gratuitous shots at people they don’t like. And, earlier today in your testimony, you made a comment that really goes… but, an interesting thing, and, I’ll even go back to the chairman questioning motive.

Doug: (01:52:58)
When your testimony, you said, as you were discussing Mr. Sondland, you made a very snide comment, your actually… your facial expression showed that he was $1 million donor to the president. The implication being he either got his job because he bought it or his implication was he was loyal to the president and didn’t say anything about it. Be very careful about how you throw around dollars in giving. Because, you and Mr. Burke are real heavy donors to the Democratic Party. And, I’m not going to say it questions your motive or your position here today. But, we need to make sure that this thing is already blown out of proportion. We’re already not answering questions. And, you are here without a pin because your chairman will not testify. That says all we need to hear. He don’t even stand behind his own report and he sends you, I hope it works out for you.

Doug: (01:53:40)
I’m done at this point. I turned it over to Ashley.

Can I respond? Are you, are you trying to say that I… what are you trying to say? What is the implication here? But, by the way, I didn’t give anything close to a million dollars, remotely.

Speaker 6: (01:53:52)
The implication is we want Schiff in that chair, not you. The implication is the person that wrote the report is the person that should come and present it. And, you weren’t elected by anybody and you’re here giving this testimony in place of the chairman. I hope that clears up the implication.

Mr. Nadler: (01:54:04)
Gentlemen does not have the time and the gentleman has been warned before. You cannot simply yell out and disrupt the committee. The gentleman, Mr. Collins, has the time.

Speaker 7: (01:54:13)
Counsel, please.

Doug: (01:54:15)
I think you understand exactly what you did. And, I called it out for just the way you did. You thought you’re going to get by with it and you didn’t. That’s all I’m saying. Just ask Ms. Cowan.

Well, I would like to just say one other thing.

Doug: (01:54:26)
I am done.

I mean, you’re casting aspersions about me, personally.

Doug: (01:54:33)
As you did, Mr. Goldman.

Speaker 8: (01:54:33)
Point of order.

Doug: (01:54:34)
As you did to Mr. Sondland. Now, according to the chairman’s own ruling just a few minutes ago, I’m done asking questions and I’m not asking you to elaborate. Because, I’m not asking you any more questions. I’ve asked all… you won’t answer the question on who told the committee to actually check these numbers. You won’t say if it’s you or if it’s Mr. Schiff. You won’t answer my questions. So, we’re done. We’re going to Ms. Cowan. As Mr. Burke said, you’ll have plenty of time with healthful majority counsel [inaudible 01:54:59].

Mr. Nadler: (01:54:59)
Does the gentleman yield his time to Ms. Cowan.

Doug: (01:55:03)
Yes.

Mr. Nadler: (01:55:04)
The gen-lady’s recognized.

Cowan: (01:55:05)
Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Cowan, if I may. I’m so sorry.

Cowan: (01:55:06)
Yes, certainly. Mr. Castor.

I have a number of things I think I need to clear up. If I may.

Cowan: (01:55:07)
Yes, certainly.

And, you have to bear with me. Because, I have a number of them here. First of all, on the call. Tim Morrison, general Kellogg, have a totally different view of the call than Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Jennifer Williams.going to the point that the call is ambiguous. So, that’s the first thing. Tim Morrison testified that he went to the national security council lawyers for a very different reason. He did not say he went to the NSC lawyers because he was concerned about the call. He went to the national security council lawyers for two reasons. Number one, they weren’t on the call. So, we wanted to update them about it. But number two, he was concerned about.

… we wanted to update them about it, but number two, he was concerned about leaks, and he was concerned that if his call leaked out how it would play in Washington’s polarized environment, which is exactly what we have here. He was also concerned that if the call leaked that it might affect bipartisan support in Congress. You know, the issues of Ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where Republicans and Democrats share interests. And the third reason was that he didn’t want the Ukrainians to get a distorted perception of what actually happened on the call. Because on the call, and we’re talking about eight lines of concern and a lot of ambiguity.

This oval office meeting on May 23rd there’s this question, I guess it’s ambiguous, I didn’t think it was ambiguous, but there’s a question about whether when the president referred the delegation goes to the inauguration May 20th. They come back, it’s silent, it’s Volker and it’s secretary Perry and it’s Senator Johnson and they’re briefing the president and the president is having none of it. He says Ukraine is concerned, or corrupt and he doesn’t want to invite Zelensky to the white house. And the president, and Volker testifies to this pretty definitively, the president, essentially, he doesn’t order anybody to do anything. The president says talk to Verde and Volker testified both at his deposition and at the public hearing that he didn’t take it as a direction. It’s just like, look, if you, if you guys think this is important and you want to work it, just go talk to Rudy. It’s very different than a direction. It’s very different than the president ordering a scheme and it’s very different from the president sort of collecting up a bunch of agents to go do something because he simply, according to ambassador Volker said, go talk to Rudy.

Now, whether the Ukrainians knew of the aid pause, or the aid was paused for 55 days,

Speaker 9: (01:58:30)
Right.

Whether the Ukrainians knew about it or not, has been, Laura Cooper from DOD and some state department witnesses testified about light queries that they had perceived. There was an article on November 22nd in Bloomberg, and the Zelensky administration said they never knew about the hold in the aid until August 28th political article. And they said in the article, and Yermak is the principle person they’re relying on here, Yermak says that they believe the embassy was keeping information from them. Another interesting thing Mr, Yermak says in that November 22nd Bloomberg article, is that he recounts the whole aside meeting with Sondland, which has become very significant apparently. And the pull aside meeting, he says he doesn’t recall it the way ambassador Sondland recalled it. Now keep in mind, Mr. Yermak speaks English, but it’s not his first language. And so he does not recall the pull aside meeting, which by the way happened on the way to an escalator after the meeting with the vice president. So he recalls it very differently. So the question and the facts of what happened between ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak on the way to the escalator remain in dispute.

Speaker 9: (01:59:56)
Yes.

Now turning attention to the Ron Johnson letter, if I may?

Speaker 9: (02:00:11)
Yes.

On August 31st… Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to Ukraine on September 5th with Senator Murphy, and Johnson wanted the aid released, so he calls the president. He actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news.

Speaker 9: (02:00:30)
Right.

President said, I’m not ready to lift the aid, and they had this, Senator Johnson, I mean he writes a 10 page letter, very detailed, and he gives them some remarkable detail and I’d like to read it. It’s on page six. This is Senator Johnson speaking. He said, “I asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation,” senator Johnson says, “President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed, and he started cursing and he said, no way. President Trump said, no way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” And Senator Johnson goes on to say that president Trump’s reaction here was adamant, vehement and angry. Senator Johnson goes on to say that as of August 31st the president told them, but you’re going to like my decision in the end. So I think that’s very important context on what the president’s state of mind was at least as of August 31st.

Speaker 9: (02:01:45)
Right. He fully expected, do you agree, that the aid would eventually be released after the 55 day pause?

Yes.

Speaker 9: (02:01:55)
Right?

Absolutely.

Speaker 9: (02:01:55)
Yes. I to thank you all for your presentations. Mr. Castor, I believe you’ve been talking for approximately 75 minutes today, and I want to thank you for that.

My wife thanks you as well. She likes it when I do the talking when she’s not around.

Speaker 9: (02:02:14)
Time permitting today, I’d like to cover four or five areas, distinct areas. There’s a lot of facts that the American people have not heard and there’s a lot of contradictions in certain people’s testimony. Is that fair to say, Mr. Castor? And I’d like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador Volker, ambassadors Sondland, and secretary Perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people, is that correct?

Yes.

Speaker 9: (02:02:59)
And the Democrats report would like us to believe that these three individuals were engaged in some sort of cabal or some sort of nefarious venture. But that’s not true, is it?

No.

Speaker 9: (02:03:19)
In fact, these three people were at all relevant times and even today, acting in the best interest of the American people. Is that true?

That’s right. And with the highest integrity.

Speaker 9: (02:03:30)
That’s right. I think everyone testified that ambassador Volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service

Across the board, all the witnesses, including ambassador Evanovich, talked about integrity that ambassador Volker brings to the table.

Speaker 9: (02:03:49)
But there’s a lot of people with firsthand knowledge that we didn’t talk to. Is that correct? Now I want to talk about the president’s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid. Is that correct?

He is deeply skeptical of sending US tax payer dollars into an environment that is corrupt because it’s as good as kissing it goodbye.

Speaker 10: (02:04:23)
And is that something new that he believes or is that something he ran on?

This is something that he has ran on. It’s something that he has implemented policies as soon as he became president. And ambassador Hale, the third ranking state department official told us about the overall review of all foreign aid programs and he described it as almost a zero based evaluation.

Speaker 9: (02:04:45)
Right. And you had the opportunity to take the deposition of Mark Sandy who is a career official at OMB, is that right?

Correct.

Speaker 9: (02:04:56)
And he had some information about the reason for the pause. Is that true? I think that he had a conversation with an individual named Rob Blair, and Mr. Blair provided some insight into the reason for the pause.

Sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us firsthand account inside of OMB the reason for the pause related to the president’s concern about European burden, urban sharing in the region.

Speaker 9: (02:05:32)
And in fact, in his conversations, the president’s conversations with Senator Johnson, he mentions his concern about burden sharing, and I believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chancellor of Germany. In fact, the whole first part of the July 24th transcript, he’s talking about burden sharing and wanting the Europeans to do more. But-

Yeah, I mean, Senator Johnson was, and president Trump were pretty candid, and they believe that allies like Germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid.

Speaker 9: (02:06:20)
Right. Now, I’d like, there’s been a lot of allegations that president Zelensky is not being candid about feeling pressure from president Trump. And isn’t it true that he’s stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from president Trump? Is that true?

Yeah, he’s said it consistently. He said it in the United nations September 25th, he said it in three more news availabilities over the course of the period, including last week.

Speaker 9: (02:07:05)
I want to change subjects, and talk about something that professor Turley raised last week and that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And you’re an experienced congressional investigator.

And professor Turley, by the way, he’s no Trump supporter.

Speaker 9: (02:07:25)
That’s right. He is a Democrat. That’s right. But professor truly cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned. Is that correct?

Correct.

Speaker 9: (02:07:42)
And-

The worst thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rank Corps, because nobody’s going to accept the result on the other side.

Speaker 9: (02:07:48)
And our Democrat friends have all of a sudden become originalist and her citing the founders and their intent routinely as part of this impeachment process.

I think that goes to whether this constitutes bribery. There’s case law on bribery, and I’m no Supreme court scholar, lawyer, advocate, but you know, there’s new case law with the McDonald case about what constitutes an official act. And that certainly hasn’t been addressed in this space. And I think professor Turley mentioned that.

Speaker 9: (02:08:29)
Right. And I think professor Turley said that a meeting certainly does not constitute an official act.

I think it’s the McDonald case goes to that.

Speaker 9: (02:08:36)
Right. And professor Turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquiries unofficial and unsanctioned start in September, the process has been partisan, biased, unfair. Republican’s questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s deposition. There was some, you know-

Yeah, we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to.

Speaker 9: (02:09:17)
Right. Very basic things like who, what, when, where, and instead-

And I would say, too, this rapid, we’re in day 76 and it’s almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly, especially when the stakes are this high. Because any congressional investigation of any consequence it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interests and how they’re going to respond to them.

Speaker 9: (02:09:53)
Right.

We learned with the [inaudible 02:09:55] Gowdy probe. The first letter I think went in October of 2017, and in December we finally got a witness and it was the following spring with getting the [inaudible 02:10:09] Gowdy probe, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war, we reached a deal with DOJ where we went down to DOJ and they gave us access to documents and they gave us access to, I think, north of 800,000 pages. But they made us come down there, they made us go into a skiff and these documents weren’t classified and it wasn’t until May and June of that year that we started this process when the investigation had been ongoing and that is disappointing. Obviously we all wish there was an easy button, but congressional investigations of consequence take time.

Speaker 9: (02:10:54)
Right. And it took I think six months before the first document was even produced. And like you said, you had to go down there and review it on camera, and then going back even further to fast and furious. The investigation of the death of a border patrol agent.

Yeah, I mean fast and furious, we issued subpoenas. Mr. Issa sent some subpoenas I think in February of 2011, and we had a hearing in June with experts about proceedings and contempt, what does it take to go to contempt, and that that was the first time in June when we got any production and the production was largely publicly available information. And we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the justice department. At the time we were also working with whistle blowers who were providing us documents and chairman Issa at the time, then in October, issued another subpoena that was to the justice department and so the investigation had been ongoing most of the year we were talking to whistle blowers. We’re doing interviews and we’re doing our best to get documents out of the justice department through that channel. But these things take time.

Speaker 9: (02:12:16)
Right? And if you-

Certainly not 76 days.

Speaker 9: (02:12:19)
Yes. And if you truly want to uncover every fact, as you should in an impeachment, do you agree? You have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas. And here, my understanding is, we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information, will you please provide us with documents on X, Y, Z. And I think that’s great, but you have to back it up with something, isn’t that correct?

There’s a number of ways to enforce the request. I mean, the fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is you rarely get what you’re asking for unless, and until the alternative is less palatable for the respondent. So you issue a subpoena, and you’re trying to get documents, one technique you can use to try to talk to a document custodian or somebody in the ledge affairs function about what documents exist. Chairman Chaffetz, during his era, used to have these document production status hearings where you bring in ledge affairs officials and try to get the lay of the land because alleged affairs officials at least nominally are supposed to be directly responsible serving the interest. You can saber rattle, legal to saber rattle about holding somebody in contempt. Oftentimes witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you attach a contempt, proceeding or a prospective contempt proceeding to their name, a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a contempt proceeding you’ve got a couple of different steps along the way.

You could raise the prospect of a contempt proceeding, you could schedule a contempt proceeding. After you schedule a contempt proceeding, you could hold the door open for documents or interviews and then you could push it off. You could go through at the committee level and these are all sort of milestone events which historically are unpalatable or less palatable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle. And with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling, you know it’s a [good luck 00:18:36] Gowdy probe.,We didn’t get a witness and it was deputy director Andrew McCabe for, it was a couple of months. But once we got deputy director McCabe in, a couple of weeks later we got a director Colome’s chief of staff, a couple of weeks later… I mean the witnesses start, once you get the ball rolling you… Again, you don’t always like 100% of the terms. Sometimes you got to deal with agency counsel, sometimes you got to go look in camera. But once you get the ball rolling, usually it leads to positive results, and historically has allowed the Congress to do its work.

Speaker 9: (02:15:13)
And were any of those things done here?

No.

Speaker 9: (02:15:18)
In fact, they decided we’re not going to subpoena certain people that are important. Is that fair to say? And we’re not going to go to court and enforce them. So these folks that are caught in an inter-branch struggle.

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Speaker 9: (02:15:34)
And that’s an unfortunate position for any employee-

Well one of the concerning things is Dr. Kupperman, who has been described by Dr. Fiona Hill and a number of witnesses as a solid citizen, a good witness. He filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena and a judge was assigned to a judge Leon and the issues, the [Coverman raise 00:20:01] were slightly different than the Don McGahn issues. Because you know, Don McGahn is the personal, or the white house counsel. Kupperman of course is a national security official. Kupperman filed the lawsuit seeking guidance, Kupperman wasn’t asking the court to tell him not to come testify. To the contrary, Kupperman was seeking the court’s guidance to facilitate his cooperation and, ultimately the committee with withdrew the subpoena, which raises questions about whether the committee’s really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues.

Speaker 9: (02:16:41)
Right. Instead, the committee’s chosen, the intelligence committee has chosen to rely on Ambassador Sondland and his testimony. I think they rely 600 times in their report.

Tell you what I did on this point I, yesterday, I opened the Democrat report and I did a control F.

Speaker 9: (02:17:09)
Yes.

You know, control F?

Speaker 9: (02:17:11)
Yes.

And Sondland’s name shows up I think 611 times. And in fairness, it’s going to be double counted because if it’s in a sentence and then it’s in a footnote that’s two. But in relative comparison to the other witnesses, Sondland’s relied on big time.

Speaker 9: (02:17:35)
Yes. And I think Dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and-

The record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns with Sondland, and Sondland in his deposition at least doesn’t, he didn’t share the same view.

Speaker 9: (02:18:00)
And there’s a lot of instances of that where ambassador Sondland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another, is that correct?

Sondland as a witness, he’s a bit of an enigma, let’s just say it that way. He was pretty certain in his deposition that the security assistance wasn’t linked to anything, and then he submitted an addendum.

Speaker 9: (02:18:27)
I call that the pretzel sentence. It’s-

And even in that addendum or supplement or whatever it’s called, it’s talk to him and her and anyway, Sondland ends with, “I presumed.” So it wasn’t really any firsthand information.

Speaker 9: (02:18:54)
Right. We don’t have a lot of firsthand information here. Is that correct?

On certain facts we don’t. We have firsthand information on the May 23rd meeting in the oval office. We’ve got a lot of firsthand information, although all conflicting, on the July 10th meeting. There are episodes, I think, during the course of this investigation, that we have been able to at least get everyone’s account. But the investigation hasn’t been able to reveal firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript.

Speaker 9: (02:19:34)
I think we’ve already talked about this, that ambassador Sondland would presume things, assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him. And then he would use those as firsthand, is that correct?

You know, it started with his role with the Ukraine portfolio. A lot of people at the state department were wondering why the ambassador to the EU was so engaged in issues relating to the Ukraine. And there are answers for that. Ukraine is an aspirant to join the EU, and there’s a lot of other reasons. And Mr. Turner I think explored this really well at the open hearing, but we asked Ambassador Sondland, and he said he did a TV interview in Kiev on the 26th of July where he said, the president’s given me a lot of assignments and he’s the president to assign me Ukraine and so forth. But then when we asked him in his deposition, he conceded that he was in fact spinning, that the president never assigned him to Ukraine, that he was just, he said he was exaggerating.

Speaker 9: (02:20:51)
And I think at the public hearings you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador Sondland isn’t a note taker. He, in fact, he said, I do not recall dozens of times in his deposition.

Let’s say it this way. You know, ambassador Taylor walked us through his standard operating procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk and a notebook in his coat pocket of his suit and he brought it with us and he showed us. So consequently when ambassador Taylor recounts to us what happened, it’s backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador Sondland on the other hand, was very clear that… Firsthand, he said that he did not have access to state department records. While he said that at the public hearing, simultaneously the state department issued a tweet I think, or a statement at least saying that wasn’t true, that nobody is keeping ambassador Sondland from his emails. You know, he’s still a state department employee, he can go, he does have access to his records, but he stated he didn’t, and he stated that he doesn’t have any notes because he doesn’t take notes. And he conceded that he doesn’t have recollections on a lot of these issues. And we made a list of them and I think at the hearing I called it the trifecta of unreliability.

Speaker 9: (02:22:30)
Yes. And you’re not the only person that has concerns about ambassador Sondland’s testimony, conduct. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct?

Yeah. Tim Morrison talked about instances where ambassador Sondland was sort of showing up on invited. Marson didn’t understand why Sondland was trying to get into the Warsaw meeting September 1st and Dr. Hill, Fiona Hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, you’re correct.

Speaker 9: (02:23:09)
Ambassador Reeker and ambassador Sondland, too, correct?

I believe ambassador Reeker-

Speaker 9: (02:23:14)
said he was a problem.

Said he was a problem, yeah.

Speaker 9: (02:23:17)
Yeah. And Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said that he might be an intelligence risk. Is that correct?

She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his mobile device and make telephone calls, which obviously can be monitored by the bad guys.

Speaker 9: (02:23:47)
And we talked about how he was spinning that certain things, and he admitted that, how he was spinning.

He admitted he exaggerated.

Speaker 9: (02:23:59)
Yes. And-

He also, when it comes to his communications with the president, we tried to get him to list all the communications with the president, I think he gave us six. And then when he was back at it, he walked us through each communication with the president. And by the way, it was about a Christmas party. It was about when the president of Finland was here. And then Congresswoman Spear asked him the same question in the open hearing, and he said that he had talked to the president 20 times. So the record is mixed.

Speaker 9: (02:24:32)
I think my time’s up. Thank you both.

Part 2

Mr. Armstrong: (00:00)
Consent requests before we start.

The gentleman will state his unanimous consent request.

I would request that we enter into the record the FISA applications and other aspects of the FBI’s crossfire hurricane …

Speaker 1: (00:09)
I reserve a point of order.

I think if we’re going to …

Reserve … What are you entering?

The FISA report that just came out.

We need …

The Inspector General’s report, the [inaudible 00:00:24] this whole thing.

We’ll … Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Rep. Sensenbren: (00:34)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up on the two series of questions that the ranking member Mr. Collins directed at Mr. Goldman relative to the telephone company subpoenas and the inclusion of certain information in the majority report from the Intelligence Committee. Let me say that there are two issues involved. One that is not involved is the legality of the subpoena. I believe that that was a subpoena that is fully authorized under the law and under congressional procedures. Where I do have a problem and a really big problem, however, is the fact that somebody made a decision to match certain data, mega data, meta-data that had been collected through the subpoena with phone numbers of journalists and members of Congress.

And that is the beginning of a surveillance state, which I think is outrageous, particularly since with the Freedom Act in 2013 we curtail the NSA’s ability about that. Now had chairman Schiff decided to man up and come here and talk rather than hiding behind Mr. Goldman, his chief investigator, as his surrogate or lead gate, if you will, I think we could have gotten to the bottom of this and we could have taken action to make sure that this never happens again. I do not want to see members of Congress through their subpoena power being able to subpoena the telephone records of private citizens Willy nilly without any kind of cause or to match the numbers up with somebody else to see who they were talking to.

And then going the next step and publishing the results of that match in a report that the minority hadn’t seen until it was released. That I think is an abuse of power. We’re talking a lot about abuses of power here in the White House and in the executive branch. Here, we see a clear abuse of power on the part of the people who are prosecuting this impeachment against the president of the United States. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now I come from the state where Joe McCarthy came from. I met Joe McCarthy twice when I was first getting into politics as a teenager.

Folks, you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker with what you’ve done with the electronic surveillance involved. It is something that has to be put a stop to now. It is something that has to be fessed up to now. Whether it’s you, Mr. Goldman, that authorized the matching and the publication or whether it was Chairman Schiff. I would’ve loved to put Chairman Schiff under oath so that he could be required to answer the same way you have, Mr. Golden, on how this all happened. But as one who has spent quite a bit of time curtailing the excesses of the Patriot Act, which I authored, with the Freedom Act, which I all also authored, the surveillance state can get out of control.

This is a major step in the surveillance state getting out of control in the hands of the Congress and in the hands of a majority party that wants to influence political decisions relative to politicians, in this case President Donald Trump that they don’t like and they haven’t liked him from the beginning of his term. They have tried to talk about impeachment since the beginning of his term. They thought that the Mueller report was going to be the smoking gun. It ended up being a cap pistol, now they’re working on this.

And the steps that they have gone, the violation of common sense, the precedent that they have started and looking at the way the chairman has conducted this hearing today and in the previous hearings, not even to allow Mr. Gaetz To make a point of order that he can’t see what you put on the screen, I think goes against the entire fabric of American democracy. Shame on those who have done it. And if we want to get back to something objective, maybe it’s time to push the recess button. I yield back.

Mr. Goldman: (05:29)
Chairman Adler, could I just respond quickly on the phone records only because it’s now come up?

Mr. Chairman, I yielded back.

No, no, no.

I didn’t ask him a question. I made a statement.

The gentleman yielded back. The gentleman yielded back. Ms. Jackson-Lee is ready.

Rep. Jackson-Le: (05:47)
So, Mr. Goldman, let’s get to the facts again. During the phone conversation on July 25 with President Zelensky, President Trump was narrowly focusing on his own political survival using his public office for private and political gain. The truth matters. Then we heard counsel for the Republicans say the president is concerned about foreign aid because you could kiss it goodbye. Assuming that’s referring to anti-corruption. Well, let’s look at the facts of the July 25th call, I happened to have read it just recently, which sharply illustrates the president’s willingness to abuse the power of his office for his own personal benefit.

The memorandum of that call is on the screen in front of you and it shows that President Trump says, and by the way, right after President Zelensky spoke about defense support and the javelins, I would like you to do us a favor though. So this is a president’s own behavior in words. Mr Goldman, what was that favor?

The favor was to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory related to Ukraine interference in the 2016 election and then later …

Mr. Goldman, the investigative committees received evidence from multiple witnesses who testified that President Trump was provided specific talking points in preparation for the July 25th call geared toward protecting the American people’s national security. Is that correct?

The talking points certainly were the part of the official US policy and they included anti-corruption efforts and national security efforts. Yes.

And those talking points were provided to help the president effectively communicate official US policy interests during calls with foreign leaders. Is that right?

That is correct. It’s a routine process that the National Security Council does, but the president generally is able to use them or not use them. Witnesses said that the president is not required to use them. What was so startling here is that he not only veered off …

Thank you.

… From them, but that he went to his own personal interests.

And it is fair to say such talking points signal the purpose of a given call, correct?

Yes.

Witnesses testify that the talking points for the July 25th call, including recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, which has a focus of American foreign policy in Eastern Europe. Is that correct?

Yes.

So to be clear, the talking points created for the president or the principals to discuss specific matters that really protect the American people, is that accurate?

Yes, generally.

But witnesses such as Tim Morrison, the deputy assistant to the president and senior director for Europe, testified about what was not in those talking points.

Speaker 2: (08:38)
Now, Mr. Morrison were these references to CrowdStrike, the server in 2016 election and to Vice President Biden and his son. Were they included in the president’s talking points?

Tim Morrison: (08:51)
They were not.

Are you aware of any witness who testify that investigating the bindings was an objective of official US policy?

No, it was not before and it was not after this call.

And anything ever found of those investigations that might’ve occurred?

I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?

Anything ever found of those investigations that may have occurred with respect to the former vice president?

Every single witness said there’s no factual basis for either of the investigations.

So Mr. Trump did not use official talking points?

Correct.

And there were fact witnesses who confirmed that?

That’s right.

Speaker 2: (09:25)
When you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program consistent with US policy?

So, Mr. Goldman …

I do not. We were hoping. We recommended the president very clearly support what President Zelensky had run on in his own election and what his servant of the people party had run on and its election where it received a majority of mandate.

Speaker 2: (09:53)
But that didn’t come up in the call, did it?

No, sir.

So, Mr. Goldman, did the evidence prove that Mr. Trump utilized his position of public trust in order to accomplish these goals, his goals in order to hurt his domestic political opponent?

Yes, that’s what the evidence showed.

I’ve come to understand that America’s values of democracy and justice must have the vital pillars of truth, factual truth and trust. As a former judge and one who sat on this committee during impeachment in 1998, the truth matters. It’s clear that the president did not really care about fighting corruption in Ukraine, but wanted his own personal interests to be considered. That kind of puts in perspective Ambassador Sondland that they didn’t care whether Ukraine actually investigated, but really whether they just announced it. It is certainly well known that it is our duty as the president poses a continuing threat to under The Constitution pursue the truth.

That is our duty. We are now proceeding to do our duty to find the truth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Ohio.

Rep. Chabot: (10:58)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a second hearing on impeachment that this committee has held in the last week. Well, I would submit that your investigating the wrong guy. Let’s look at the facts. Mr. Castor, Ukraine, that’s been at the center of attention in this impeachment hearing, has historically been one of the world’s most corrupt nations. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (11:21)
That’s correct.

And under legislation that Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, it was President Trump’s responsibility, his duty to see that US tax dollars did not go to Ukraine unless they were making progress in reducing corruption. Is that also right?

Mr. Castor: (11:39)
Yes, that’s right.

And isn’t it true that Joe Biden’s son Hunter had placed himself right smack dab in the middle of that corruption?

Mr. Castor: (11:47)
Yes, he did. Burisma was one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine.

And contrary to what House Democrats in many in the media would have you believe the concerns about Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukrainian corruption, they’re not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy concocted by supporters of the president. Are they? In fact the concerns about Hunter Biden were first raised by the Obama Administration? Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (12:12)
That’s right. And also Washington Post a lot of publications and the State Department.

And the Obama administration’s concerns about Biden didn’t end there. Did they? The former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Ivanoich, said she was coached by the Obama Administration on how to answer pesky questions related to a Hunter Biden and Burisma that might arise during her Senate confirmation process. Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (12:41)
The state department was so concerned about this, they gave her a mock Q&A on this question.

And nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreed that Hunter Biden’s Burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (13:02)
That’s correct. Then, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that there was an investigation into Burisma into their head Zlochevsky and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had taken out of the country. They were working with the United Kingdom. They were working United States, the United Kingdom, Ukraine was working on tracking this money down and there was an investigation, an active investigation going on and a bribe was paid and that bribe was paid. It allowed Zlochevsky to get off scott free. Right around that time is when Burisma went about sprucing up their board, shall we say.

And yet with all that evidence, the Democrats on the intelligence committee under Chairman Schiff and now the Democrats here are determined to sweep the Biden corruption under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it and instead rush to impeach the president all to satisfy, I would argue, their radical left wing base. What a disservice to the country. Imagine this, you’ve got the Vice President Joe Biden in charge of overseeing our Ukrainian policy and his son Hunter Biden receiving 50 grand a month with no identifiable expertise in either energy or Ukraine.

Yet the Democrats won’t let us present witnesses on that. So let’s do the next best thing since we can’t bring the witnesses here, let’s watch a couple of videos.

Speaker 3: (14:28)
You didn’t have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself though?

Hunter Biden: (14:34)
No.

Speaker 3: (14:35)
The list that you gave me of the reasons why you’re on that board, you did not list the fact that you are the son of the vice president.

Of course, no.

Speaker 3: (14:42)
What role do you think that played?

I think that it isn’t possible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.

Speaker 3: (14:51)
If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would’ve been asked to be on the board of Burisma?

I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not.

Joe Biden got a little testy with a voter at one of his events in Iowa last week, calling a man a liar, challenging him to a pushup contest, among other things. And falsely stating once again that nobody said there was anything wrong with his son’s deal in Ukraine. Well, you know what, that’s a lot of malarkey. A lot of people have been saying that for quite awhile now and they’re right. And what’s worse is that first the intelligence committee and now this committee are conducting an impeachment investigation against President Trump based on as Professor Turley put it last week, wafer thin evidence and ignoring evidence of a high level US official who actually did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukrainian government in fact confessed to it in this video.

Joe Biden: (15:48)
I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting a billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here. And I think it was what, six hours I looked at. I said, I’m leaving in six hours and if the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch got fired.

You’re investigating the wrong guy, Mr. Chairman.

Time has expired. Mr. Cohen.

Rep. Cohen: (16:09)
Thank you sir. Mr Goldman, I’d like to bring us back to this president, not the next president and stay focused on the July 25 call and the president’s abuse of office for his benefit, no one else’s. Now as my colleague, Ms. Jackson-Lee confirmed, the president’s requests for these investigations was not an objective of us foreign policy. Correct?

That’s right.

Rep. Cohen: (16:31)
Is there any evidence to the National Security Council wanted an investigation into the Bidens, Burisma or any alleged Ukrainian interference in 2016?

No.

Rep. Cohen: (16:40)
Any evidence about the state department wanting them?

No.

Rep. Cohen: (16:42)
How about the DOD? The DOD want those investigations?

No evidence of that.

Rep. Cohen: (16:47)
Did any witness tell you that they wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens or the 2016 election?

No.

Rep. Cohen: (16:54)
And we certainly know now that the Ukrainians did not want it either. In fact, they made it very clear they did not want to be an instrument, and this is a quote, “an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics.” So the only person who was a beneficiary from that investigation is President Trump. And that’s why everyone on the July 25 call knew it was wrong. They knew it was wrong. The investigative committee heard testimony from three witnesses who participated in that call. Is that correct?

Yes. Well, listen to that call.

Rep. Cohen: (17:23)
Right. Mr. Goldman, even in real time, the witnesses who listened on that call testified they were concerned by the call. Is that correct?

Yes.

Rep. Cohen: (17:32)
And in fact, both Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Mr. Morrison immediately reported the call to legal counsel. Is that right?

That’s right.

Rep. Cohen: (17:39)
And why did they do so?

They did it for separate reasons. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was concerned about the substance of the call that it was improper. Mr. Morrison was concerned about the potential political ramifications if the call was released because of the substance of the call and the political nature of the call.

Rep. Cohen: (18:01)
And they reported the call that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. Mr Goldman, I’ve placed Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s testimony about why he reported the call on the screen. Am I correct his concern was based on the fact that the president was asking a foreign power to investigate a US citizen?

Yes. And he was not the only witness to express that concern.

Rep. Cohen: (18:24)
Am I also correct that he reported this concern because he thought it was a sense of duty, a duty that he felt something was wrong?

Yes. So as you probably know, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a purple heart award winner or medal winner from Iraq and he has been in the department of defense for 20 years and has a great sense of duty and a great patriotism to this country and felt that he compelled to follow that sense of duty and report it.

Rep. Cohen: (18:50)
And Ms. Williams, Vice President Pence’s aid was present for the call and she testified as you brought out or was brought out earlier, that it was unusual and inappropriate. Is that correct?

That’s right.

Rep. Cohen: (19:01)
Now when Vice President Biden got involved with the European Union and the IMF and Germany and France and said, you’ve got to do something about corruption. That was okay because they were doing something for the common good of a bunch of people as distinguished from what’s going on here where somebody’s doing it for their personal good. Is that not correct?

Right. There’s a distinction between doing an official act for an official purpose and doing an official act for a personal purpose. And if I could just respond to something Mr. Castor said. When he said that there were problems because the Zlochevsky paid a bribe to the head of Burisma in order to get out from under the prosecution, that was exactly the type of conduct that Vice President Biden wanted to shut down in Ukraine. That was exactly the type of non anti-corruption policies that Vice President Biden was objecting to using the official policy.

So that’s one of the reasons that he, I mean I don’t know if that was one, but that’s the type of thing that he based, he and the Americans and the Europeans based their decision on.

Rep. Cohen: (20:05)
That’s the issue we’ve got to get in this committee to understand the difference between doing something for the national good, for the international good, for the common good and for your own good. That’s the difference. Got to get that across. And those witnesses, many career nonpartisan officials were clear they thought it was wrong to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Video

Speaker 4: (20:25)
To investigate the vice president of the United States or someone who is a US official. I don’t think we should be asking foreign governments to do that. I would also say that’s true of a political rival.

Speaker 5: (20:36)
It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent.

Speaker 6: (20:44)
It was improper and it was inappropriate and we said that in the time in real time.

Speaker 7: (20:48)
Again, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from Russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good for national security reason is wrong.

Rep. Cohen: (21:09)
And we are going to check that type of conduct. We are the people’s house and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Gohmert.

Rep. Gohmert: (21:18)
Well I had some questions for the witness, Mr. Burke, but he is absconded, so I’m going to use my five minutes but not to ask questions. It is interesting though to have heard Mr. Goldman refuse to answer question about the investigation, yet he comes in here and the very reason that he wants to see the president for the first time any president’s ever been removed from office, why he’s been obstructing, he didn’t answer our questions. So perhaps if we’re going to apply his sense of justice to him, it would be time to have him removed from his position.

But that’s only if we apply his own standards. And as [inaudible 00:22:01] says if it weren’t for double standards, some of these folks wouldn’t have standards at all. But we were told also at the beginning that we would hear lawyers present evidence. Lawyers are going to come in here. Now what normally happens, and I’ve been in some kangaroo hearings and courts, not my own when I was there, but I have been mistreated in hearings before, but I have never seen anything like this where we don’t allow the fact witnesses to come in here.

We have the lawyers come in and tell us what we’re supposed to know about those witnesses and about their testimony and about their impression and what the law is. This is outrageous. My friend Jim Sensenbrenner said in 41 years, he’s never seen anything like what we have going on here to try to oust a sitting president. And it’s also outrageous to hear people say, well, this man thought he was a king because he said he could do anything he wanted when they know that that statement was in the context of whether or not he could fire Mueller.

And of course he could fire Mueller, he could fire or not fire Mueller. He could appoint a special prosecutor to invest my Mueller and Weissmann. I think he should have, but that’s his prerogative and he could’ve done anything about that he wanted. To take that out of context, he thinks he’s a king. Let me tell you what a king is. A king is someone who says over 20 times I can’t do that. Congress has to change the law on immigration. And then he decides, you know what, I got a pen and I got a phone. I’ll do whatever I want and by golly he does.

He makes new law with a pen and a phone. Now that is more like a monarchy, not somebody saying they can fire a special prosecutor if they want to. And regarding treason, The Constitution itself says you got to have two witnesses and that’s not hearsay witnesses. None of this stuff that wouldn’t be admissible in any decent court. No. That’s two direct evidence witnesses that can come in and positively identified themselves, not something they overheard or something, but actually be witnesses to treason. And yet this group comes in here, they toss treason out in a report like it’s no big deal.

We can bring in a bunch of hearsay witnesses and then we’ll have the lawyers testify and then throw a president out of office. This is so absurd. It’s so absurd. Now we have a witness come in and we’re told he’s going to be a witness. That’s why he doesn’t have to follow under the rules of decorum. And then I’ve never seen this. He gets to come up and grill his opposing adversary witness. I feel like to be fair, if we were going to make this thing fair, Mr. Castor would be able to come up and grill Mr. Burke. But this isn’t about being fair. It’s not about due process.

This is about a kangaroo system. And let me tell you, those that think you’ve done something special here. You have set the bar so low, I’m afraid it’s irreparable. I mean, just think we’ve had people already mention the next president Joe Biden. We’re told, gee, he may be the next president. Well, we’ve already got the forms. All we have to do is eliminate Donald Trump’s name and put Joe Biden’s name in there because he’s on video, he and his son. He basically has admitted to the crime that’s being hoisted on the president improperly. So I’m scared for my country because I’ve never seen anything like this.

This is supposed to be the Congress. I came up here from a court where we had order and we had rules and I’ve seen nothing of the kind in here today. And it’s outrageous that we’re trying to remove a president with a kangaroo court like this. I yield back

Chairman, if I could just clarify, treason is not in our report. I just want to.

The gentleman yielded back.

Yeah, and it is mentioned in the report we got. Thank you very much.

Gentlemen yielded back. Mr. Johnson.

Rep. Johnson: (26:29)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to get us back to the undisputed facts of the president’s abuse of power. Mr Goldman, as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, when you prosecuted drug conspiracy cases, was it standard practice for drug kingpins to try to beat the case by distancing themselves from the conspiracy and blaming their accomplices for the crime?

All the time. Conspiracies have different layers and the top layers make the bottom layers do the work so that they’re further removed from the actual conduct.

Okay. I’d like to ask some questions about the president’s role in what Ambassador Bolton referred to as a drug deal. Did the testimony and evidence compiled by the intelligence committee established the fact that with respect to Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani was at all times working on behalf of President Trump?

Yes, Mr. Giuliani said that, President Trump said that to a number of other individuals and then those individuals, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker also said that.

Thank you. And on May 9, 2019, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of his client, President Trump, spoke with a New York Times reporter about his planned trip to Ukraine and on that trip he planned to meet with president Zelensky, he said, and urge him to pursue investigations relating to the Bidens and to the debunked theory that Ukraine and not Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Isn’t that correct?

That’s right.

And Mr. Giuliani told the reporter that his trip was not about official US foreign policy and that the information he sought would be very, very helpful to his climate client, meaning it would be helpful to President Trump. Is that correct?

Yes. And if it’s not official foreign policy, it would be helpful to President Trump’s personal interest.

That’s correct. And there is no doubt, Mr. Goldman, that investigations of the Bidens and the 2016 election meddling were in fact not about us policy, but were about benefiting Trump’s reelection. Correct?

Yes. And even the Ukrainians realized that.

And on July 25, President Trump placed that fateful phone call to President Zelensky and he asked President Zelensky to investigate the Biden’s. Correct?

Yes.

And on that call, President Trump told Zelensky, “I will have Mr. Giuliani to give you a call.” Correct?

That’s right.

And on October 2 and October 3, President Trump once again made explicit that he and Mr. Giuliani were intent on making these investigations happen. Correct?

Yes.

President Trump: (29:28)
And just so you know, we’ve been investigating on a personal basis through Rudy and others, lawyers, corruption in the 2016 election.

President Trump: (29:40)
Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.

Mr Goldman, the evidence shows a course of conduct by President Trump and his agents. Does it not?

It does. And clearly it continued long after our investigation began.

It shows a common plan. Correct?

That’s right. Yes.

It shows a common goal?

Correct.

And the goal was to get foreign help for the 2020 election. Correct?

That’s what all the witnesses said.

And, Mr. Goldman, who was the kingpin of that plan?

President Trump.

Thank you, Mr Goldman. Ambassador Bolton called it a drug deal. As a kingpin, President Trump tried to force a foreign government to interfere in the upcoming presidential election. The evidence is undisputed and overwhelming that Rudy Giuliani acted as part of a conspiracy with President Trump to obtain Ukrainian help for President Trump in the 2020 election. This was not just a hurtful drug deal. This was an attempt to undermine the very fabric of our democracy. The framers feared most how foreign influence could turn a president into.

… most. How foreign influence could turn a President into a despate, so they adopted impeachment as a backstop to protect our democracy. The facts, ladies and gentlemen, demand that we use that remedy today. And with that yield back.

Jerrold Nadler: (31:18)
Gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan.

Jim Jordan: (31:20)
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Castor. I want to go to the document that started it all, the August 12th whistleblower complaint. Bullet point one, on page one, of the whistleblower’s complaint, he says this, ” Over the past four months, more than half a dozen US officials have informed me the various facts related to this effort. Mr Castor, who are these half a dozen US officials?

We don’t know.

Jim Jordan: (31:40)
We don’t know, do we? And we had no chance to know for sure who these people were because we never got to talk to the whistleblower. Is that right, Mr. Castor?

That’s right.

Jim Jordan: (31:49)
We needed to talk to the guy who started it all. We needed to talk to him to figure out who these more than half a dozen people were who formed the basis of this complaint. And we never got to. Adam Schiff’s staff got to. Adam Schiff knows who he is, but we don’t get to know and therefore we don’t get to know the original people, the six people, who formed the basis of this entire thing we’ve been going through now for three months. But we did talk to 17 people, right, Mr. Castor?

That’s right.

Jim Jordan: (32:12)
Seventeen depositions. And you were in every single one. You were the lawyer doing the work for the Republicans in every single one. Is that right?

Yes sir.

Jim Jordan: (32:19)
And there is one witness who they relied on and built their report around. One witness. Who would that witness? Because I read their report, it’s obviously one witness. Who’s that witness Mr. Castor?

Ambassador Sondland.

Jim Jordan: (32:31)
Ambassador Sondland. I think you said earlier, his name was mentioned, I don’t know, six? What’d you say?

611 times.

Jim Jordan: (32:35)
611 times. More than Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the guy who was on the call. More than Ambassador Taylor, their first witness, their star witness, the very first hearing in the intelligence committee, they relied on Sondland, not the whistleblower, not the more than half a dozen people who informed the whistleblower. They relied on Ambassador Sondland. And why’d they pick Sondland, Mr, Castor?

It’s probably the best they got.

Jim Jordan: (32:59)
Because that’s the best they got? The guy who had to file an addendum to his testimony? The guy that had to file the clarification? The guy who said, two weeks ago, sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in Mr. Castor, in his 23 page opening statement, he said this, “Unless President Zelensky announces an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, there would be no call with President Trump. There’d be no meeting with President Trump. There’d be no security assistance money going to Ukraine. That’s what Ambassador Sondland said. Mr. Castor, was there an announcement by President Zelensky about investigating the Bidens or Burisma?

No.

Jim Jordan: (33:30)
No announcement?

No.

Jim Jordan: (33:31)
Did President Zelensky get a call from President Trump?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (33:35)
Did President Zelensky get a meeting with President Trump?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (33:37)
Did President Zelensky get the money from the United States?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (33:42)
They got the call on July 25th. They got the money on September 11th. They got the meeting on September 25th, is that right?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (33:50)
But the guy who said no that was going to happen is the guy they build their case around?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (33:53)
Is that right, Mr. Sondland?

Yep.

Jim Jordan: (33:57)
Let me go to one other thing they built their case around, they built their case around a lot of hearsay, didn’t they?

Yes.

Jim Jordan: (34:01)
And the best example, the hearsay, surprisingly enough is Ambassador Sondland. It’s amazing, they built a case around this ambassador, and they built a case around hearsay. And the best example of both is Mr. Sondland, Ambassador Sondland, because he filed his addendum, his clarification, where he says this. We read this a couple of weeks ago. We pointed this out a couple of weeks ago. He says this in bullet point number two, in his clarification, he says, “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak, on a September 1st, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw, and a meeting with President Zelensky.” That’s his clarification.

Jim Jordan: (34:40)
Amazing, six people, as I said before, having four conversations in one sentence. “Ambassador Taylor recalls the Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visits to Warsaw, and a meeting with President Zelensky.” That’s the clarification. That’s their star witness who they built their case around. So- and-so tell so-and-so what somebody said to someone else and there you have it, that’s their case. They forget the four key facts. They forget the fact that we have the call transcript and there was no quid pro quo. They forget the fact that two guys on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky, have said repeatedly there was no pressure, no linkage, no pushing. They forget the fact Ukraine didn’t even know aid was held at the time of the call. And they forget the fact, most important, they did nothing to get the aid released. No announcement of any type of investigation whatsoever. They forget all that, those key facts. And they build their case around the guy who had to clarify his testimony with that amazing sentence. Mr. Goldman, did the Democrats publish phone records of the President’s attorney?

Mr. Giuliani? Yes.

Jim Jordan: (35:45)
Did the Democrats publish phone records of a number of the press?

Yes, who was also involved in this thing.

Jim Jordan: (35:50)
Did the Democrats publish phone records of a member of Congress?

Yes, who was talking to people involved at the time.

Jim Jordan: (35:55)
Did the Democrats, is that member of Congress also happens to be your bosses political opponent, that those phone records were published up. So the Democrats, they run this kind of investigation, ignoring the facts, not letting the whistleblower come in, and therefore not letting us know if we’ve talked to the more than half a dozen original sources for the whistleblower’s complaint in the first place. The guy has to file an addendum with that clarification sentence.

Jim Jordan: (36:19)
But one thing they did do in their report is they published the phone records of the President’s personal lawyer, the phone records of a member of the press, and the phone records of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee’s political opponent, Representative Nunes. That’s what these guys did, and that’s their effort to impeach the President of the United States, 11 months before an election.

The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. Chairman, I have-

Mr. Deutch? Mr. Deutch-

… unanimous consent.

Ted Deutch: (36:45)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to focus on the facts surrounding the President’s abuse of power-

Gentleman. Gentleman. General has stated his unanimous consent request.

And I ask you now that’s consented that you report by the majority staff of the house committee on the judiciary constitutional grounds for Presidential impeachment. It talks about treason and bribery be admitted for the record.

You what?

Be made part of our record.

Majority report? Without objection.

Thanks.

And Mr. Deutch.

Ted Deutch: (37:19)
Thank you. Getting back to the facts surrounding the president’s abuse of power using the White House meeting as leverage for helping his political campaign. Mr. Goldman, President Trump offered Ukrainian president Zelensky, a meeting in the White House, but first he wanted investigations into the Bidens, and a conspiracy theory about meddling in the 2016 election. You testified that the committees found evidence that President Trump worked to exchange official actions for personal benefit, and I want to talk about that.

Ted Deutch: (37:47)
On May 23rd, 2019, a delegation of officials returned from Zelensky’s inauguration, and they briefed the President. In that briefing, President Trump directed government officials to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, isn’t that correct?

Yes.

Ted Deutch: (38:05)
And Trump’s handpicked Ukraine operator, Gordon Sondland testified that they faced a choice, either work with Giuliani or abandon the goal of a White House meeting. What choice did they make, Mr. Goldman?

They decided to work with Mr. Giuliani.

Ted Deutch: (38:21)
Right. And six days later, on May 29th, President Trump sent the new Ukrainian president a letter that said America stood with Ukraine, and invited President Zelensky to visit the White House. Isn’t that correct?

Yes. That was the second time that he invited him to the White House.

Ted Deutch: (38:39)
And so at this point, the Ukrainian President expected that meeting.

Correct.

Ted Deutch: (38:43)
But then they learn that they’ve got to do something more for the President. Sondland testified that there was a prerequisite of investigations, isn’t that right?

Yes.

Ted Deutch: (38:54)
And NSC staffer, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that Sondland told the Ukrainians, in a July 10th meeting, that investigation of the Bidens was a deliverable, necessary to get that meeting. Isn’t that right?

Yes. And if I could just take a second to correct what Mr. Castor said about that meeting, there really is no inconsistent statements about whether or not Ambassador Sondland raised the issue of investigations in connection to the White House. Even Ambassador Volker, in his public testimony, was forced to admit that he did hear that, and he said it was inappropriate.

Ted Deutch: (39:29)
And, and in fact on July 19th, Sondland told President Zelensky directly that President Trump wanted to hear a commitment to the investigations on the July 25th call, correct?

That’s right.

Ted Deutch: (39:41)
That same day Sondland updated senior, multiple Trump administration officials, that’s Zelensky was quote, prepared to receive POTUS’s call and would offer assurances about the investigations. Isn’t that, right?

Yes.

Ted Deutch: (39:54)
And on that same day, State Department Official Volker had breakfast with Rudy Giuliani, and he reported to some then by text message, most important is for Zelensky to say he will help investigation. Right?

Yes. And address any specific personnel issues.

Ted Deutch: (40:10)
Right. And later that day, after Giuliani, spoke with Yermak, evidence suggested Giuliani gave a green light to that July 25th call. Then on the morning of the call, Volker texted Zelensky’s aide Yermak. And that text to his aide said, and I quote, “Heard from White House, assuming President Z. convinces Trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a date for visit to Washington.” And the transcript released by President Trump shows Trump requests investigations and Zelensky agrees, isn’t that correct?

Yes. And that text message was actually a direction, a message relayed from President Trump himself.

Ted Deutch: (40:54)
And then after the July 25th call, members of the administration continued to follow up with Ukrainian counterparts to prepare for the announcement of investigations. Sondland texted Volker about efforts to schedule a White House visit, noting that POTUS really wants the deliverable. Now it’s just one of many messages during a flurry of followup activity, there were meetings, and calls, and texts on July 26th, and July 27th, and August 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, and 9th, August 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th. Mr. Goldman, August 16th, 17th, and August 19th, isn’t that correct?

Yes. Including too Secretary Pompeo as well.

Ted Deutch: (41:34)
Here’s the point, these are our government officials who work for us. Instead, they were working hard to help the president advance his personal, political interest. Isn’t that what you found, Mr. Goldman?

That’s right.

Ted Deutch: (41:46)
This isn’t a close call. We had a Ukrainian President at war with Russia desperate for a White House meeting. The President promised a White House meeting, but then he blocked the Oval Office. He blocked it and said, “I need a favor. Not a favor to help America. A favor to help me get reelected. Our framers feared one day we would face a moment like this, they gave us an impeachment as a safety valve not to punish the President, but to defend our elections, and our constitution, and that’s what we must do. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Buck.

Ken Buck: (42:27)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Castor, I want to direct your attention to page three of the telephone call dated July 25th between President Trump and President Zelensky. On page three, President Trump states, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.” Later he says, “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.”

Ken Buck: (42:59)
The majority report, on page 13, says the US intelligence community had unanimously determined that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of President Trump. Mr Castor, it appears to be a conflict there. President Trump is asking the Ukraine to investigate something the majority has decided that it’s an illegitimate request, because there was no interference in an election by the Ukraine. Is that how you read this?

Yes.

Ken Buck: (43:35)
And the press release from the majority, on their report says, “As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity, and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested that the President of Ukraine, that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into subsection two, a baseless theory promoted by Russia, alleging that Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 US election. Is that true?

Yes.

Ken Buck: (44:05)
And Mr. Castor, I want to ask you something. Have you seen this article from Politico dated January 11, 2017?

Yes, I have.

Ken Buck: (44:17)
And the title of that article is Ukrainian Efforts To Sabotage Trump Backfire. Is that correct?

Yes.

Ken Buck: (44:24)
I want to read you the second paragraph. “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide and corruption, and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors. A political investigation found.” Isn’t it true that President Trump had a legitimate reason to request help from the Ukraine about the 2016 election? And I’m not suggesting for a minute that Russia didn’t interfere, of course they interfered. But the Ukraine officials tried to influence the election.

Yes.

Ken Buck: (45:10)
Let’s move on to Ambassador Sondland. I only have 10 fingers and 10 toes, so I can’t count above 20, Mr. Castor. But you know how many times ambassador Sondland said that he did not know, did not recall, had no recollection, had limited memory, or failed to remember something in his October 17th testimony? You know how many times? 325. Does that surprise you? 325.

Big number.

Ken Buck: (45:37)
And then he files a clarifying statement, and he clarifies a few things I guess. But did you have any influence? Do you have any contact with Ambassador Sondland between the time of his deposition and the time of his clarifying statement?

No.

Ken Buck: (45:53)
Did the majority?

I have no idea.

Ken Buck: (45:56)
You have no idea? So they may have had influence on his testimony?

No idea.

Ken Buck: (46:01)
And that would be evidence of bias. That would be evidence of credibility. That would be evidence that we should take into account before, but we’ll never know will we? Because the Majority Counsel has a right to assert a privilege, as to information that’s relevant to this committee’s decision. The Majority Council has a right to assert a privilege in any communications he has with the Chairman, Adam Schiff, doesn’t he?

Yeah.

Ken Buck: (46:29)
As does Minority Council. That’s a privilege that we reserved here in Congress, isn’t it?

Yeah.

Ken Buck: (46:34)
And the same thing is true of FOIA, the Freedom Of Information Act, does not apply to memos the Majority Council writes. Isn’t that true?

Correct.

Ken Buck: (46:43)
So we’ve demanded that of the executive branch, but we have allowed ourselves not to be part of FOIA, correct?

Correct.

Ken Buck: (46:51)
Okay. So the majority has a privilege. The President also has a privilege, it’s called executive privilege. He can meet with the Secretary Of State, and that’s a privileged conversation. He can meet with the Secretary Of Defense, that’s a privileged conversation. He can meet with the Secretary Of Energy, that’s a privilege conversation. Now when the majority has subpoenaed those witnesses, and the President has refused to produce those witnesses or relevant documents, or what they consider relevant documents, they are charging him with an article of impeachment for obstruction. In fact, their report says, “President obstructed the impeachment inquiry by instructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas.” Why?

Gentleman’s time is expired. Ms. Bass.

Karen Bass: (47:37)
Mr. Goldman, I want to pick up on the President using the powers of his office, in this case in a meeting at the White House, to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rival. Now that you’ve had time to step back from the investigation, is there any doubt that the President did in fact use a White House visit to pressure President Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rival to benefit his reelection campaign?

I will answer that question in a minute, but I would like just to comment to Mr. Buck that the majority staff, and no one had any contact with Ambassador Sondland after his deposition. But the answer to your question is yes, Ms. Bess.

Karen Bass: (48:15)
My colleague Mr. Deutch, mostly focused on the period prior to the July 25th call. I’d like to focus on the period after. Following the call, did President Zelensky come to the White House for a meeting?

No, he’s never come to the White House. And several witnesses, multiple witnesses, said that there’s a huge distinction between a White House meeting, and a meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly, where they did meet on September 25th.

Karen Bass: (48:41)
So has a White House meeting been scheduled?

No.

Karen Bass: (48:44)
So did the President and his associates essentially continue to withhold the White House meeting? And if so, why did they do that?

Well, the evidence found that the White House meeting was conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. And so once in mid-August when the Ukrainians, Mr. Yermak and President Zelensky, decided that they were not going to issue that statement, that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include Burisma and the 2016 elections, there was no White House meeting. It soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them.

Karen Bass: (49:24)
Well following the July 25th call, Ambassador Sondland and Volker worked closely with Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainians to help draft a statement that the President could make, President Zelensky. Wasn’t that right?

Yes. And the report say that they worked closely, and then there were also phone calls with the White House around the same time, that they were working closely.

Karen Bass: (49:48)
Do you know what that statement was supposed to say? According to Mr. Giuliani in the US officials?

Well, the key difference is that it had to include that the Ukraine would do the investigations of Burisma, which equaled the Biden investigation, and the 2016 Ukraine interference.

Karen Bass: (50:05)
But was there concerns about doing the investigations? Or what? Were they just supposed to make a statement about it? What?

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 investigations.

Karen Bass: (50:23)
And so did the committee find that without that public statement that there would be no White House meeting?

Yes.

Karen Bass: (50:30)
So I was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point. And I’d like to play another example.

Gordon Sondland: (50:38)
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. Everyone was in the loop.

Karen Bass: (50:55)
Mr Goldman, did the investigative committees find that Mr. Giuliani played a role in the White House visit being conditioned on investigations?

The evidence showed that Mr. Giuliani not only played a role, but that he was essentially the President’s agent. He was acting on behalf of the President, expressing the President’s wishes, desires.

Karen Bass: (51:18)
So what evidence did the committee find that corroborated the quote “Everyone was in the loop.”?

Well, Ambassador Sondland produced for his public testimony, and I think it’s very important, in light of the testimony from Mr. Castor a minute ago with Mr. Buck, as to how many times that Mr. Sondland did not remember in his deposition, because we agree it was egregious. But the advantage of doing closed depositions is that Mr. Sondland Could not match up his testimony. So as other witnesses came in, then he realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff. So he did admit to an email that included secretary Pompeo, Mulvaney.

Karen Bass: (51:58)
I do want to make a point before my time goes out. We have to think about what is going on today. So President Zelensky is meeting with Putin today. And because of President Trump’s actions, Zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with the leader of the nation that invaded his country. If our military assistance had been provided as Congress ordered it, and the White House meeting, President Zelensky would be meeting with Putin from a position of strength. If you want the support… And what we have to realize that the message this sends to our allies, and to our standing in the world, if you want the support of the United States, be prepared to help with President Trump’s reelection. President Trump’s abuse of power has injured our nation.

The lady yields back. Mr. Ratcliffe.

John Ratcliffe: (52:46)
Thank you chairman. The 299 page Democratic Majority Report mentions the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, on pages 26, 33, 138, 140, and 143. Mr. Goldman, you were present for the October 4, 2019, transcribed interview of the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, correct?

Yes.

On pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the Inspector General’s testimony confirms the following: That the whistleblower made statements to the Inspector General under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That the whistleblower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. The whistleblower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector General’s investigative team. Because of the whistleblower’s statements, in writing and verbally, to the Inspector General that were neither true, correct, or accurate. Pages 53 to 73 of that sworn testimony reveal that the Inspector General was not able to answer any questions. None from me about the whistleblower’s contact or communication with Chairman Schiff’s staff, of which Mr. Goldman is a member.

Mr. Castor, do you remember anywhere in this 299 page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistleblower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing, and then did so again verbally?

I don’t remember that

After the Inspector General testified on October 4th, and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistleblower contacted the Inspector General to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that not true, correct, and accurate. Mr. Castor, is that communication, from the whistleblower to the Inspector General, to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299 page report?

No.

On October 2nd, Chairman Schiff’s spokesman, Patrick Boland, acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblower’s accusations against the President had been disclosed to the house intelligence staff, and shared with Chairman Schiff. Mr. Castor, is that disclosure and Mr. Boland’s admission of that disclosure, anywhere in this report?

I don’t remember seeing it.

It’s 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 whistleblower or the Inspector General’s testimony today, then 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’s nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistleblower’s identity, nor would it reveal any information that in any way relates to, much less jeopardizes national security.

Look, maybe there’s a believable explanation for why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true or accurate about his contact or her contact with Chairman Schiff in writing and then again, verbally. Maybe there’s a good explanation for why the words Congress or congressional committee was confusing or not clear to the whistleblower.

Maybe there’s a good explanation for why the whistleblower also misled the Inspector General in writing on August 12th, by stating, “I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly when the whistleblower had in fact already contacted Chairman Schiff’s committee two weeks before he or she wrote that. Maybe there’s a believable reason why Chairman Schiff was not initially truthful about his staff’s communications with the whistleblower. Maybe there’s a good reason that explains all of these statements, in writing and verbally, that just weren’t true and correct. Maybe there is, but there is no good reason for voting to impeach and remove from office and American President without allowing a single question to be asked of a single witness to get an explanation for why the Inspector General was not told the truth about contacts between the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff.

The bottom line is we should all be held accountable. And next November, every member of the House will be asked this question, did you vote to impeach the President without allowing any investigation into why the whistleblower, that started it all, did so by making statements, in writing and verbally, under penalty of perjury that were not true. Democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered, but the voters will. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Mr. Richmond.

Cedric Richmond: (57:51)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr Goldman, I want to start off with facts and that you all uncovered through the course of your investigation. And I want to pick up where my colleagues, Mr. Deutch and Ms. Bass, left off. They walked us through how the President used the White House visit to apply pressure on Ukraine to do his personal bidding. I want to talk about how the President did the same thing with almost 400 million tax payer dollars to pressure Ukraine to do his personal bidding. So I’d like to start with turning back to the July 25th call. It’s a fact that in the President’s own words and the transcript submitted by him reveals that after Ukraine asked for military aid, Trump says, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

Right after President Zelensky thanks President Trump for the military assistance, then President Trump asks for a favor. And of course by this point, President Trump had already placed the hold on the security assistance.

Now my Republican colleagues have suggested that the Ukrainians did not even know about the military aid being withheld. Is that true?

No. There was significant evidence that even as early as July 25th, at the time of this call, that Ukrainian officials had suspected that the aid was being withheld. And there was a New York Times article, actually last week, that wasn’t included in our report, but from the former Deputy Foreign Minister, who said that Ukraine, President Zelensky’s office, received a diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of July 25th saying that the aid had been held.

Correct. And what I also show you on the screen is that it was on July 25th, also the same day of the call, that the State Department emailed the Department Of Defense noting that the Ukrainian Embassy was asking about the withheld military aid.

Yes, that’s what I was referring to.

I’d like then to, let’s go back. There was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that Mr. Sandy, from OMB, said that the reason for the security assistance hold was related to the President’s concerns about burden sharing with Europe. Is that consistent with the evidence that you all uncovered?

Mr. Goldman: (01:00:14)
So it’s a good question because Mr. Sandy did say that, but notably Mr. Sandy said that he only heard that in early September. That reason was never provided to him, or anybody else, before early September, for the first two months of the hold. And of course it was given at that point as this, the gig was up so to speak.

Cedric Richmond: (01:00:37)
So that was after everything came out to light?

Mr. Goldman: (01:00:40)
It was, he wasn’t sure of the timing, but he was ultimately told that the reason for the hold, after it was lifted, was for that reason. But that’s I think an after the fact excuse based on our evidence, because no other witnesses were ever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held.

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter into the record evidence uncovered by the committee from the House Budget And Appropriations Committees that documents OMB placing a hold on the Ukrainian security assistance on July 25th.

Jerrold Nadler: (01:01:13)
Without objection.

So let’s review. On July 18th, OMB announced to all relevant agencies that the military aid would be withheld from Ukraine. On a call with Ukraine, on July 25th, President Trump’s says, do us a favor though, and ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival. Also on July 25th, in the hours following that call, both of Ukrainians and the Americans took action specifically related to that military aid. The Ukrainians began asking about the status of their military aid, and OMB took its first official action to withhold that aid. Mr. Goldman, I’m placing on the screen in front of you, an email from Ambassador Sondland to members of the White House Administration, in which Ambassador Sondland-

To members of the White House administration in which ambassador Sondland says, “I would ask a Zelensky to look them in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place, Zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the United States. Hopefully, that will break the log jam.” Did the investigative committees uncover any evidence on what ambassador Sondland meant when he suggested that president Zelensky would have to move forward publicly on quote issues of importance to the president to receive military aid.

Mr. Goldman: (01:02:38)
Ambassador Sondland said those were the two investigations that president Trump mentioned on the July 25th call, which secretary Pompeo who received that email listened into.

So the president was concerned about the two investigations and though that was the predicate for releasing military aid to our ally.

Mr. Goldman: (01:02:56)
At the time of that email, yes.

Thank you and I yield back.

Nadler: (01:03:03)
Little earlier, Mr. Armstrong had asked the unanimous consent request to insert into the record. The IG report released today about Pfizer and I had said we were taken under advisement. We have reviewed it and without objection it will be entered into the record. Ms. Roby.

Martha Roby: (01:03:22)
I’m actually stunned by the process or lack thereof that is taking place in this institution. I have many democratic friends that I know to be thoughtful, deliberative members of Congress, even though we may disagree vehemently on policy, but these proceedings being led by the majority, like I said, it’s stunning. I cannot for the life of me, figure out why the majority would approach this in such a way that will forever cast doubt on why and how they chose to affect history with the impeachment of a president of the United States.

Now, to what is taking place here today. This is just bizarre. As a member of Congress serving on the house judiciary committee, I’m asking questions to staff his witnesses before us in an impeachment evidentiary hearing. I mean, no disrespect to staff. We have the most dedicated, hardworking staff and without these individuals, we most certainly couldn’t do our jobs effectively, but we have not and we will not hear from any fact witnesses. Whether you identify as a Republican, a Democrat or an independent, whether you agree or disagree with the president, whether you like or dislike a president.

The American people should feel cheated, by the way, this is all taking place. This process is more than incomplete and the American people deserve better. Today history is being made and I too believe it is a dangerous precident for the future of our Republic. It is worth a deeper explanation of the issue of a minority hearing. The minority members of this committee have frequently asked the chairman for a minority day hearing and all members on this side have signed onto a letter to the chairman asking for a minority day hearing.

I’d like to quote house rule 11 clause two whenever a hearing is conducted by committee on a measure or a matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled upon the request to the chair by majority of them before the completion of the hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing there on. The wording here is that the minority shall be entitled, not if the chairman deems the minority worthy, but shall be entitled.

Mr. Castor with all of your experience in investigations here in the Congress, is it your belief based on that experience that ignoring the minority’s stated rights for a hearing under the rules of the house severely undermines the future of this institution?

Mr. Castor: (01:06:17)
Yes.

I like to quote what we heard from the democratic staff, Mr. Burke in his opening comments, it is the hope that in these discussions we can put aside political rancor, disagreements, and have a fair discussion. That is far from what has happened here today or the days leading up to this. The American people deserve better than this and I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Collins.

Collins: (01:06:47)
Thank you. Mr. Castor, we’ve heard a lot. It’s always a good time I think to go back and remind people that there are four things that really haven’t changed. Would you like to at least remind us of everything that’s been discussed?

Mr. Castor: (01:06:59)
Well, there’s four things that will never change and that is, the transcript is complete and accurate. It shows no quid pro quo, no conditionality, that’s number one. Number two, there was no pressure both Zelensky and Trump have said that repeatedly. President Zelensky said that at United Nations on September 25th. He said in subsequent news articles on October 6th and October 10th and December 1st. Number three, the Ukrainians and Zelensky did not know about the pause in aid at the very least at the time of the call. And number four, no investigations were announced, the aid was released, and the White House afforded a meeting and president Trump met with Zelensky in New York.

Collins: (01:07:43)
Do you find it amazing that the majority’s one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they’re making the elected leader of the Ukraine out to be a liar? Because if he says that there’s no pressure, he’s done it on many, many occasions since then. That underlie they believe him not to be truthful. So does that strike you is a little strange, especially in this circumstance.

Mr. Castor: (01:08:05)
It’s unfortunate.

Collins: (01:08:06)
It is. It’s sad that we’re calling the elected leader who is actually working on corruption and other things like that. We’re calling him a liar simply because they don’t agree with the Democrats theory of a partisan impeachment, with that I yield back.

Nadler: (01:08:19)
Gentleman yields back. Mr Jeffries,

Jeffries C.: (01:08:21)
Let’s focus on the aid to Ukraine Mr. Goldman, Congress allocated on a bipartisan basis, $391 million in military aid to the Ukraine. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:08:31)
Yes, and it was signed by president Trump into law.

Jeffries C.: (01:08:34)
Does the record established at the military aid to Ukraine is in the national security interests of the United States?

Mr. Goldman: (01:08:40)
Absolutely.

Jeffries C.: (01:08:41)
The investigation concluded that President Trump compromised US national security by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support. Is that true?

Mr. Goldman: (01:08:52)
Yes.

Jeffries C.: (01:08:53)
President Trump and his defenders claim that he withheld military aid out of alleged concern with corruption in Ukraine. Let’s explore this phony justification. Donald Trump first spoke to the president of Ukraine on an April 21st call, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:09:12)
That’s right.

Jeffries C.: (01:09:13)
President Trump never use the word corruption on that April 21st call. True?

Mr. Goldman: (01:09:20)
That is true and the readout from the white house after the call did say that president Trump talked about corruption.

Jeffries C.: (01:09:26)
That readout was inaccurate. In a May 23rd letter, Trump’s Department of Defense concluded that Ukraine met the anticorruption benchmarks required to receive military aid from the United States. True?

Mr. Goldman: (01:09:40)
Yes, and if I could just take a second to talk about that, because that’s very important. This goes back to what Mr. Collins was talking about with vice president Biden. There is absolutely conditionality on aid in routinely in all sorts of different ways, but it’s done through official policy and these anticorruption benchmarks that you’re referencing here was a condition of Ukraine getting the aid. But in May, the Department of Defense in conjunction with the other inner agencies certified that Ukraine was making the necessary progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the aid.

Jeffries C.: (01:10:15)
And yet the aid was not released, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:10:17)
The aid was subsequently held. It was supposed to be released, DOD announced the release and then President Trump held the aid without explanation.

Jeffries C.: (01:10:27)
Mr. Goldman, based on the evidence and testimony that you have reviewed, is there any reason to believe that the president cared about corruption in Ukraine?

Mr. Goldman: (01:10:37)
No. The evidence really supports the fact that president Trump views corruption in Ukraine to be synonymous with the two investigations that he wants.

Jeffries C.: (01:10:48)
Well, what the president did care about was a political favor from the Ukrainian government, and that is why he withheld the military aid. True?

Mr. Goldman: (01:10:59)
He told ambassador Sondland himself that that is the only thing that he cares about.

Jeffries C.: (01:11:04)
Now, several witnesses testified as to the real motivation connected to the withheld military aid, including ambassador Bill Taylor. Here is what he said in his testimony.

Bill Taylor: (01:11:17)
To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with the political campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.

Jeffries C.: (01:11:36)
Logical, unexplainable, crazy. Mr. Goldman, according to the testimony from ambassador Taylor, the only explanation for the withheld aid that made sense is that the president was seeking help with a political campaign. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:11:52)
That is the only logical explanation as multiple witnesses said.

Jeffries C.: (01:11:56)
Ambassador Sondland is a Trump appointee who gave $1 million to the president’s inauguration. He testified that he came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:12:14)
Yes, and that was subsequently confirmed in a conversation with president Trump himself.

Jeffries C.: (01:12:18)
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a decorated Iraq war veteran, purple heart recipient, and member of the White House National Security Council. He testified that it is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:12:39)
Yeah. That was the pretty much unanimous view of all 17 witnesses that came in to testify in before the intelligence committee.

Jeffries C.: (01:12:49)
The evidence shows that president Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine as part of a scheme to extract a political favor and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. True?

Mr. Goldman: (01:13:01)
Yes. The scheme part is very important, because the minority wants to focus on these four very narrow facts that ignore the vast majority of the evidence. So the fact that he use scheme is actually critical to the whole case here.

Jeffries C.: (01:13:17)
The president abuse his power. The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law. I yield back.

Nadler: (01:13:26)
Gentleman yields back, Mr. Gaetz.

The last public opinion poll I saw showed Congress had an approval rating at about 9% by contrast. Muammar Gaddafi had an approval rating at 13% and his own people dragged him in the streets and killed him. This impeachment process demonstrates the worst in us and it is depriving us the opportunity to raise our gaze and meet the needs of the American people. Unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country, many people would think it’s being done for political reasons, Nancy Pelosi May, 2018.

Here we are in the most partisan presidential impeachment in American history. Matter of fact, when we opened the inquiry, no Republicans voted with the Democrats and you even had Democrats voting with us in the only bipartisan vote to shut down this impeachment. That brings us to your role, Mr. Goldman, are you here as a partisan advocate for the Democrat position or are you here as a nonpartisan investigator of the facts?

Mr. Goldman: (01:14:27)
I’m here to present the report that we did on our investigation, which was totally and completely reliant on the actual evidence that we uncovered the witness testimony and the documents.

Are you a partisan?

Mr. Goldman: (01:14:40)
I’m not a partisan.

Mr. Castor, how long have you worked for the house?

Mr. Castor: (01:14:44)
Since 2005.

And same question Mr. Goldman.

Mr. Goldman: (01:14:48)
For the house? Since earlier this year.

Mr. Castor, do you make political donations?

Mr. Castor: (01:14:54)
I don’t remember any.

Mr. Goldman, same question. Do you make political donations?

Mr. Goldman: (01:14:58)
I do, sir. I think it’s very important for-

As a matter of facts you’ve given tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats. Right?

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:03)
It’s all right. I think it’s very important to support candidates for office, I think our [crosstalk 01:15:07]-

Have you given over 100,000 to-

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:09)
Do you mind if-

I just want to know the number, I don’t really care the basis. Have you given more than a 100,000 bucks to democrats?

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:12)
You don’t care about?

The basis. I just want the number. So it’s tens… I think Mr. Burke-

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:16)
I don’t know the number, but-

Do you know how much money Mr. Burke has given Democrats.

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:20)
I don’t know and I don’t see the relevance.

Would it surprise you if it’s more than a 100,000?

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:24)
Mr. Gaetz, I’m here to talk about this report.

So you gave tens of thousands-

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:27)
I’m happy to talk to you about the report.`

… and Mr. Burke gave a whole more than a 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’re still pondering. Mr. Castor, have you ever tweeted anything at the president?

Mr. Castor: (01:15:45)
No.

Mr Goldman, same question.

Mr. Goldman: (01:15:49)
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.

As a matter of fact this is one of those tweets, right? And you said nothing in the dossier is proven false, but in fact the dossier said that there was a Russian consulate in Miami when there isn’t. The dossier said that Michael Cohen had a meeting in Prague when he didn’t. The dossier said that Michael Cohen’s wife was Russian, she’s in fact Ukrainian. So as we sit here today where you’ve, I guess got a tweet mentioning a pee tape presenting yourself not as a partisan hired by the Democrats to pursue the president. Do you regret this tweet?

Mr. Goldman: (01:16:32)
Sir, I would be happy to put this investigation up with any of the nonpartisan investigator, I did during-

I just want to know if you regret the tweet Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (01:16:39)
… my 10 years as a federal prosecutor.

Do you regret it?

Mr. Goldman: (01:16:42)
I hope you read the evidence and I think you can judge for yourself-

You either regret it or you don’t regret it-

Mr. Goldman: (01:16:46)
… whether it’s partisan or not.

I guess you don’t want to answer the question. You know what, Mr. chairman, earlier in this hearing you said in your opening statement that there is nothing more urgent than impeachment right now. This is the most urgent thing we could possibly do. Well, you know what? If you’re a senior right now and you can’t afford your prescription drugs, that’s more urgent than this. If you’re a manufacturer wanting to dominate the Western hemisphere with the passage of the US MCA, that is more urgent.

If you’re a farmer who wants to open markets so that your family can survive and thrive, that is a lot more urgent than this partisan process. If you’re a desperate family member watching someone succumb to addiction, solving the opioid problem, probably more urgent than this partisan impeachment. If you’re a member of the next generation dealing with the challenges of extinction and climate change, a budget that’s out of control, driving up the credit card of young people in this country and what they’ll have to pay back as a consequence of our poor decisions, likely more urgent.

But house Democrats have failed at all of these things. Matter of fact, I’d say the only thing under the Christmas tree for most Americans would be a lump of coal, but I think they’re against coal too. The only thing under the Christmas tree for Americans would be impeachment and investigations. I’ve heard over and over Democrats say that this is all about the president’s personal interest and that he abandoned the national interest and it begs an analysis of how the nation is doing. In November 266,000 jobs created, 80,000 over the average. Half a million more manufacturing jobs in the Trump presidency, 700,000 construction jobs. We are doing better than ever before. The American people are thriving. Why won’t you help us move along the critical issues that are far more important than your partisan impeachment.

Nadler: (01:18:32)
Gentleman time has expired. Mr. Cicilline.

Mr. Cicilline: (01:18:35)
Let me begin by dispelling the claim that Mr. Gaetv just made. This has been one of the most productive congresses in modern history. We’ve passed nearly 400 pieces of legislation that respond to the urgent priorities of the American people driving down healthcare costs, raising wages for the American worker, responding to gun violence, providing equal pay for equal work, responding to the climate crisis. 275 of those bills are fully bi-partisan and 80% of those bills are sitting on the Senate majority leader’s desk awaiting action.

So we will continue to deliver on the important priorities of the American people. But we were also elected to hold this president accountable and we took an oath of office that said to protect and defend the constitution and that’s what we’re engaged in today. So I want to return Mr. Goldman to the military aide. Did the investigating committees receive evidence about why the United States military aid to Ukraine was necessary? What was it advancing? Because a lot of Americans who are watching don’t know a lot about Ukraine, don’t know about the geopolitical significance. Like why does it matter?

Mr. Goldman: (01:19:35)
The witnesses were quite clear about this and they say it mattered for multiple reasons. The first is that Russia invaded Ukraine to take over part of their country. This was the first military incursion in Europe since World War II. And this is Russia, who’s an adversary actually trying to encroach on another democracy. So just from a broad democratic viewpoint, it was essential not only to Ukraine’s national security, but to America’s national security to make sure that democracy remains worldwide.

And prior to the call on July 25th Congress had approved the aid, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:20:17)
Congress had approved the aid and then the president had helped the aid.

And the Defense Department had even publicly announced its intention to deliver the aid, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:20:24)
That’s right.

The Trump administration had already certified that Ukraine had taken substantial steps to combat corruption, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:20:31)
Correct.

And that normally leads to the release of the aid, that’s certification.

Mr. Goldman: (01:20:35)
He announce the release of the aid, yes.

The investigative committees questioned witnesses from the Defense Department, the State Department, OMB, the White House and the National Security Council about the president’s decision to withhold aid, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (01:20:46)
Correct.

I’d like to play a clip of some of that evidence

Speaker 8: (01:20:50)
From what you witnessed did any body in the national security community support withholding the assistance?

Speaker 9: (01:20:59)
No.

Speaker 10: (01:21:01)
I never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid.

Speaker 11: (01:21:05)
The entire inter agency supported the continuation of the security assistance, isn’t that right?

Speaker 12: (01:21:09)
That is correct.

I and others sat in astonishment, the Ukrainians were fighting Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of US support.

I’m I correct that the witnesses that appeared before your committee confirmed that there was no credible explanation for withholding the military aid and that it was in fact against our national security interest to do so?

Mr. Goldman: (01:21:35)
Everyone agreed it was against our national security interest to do so. The only explanation that any witness provided was Mr. Sandy who said that he had heard from Rob Blair, I believe, the assistant to Mick Mulvaney, that the reason was because of other countries’ donations or contributions to Ukraine, but that was only in September and of course there were no further commitments from any other country.

And as we heard from Bill Taylor, who is a graduate of West Point and a decorated combat veteran who served in Vietnam, Ukraine then and now is in an active war with the Russians. Russia stole part of their country in Crimea and has killed more than 10,000 Ukrainians and weakening Ukraine would only benefit Russia. Here’s what ambassador Taylor said.

After our meeting with presidents Zelensky ambassador Volker and I traveled to the front line in Northern Donbass to receive a briefing from the commander of the forces on the line of contact. Arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters, the commander thanked us for the security assistance. But I was aware that this assistance was on hold, which made me uncomfortable. Ambassador Volker, and I could see the armed and hostile Russian led forces on the other side of the damage bridge across the line of contact. Russian led forces continue to kill Ukrainians in the war one or two a week more Ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the US assistance.

Against the consensus of his own agencies and national security experts, the president used congressionally appropriated funds to advance his own political interests at the expense of our national security. This action is a threat to the integrity of our elections and the sanctity of our democracy. President Trump must not get away with this. No one in this country, no one, including the president of the United States is above the law and with that I yield back.

Nadler: (01:23:26)
Gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson.

Johnson: (01:23:29)
Thank you Mr. Chairman. This has been a truly extraordinary and historically unprecedented hearing. It has frankly been an outrageous violation of due process. A series of violations of due process. In fact, let me review the past seven and a half hours. In the beginning of our proceedings today, I asked chairman Nadler if Mr. Burke was appearing here as a staff member or as a witness, but the chairman gave strangely conflicting answers to that important question.

Johnson: (01:23:53)
When I objected under house rule 17 that Mr. Burke was repeatedly embracingly steamrolling over house decorum rules and using language that impugn the motives of the president of the United States and suggested he is disloyal to his country. Chairman Nadler insisted that those words could not be taken down and stricken from the record saying, “The rules don’t apply here because Mr. Burke is merely appearing as a staffer.” But later chairman Nadler stated the opposite and declared that Mr. Burke was appearing to present the Democrat members report as their representative, which would of course mean that the member rule should apply.

Johnson: (01:24:27)
Then Mr. Burke was allowed to switch places and turned from witness to questioner. That’s extraordinarily bizarre of course, but it’s entirely consistent with this whole impeachment circus. As everybody knows, until chairman Adam Schiff was allowed in the opening act of this circus to serve as the judge, jury, prosecutor, witness coach and case strategy chief all in one. So much for due process.

Johnson: (01:24:49)
Under the Democrats haphazardly drawn special parameters for these special hearings. House resolution 660 Mr. Burke was then allowed to join the elected members of Congress on this dias and ask 45 minutes of questions of his fellow witness Mr. Castor. When he was argumentative, assumed critical facts is not an evidence, engage in speculation and committed countless other violations of regular house rules and the federal rules of civil procedure. I objected. But was then ruled out of order by our chairman Nadler who informed all of us that while house resolution 660 specifically provides for objections, it lists none of them.

Johnson: (01:25:25)
The Democrats have ignored every request of ours to obtain a list of what rules and objections would be enforced and applicable today. Again, so much for due process and fairness. A month ago, listen, a month ago, the Republican members of this committee formally requested all documents related to the impeachment investigation, but chairman Nadler and Schiff withheld everything until you know when? Saturday afternoon. That’s right, less than 48 hours before this hearing, they dumped approximately 8,000 pages of documentation on us while we were back home in our districts. They intentionally made it literally impossible for us to review all material in any meaningful way, mere hours before this fateful hearing.

Johnson: (01:26:02)
What’s worse is that the documents they decided to dump on us are not all of the underlying records we need to review, but rather only a partial redacted and bias subset of information that they think will advance their false narrative. And as has been mentioned here, we’re being allowed no minority day hearing, which is required by regular house rules. Now, I’d love to cross examine Mr. Burke himself, but chairman Nadler’s special and mysterious rules for this hearing won’t allow it. I notice he’s disappeared from the hearing room.

Johnson: (01:26:31)
I would love to ask him under oath about his own biases, because he hammered here over and over today the importance of fairness and objectivity and accuracy and he insisted that everything here has to be unbiased. But if he was under oath here, he would be forced to admit that FEC records show that he has personally donated approximately $99,000 to the Democrat candidates over the years, including sizable donations to Hillary Clinton for president and also donated to pass Trump opponents including Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Johnson: (01:27:01)
Mr. Burke appeared here as a fact witness and a finder of fact, but in our system, a finder of fact is supposed to be fair and impartial. He’s supposed to be an umpire. The problem with all this and the problem that everybody at home can see with their own eyes is that the umpires in this high stakes game are parading around the field in the majority team’s jerseys. The report of evidence released by Republican committee staff on December 2nd carefully documents that in the hearings that led us to this point today, chairman Schiff directed witnesses called by the Democrats not to answer Republican questions.

Johnson: (01:27:29)
He rejected witnesses, identified Republicans who would have injected some semblance of fairness and objectivity, and he denied Republican subpoenas for testimony in 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 he misled the American public about his interactions with the anonymous whistle blower to selectively seek information to paint misleading public narratives.

Johnson: (01:27:54)
The anonymous whistleblower reportedly acknowledged having a professional relationship with vice president Biden and obviously his motives, biases, and credibility are central to this case, but we can’t question it. This is not new process. This is not the rule of law. This is not how to impeach an American president and this is not how we’re supposed to run a country. It can’t be. 17 out of 24 of our colleagues over there already voted to proceed with impeachments before we started all this. They’ve already made up their minds. They were prejudice before he walked in, but the American people are not. Fairness still matters, truth matters and the people can see clearly that this is a sham. I yield back.

Nadler: (01:28:31)
Gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell.

Eric Swalwell: (01:28:33)
Mr. Goldman, would you welcome the problem of having 8,000 documents given to you from the White House?

Mr. Goldman: (01:28:39)
It would be a wonderful problem to have.

How many have they given you?

Mr. Goldman: (01:28:42)
Zero.

Mr. Castor, You said earlier that they got the aid, they got the aid, no harm, no foul. They got the aid. But you would agree that although Mr. Sandy said that the presidential concern was European contributions, nothing changed from when that concern was expressed to when they actually got the age, right? Do you agree on that? Europe didn’t kick in a bunch of new money.

Mr. Castor: (01:29:06)
Oh, but they did a study. I mean they-

Oh, a study. Okay. But they didn’t kick in new money. Do you agree on that?

Mr. Castor: (01:29:10)
Ambassador Taylor discussed that they researched–

Okay. So you talked a lot about the anti-corruption president that we have in Donald Trump. The person who had a fraud settlement relating to Trump University. The person who just recently with his own charity had a settlement related to fraud. Let’s talk about that anti-corruption president of ours. Take a wild guess, Mr. Castor, how many times has president Trump met with Vladimir Putin or talk to him?

Mr. Castor: (01:29:36)
I don’t know the number.

It’s 16. How many times has president Trump met at the white house with president Zelensky? It’s zero. And who is president Trump meeting with at the White House tomorrow. Do you know?

Mr. Castor: (01:29:49)
I’m not-

It’s Russian foreign minister Lavrov. Now, Mr. Goldman withholding aid from Ukraine obviously hurts Ukraine. It hurts the United States. Does it help any country?

Mr. Goldman: (01:30:05)
The witnesses said that that would help Russia.

Did you also hear testimony that these acts by the president while being wrong and an abuse of power also harmed US national security?

Mr. Goldman: (01:30:17)
Yes.

Did you hear anything about how it would harm our credibility? And I would turn you to a conversation ambassador Volker had on September 14 of this year with a senior Ukrainian official. Where ambassador Volker is impressing upon that official that president Zelensky should not investigate his own political opponents. What was thrown back in the face of ambassador Volker?

Mr. Goldman: (01:30:39)
After ambassador Volker suggested to Mr. Yermak again, who’s here that they should not investigate the prior president of Ukraine. Mr Yermak said back to him, “Oh, you’re encouraging us to investigate Bidens and Clintons.”

During Watergate, the famous phrase from Senator Howard Baker was asked, what did the president know and when did he know it? There’s a reason that no one here has repeated those questions during these hearings. We know what the president did and we know when he knew it. Mr. Goldman, who sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to smear Joe Biden?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:22)
President Trump.

Who fired the anti-corruption ambassador in Ukraine, Maria Yovanovitch?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:28)
President Trump.

Who told ambassador Sondland and ambassador Volker to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:36)
President Trump.

Who told vice president Pence to not go to president’s Zelensky’s inauguration?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:42)
President Trump.

Who ordered his own chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for Ukraine?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:50)
President Trump.

Who refused to meet with president Zelensky in the oval office?

Mr. Goldman: (01:31:56)
President Trump.

Who ignored on July 25 his own national security council’s anti-corruption talking points?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:05)
President Trump.

Who asked president Zelensky for a favor?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:09)
President Trump.

Who personally asked president Zelensky to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:16)
President Trump.

Who stood on the White House lawn and confirmed that he wanted Ukraine to investigate vice president Biden?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:24)
President Trump.

Who stood on that same line and said that China should also investigate vice president Biden?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:30)
President Trump.

As to anything that we do not know in this investigation, who has blocked us from knowing it?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:38)
President Trump and the White House.

So as it relates to president Trump, is he an incidental player or a central player, in this scheme?

Mr. Goldman: (01:32:47)
President Trump is the central player in this scheme.

There’s a reason that no one has said, “What did the president know and when did he know it.” From the evidence that you have presented Mr. Goldman and the intelligence committees findings, we know one thing and one thing is clear…

Intelligence Committee’s findings. We know one thing and one thing is clear, as it related to this scheme, the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, knew everything. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Biggs.

Andy BIggs: (01:33:18)
Mr. Castor, what’s direct evidence?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:22)
When a witness personally observes a fact and testifies to it.

And what’s hearsay evidence?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:26)
Well, I think out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter is certainly is something that you learn in law school.

Right. And under the federal rules of evidence adopted by most days hearsay is inadmissible unless the testimony falls under defined exceptions. Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:38)
That’s right. There’s about 23, plus the residual exception.

And I believe you were present when every witness testified including Mr. Solomon. Right?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:44)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

And that’s a yes?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:46)
Yes.

And much of the Democrats important impeachment narrative is based on the Sondland testimony, is that a fair characterization?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:53)
A lot of it is, yes.

How many times Mr. Sondland mentioned in the Intel Committee’s report?

Mr. Castor: (01:33:57)
Like I said, I did a search just to control F in the name Sondland shows up 611 times.

Yeah. And just to refresh your mind, Sondland himself told the world that basically nobody else on the planet told him that Donald Trump was trying to aid to investigations. In fact, he also said everything that he’d been testifying to is simply his presumptions. Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (01:34:20)
That is correct.

And so when we consider what a presumption is, it’s not direct. It’s not circumstantial. It’s not even hearsay. In fact, we typically, when we’re trying a case, we consider it as speculation. Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (01:34:32)
That’s right.

Do courts allow speculation in?

Mr. Castor: (01:34:35)
No.

Why not?

Mr. Castor: (01:34:36)
Because it’s not reliable.

It’s inherently unreliable. So can you name any Democrat witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 that we heard from?

Mr. Castor: (01:34:49)
We had some direct evidence on certain things. I mean, we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd meeting, and Sondland gave some direct evidence, but a lot of what we’ve obtained has been circumstantial.

How about with regard to a personal knowledge of the quid pro quo allegation?

Mr. Castor: (01:35:04)
Well, we have not gotten to the bottom of that from a direct evidence standpoint.

How about tying aid to investigations?

Mr. Castor: (01:35:10)
That’s correct, too.

How about political motives and asking for investigations?

Mr. Castor: (01:35:15)
The facts surrounding that are ambiguous.

In the non-legalistic world when we talk about speculation, we typically think use words like gossip, rumor, innuendo. Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (01:35:25)
Yep.

And isn’t it true that the only direct evidence that we have is that Ukraine received the aid without giving anything in return? President Zelensky has repeatedly stated no pressure, no problem with the phone call and the relationship with Mr. Trump, and that the president had a legitimate concern about Ukraine corruption.

Mr. Castor: (01:35:42)
He did end the burden sharing of European allies.

So much has been made about the alleged desire for an announcement of an investigation. But again, there is no direct evidence that supports the allegation that president Trump wanted merely the announcement of an investigation.

Mr. Castor: (01:36:00)
Like I said, there’s eight lines in the call transcript to go to what president Trump said about the investigations, eight lines.

And everything else is hearsay, innuendo, rumor, rumor, gossip, right?

Mr. Castor: (01:36:09)
It’s inconclusive. Certainly.

Yeah. So when we get into this event today in the process, we start talking about the process. Were you surprised to see Mr. Burke get out of his chair, move to the seat and sit down next to the chairman and start asking questions?

Mr. Castor: (01:36:24)
I don’t know if I was suppressed or not.

Yeah. Well, I’ll tell you I was, and it looks like Mr. Burke has been disappeared. And so that’s one of the outrageous things about this process and it’s been outrageous from start to finish. We’ve seen prejudice and bias against the president from start to finish. We have the lion’s share, almost two-thirds of the members of the Democrats have already voted to impeach at least once. And that’s before anything with regard to this July 25th telephone conversation ever took place. And we’re left with a constant view that as on November 9th, 2016 Representative Green from Texas wanted to begin impeachment proceedings at that point. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:37:09)
Yes.

January 20th, 2017, Washington Post headline Let the Impeachment begin, is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:37:17)
Yes.

10 days later, Mr. Zaid, who is the attorney for the whistleblower, tweeted out, “Let the impeachment begin, let the coup begin, and victory to the lawyers.” Is that right?

Mr. Castor: (01:37:27)
Yeah. I’ve seen that.

Yeah. We had people who on this committee came out today and they went on TV and said, “We wanted to start impeachment earlier, but the speaker held us back.” Did you see that?

Mr. Castor: (01:37:42)
I haven’t seen that. No.

Yeah.

Mr. Castor: (01:37:42)
I haven’t seen news reports today.

Yeah. You wouldn’t be surprised about that though, would you?

Mr. Castor: (01:37:47)
No.

No. Nobody should be surprised about that because this is a sham hearing three years that they’ve been trying to remove this president and this is the culmination of a predetermined outcome. That’s where we are today. And so with that we bring it back to the same points. No pressure, no conditionality, and all of the aid, meetings, calls, were received by the Ukrainians. With that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Lieu.

Ted Lieu: (01:38:18)
Thank you, Chairman Nadler. Let’s just cut through all the Republican arguments today and make things very simple. No one else in America could do what Donald Trump did and get away with it. No American elected official can call up a foreign government official and ask for an investigation of a political opponent. No one’s sitting on this Judiciary Committee can call up a foreign government official and ask for help in our reelection campaign. If we did that and got caught, we would likely be indicted. Now let’s focus on the President’s abuse of power in this case, because it’s actually worse than examples I just gave.

Ted Lieu: (01:38:58)
And I know that I first sworn oath to the constitution when I joined the United States Air Force on active duty, and the three core values I learned were integrity first, service before self, excellence in all we do. I’d like to focus on the first two, integrity first and service before self, because it’s ingrained in all military members that we cannot mix official duties with personal private gain. So Mr. Goldman, in this case, the $381 million at issue, that wasn’t Donald Trump’s money. That was US taxpayer funds, is that right?

Yes.

Ted Lieu: (01:39:32)
And certainly the president should not use our taxpayer of money for his own personal benefit, and especially not to leverage it for his own reelection campaign, isn’t that right?

That’s correct.

Ted Lieu: (01:39:43)
The president’s abuse of power is even worse in this case than just using official duties for private gain. It’s also just flat out illegal. You cannot solicit foreign assistance for your reelection campaign. There is a violation of federal election campaign act. A lot of whole people have gone to prison for violating the various sections of that act.

Ted Lieu: (01:40:04)
A reasonable person could also conclude that the President violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Congress passed as a response to President Nixon’s abuse of power. So I’d like to explore that a little further with you Mr. Goldman. In this case, Congress with bipartisan support had appropriated taxpayer funds for this specific purpose of aiding Ukraine in it’s war against Russia. Is that right?

Yes.

Ted Lieu: (01:40:29)
And not only had that money been appropriated, the money had actually been released to the Department of Defense, is that right?

They were about to release it, yes.

Ted Lieu: (01:40:38)
Okay. And then suddenly without explanation the President demanded that those taxpayer funds be withheld from an ally who desperately needed the aid. Mr Goldman, did they President notify Congress about his decision to withhold the aid?

No, he did not.

Ted Lieu: (01:40:52)
Okay. So the Impoundment Control Act was designed to prevent the president from secretly taking congressionally appropriated funds and doing whatever he wants with them. So is it true that in your intelligence report, you found the following in your findings of fact, President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million and vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine and the President did so despite his obligations under the impoundment control act? Did you find that?

Yes.

Ted Lieu: (01:41:19)
All right. So not only did the President abuse his powers for personal gain, and not only was it illegal, his actions also harmed US national security. So it’s a fundamental tenant of US national security to push back against Russian aggression. Ukraine’s at the tip of this spear, pushing back against Russian aggression. Is it true, Mr. Goldman, that harming the Ukrainian military also harms US national security?

That’s what pretty much every witness said.

Ted Lieu: (01:41:47)
Last week, Professor Karlan confirmed that it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice a national interest for his own private ends. A slide shows what she said. Mr. Goldman, based on the evidence that you found in your report, is it fair to conclude that the President’s actions both leveraged taxpayer funds for his own private gain and sacrificed the national interests for his own private ends?

That is what we found.

Ted Lieu: (01:42:12)
Okay. I was also personally struck by Mr. Holmes’ testimony because it makes it clear that the President did not care about or foreign policy or US national security. He only cared about investigating his political opponent. Here’s what Mr. Holmes said.

David Holmes: (01:42:26)
Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about big stuff. I noted there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.

Ted Lieu: (01:42:44)
Look, here’s the thing. If any military member used official acts for personal gain, that member would no longer be part of the military. And in fact, last year a Navy commander was convicted for taking things of value in exchange for official acts. The US attorney who prosecuted case said to the Commander, quote, “Put his own selfish interests ahead of the Navy and of our nation,” unquote. We should not hold the Commander in Chief to a lower standard than regular military members. We should not hold their president to a different standard than any other elected official. No one is above the law. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. McClintock.

Tom McClintock: (01:43:24)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In every election, one side wins and the other loses. Democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters. The moment that social compact breaks down, democracy collapses into chaos. And that’s only happened twice in our nation’s history. It happened in 1860 when the Democrats refused to accept the legitimate election of Abraham Lincoln. And it happened again in 2016 when the Democrats refused to accept the legitimate election of Donald Trump. The issues before us today do indeed strike at the heart of our democracy.

The first calls for impeachment began just days after the 2016 election, and ever since the Democrats had been searching for a pretext. When the Mueller investigation found no evidence to support the monstrous lie that the President acted in collusion with Russia, the Democrats realized they were running out of time and suddenly the Ukrainian phone call replaced collusion, Stormy Daniels, tax returns, emoluments, and even tweets as the reason to nullify the election just a year before the next one is to be held.

Impeachment is one of the most serious powers with which Congress is entrusted. It requires an overwhelming case of high crimes supported by clear evidence that a vast majority of the nation deems compelling. Our constitution vests the executive authority, including the enforcement of our laws with the president, and it gives him sole authority to conduct our foreign affairs. Clearly, this includes requesting a foreign government to cooperate in resolving, potentially corrupt and illegal interactions between that governments officials and ours.

Now, the sum total of the Democrat’s case comes down to this, not one of their handpicked witnesses provided any firsthand knowledge of the president ordering a quid pro quo and two witnesses, Sondland by testimony and Senator Johnson by letter, provided firsthand testimony that the President specifically ordered no quid pro quo. No testimony was provided that the Ukrainian government believed that there was any quid pro quo, but there are ample public statements that his officials did not believe there was such a linkage.

In fact, the testimony of their witnesses crumbled under questioning and we were left with career bureaucrats who admitted that the only evidence they offered was presumption, speculation, and what they’d read in The New York Times. It’s upon this flimsy evidence that the Democrats justified nullifying the 2016 presidential election. And it’s so flimsy the Democrats have had to turn our Bill of Rights on its head in order to make it. They’ve argued that hearsay evidence better known as gossip is better than direct testimony.

They’ve argued that the burden of proof rests with the accused to prove his innocence, while at the same time denying the defense witnesses permission to testify. They’ve argued that the right to confront your accuser is an invasion of the accuser’s privacy. They’ve argued that appealing to the course to defend your constitutional rights as the President has done is ipso facto obstruction of justice and evidence of guilt.

They’ve asserted the power to determine what witnesses the defense is allowed to call, and they’ve argued that a crime is not necessary to impeach, only impure motives in performing otherwise lawful acts, mode is of course, to be divined entirely by the accusers. These are the legal doctrines of despots, but they’re the only ones that can accommodate the case before us today. This is a stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will stain the reputations of those responsible for generations to come, and God help our country if they should ever be given the power to replace our Bill of Rights with the doctrines that they have imposed in this process.

The Democrats are fond of saying no one’s above the law. They have one unspoken caveat, except for themselves. Now the speaker’s already short circuited what should be a solemn, painstaking, thorough and above all fair process by ordering her foot soldiers on this committee to draw up articles of impeachment without this committee hearing from a single fact witness. Despite the fact that Mr. Schiff doesn’t dare to appear before this committee to defend his work, we’re supposed to accept his report at face value and obediently follow the speaker’s orders.

As the Red Queen declared, sentence first, verdict afterwards. We can only pray the Senate still adheres to the judicial principles of our founders and if they do, perhaps then we can begin repairing the damage that this travesty has done to our democracy, our institutions, our principles of justice, our constitution, and our country.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Raskin.

Jamie Raskin: (01:48:33)
Thank you. Why is impeachment in the constitution? Well, the framers feared a president might corrupt our elections by dragging foreign powers into our politics in order to promote the personal political ambitions of the president above the rule of law and above the national security. The framers set against a potential tyrant’s boundless thirst for power, the people’s representatives here in Congress, and the people’s own democratic ambitions, our self respect, our love of freedom in the rule of law, our fierce constitutional patriotism.

Now it looked like president Trump might get away with his Ukraine shakedown after all, most Americans didn’t know anything about it, and the few who learned a bit would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth. President Trump could rest easy, but if Donald Trump misjudged the American character, the framers of our constitution did not. I count 17 honorable public servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the President. Is that right, Mr. Goldman?

Yes, there were 17.

And I count a dozen career State Department and National Security officials who served Republican and Democratic presidents alike over decades who came to testify. In fact, four of president Trump’s own National Security council staffers, Hill, Vindman, Morrison, and Maguire came forward to report Trump’s scheme to NSC lawyers as soon as they learned of it, didn’t they, Mr. Goldman?

Morrison and Vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned of it. Yes.

They went to the lawyers and that moved me a lot, because my father was a staffer on the National Security Council under President Kennedy. And he said, “The most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience.” And he devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people. So I want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. Mr. Goldman, who is Dr. Fiona Hill?

Dr. Fiona Hill was the senior director for the Europe and Russia directorate at the National Security Council until July of this year.

And she was President Trump’s senior advisor on Russia?

Correct.

Her family had fled both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

I think her family actually came from England. It was Marie Yovanovitch who had-

Oh, that was Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Yes.

Dr. Hill voiced her concerns the NSCs lawyers on July 10 and July 11th long before anyone on this committee knew about it, why did she go to report what she had learned? What motivated her?

He was concerned that Ambassador Sondland and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the Ukrainians would open up these investigations for President Trump’s political interests in return for getting the White House meeting that President Trump had offered.

And I want to talk about deputy assistant secretary George Kent, who served as a career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five different presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, and he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous his concerns about the President’s conduct. Mr. Goldman, what were the events that led Mr. Kent to draft these notes to his file?

There were several. There was a conversation at the end of June where several American officials had indicated to President Zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. There was one on August 16th I recall that he talked about. But you bring up a very important point, which is all of the State Department witnesses in particular, and frankly, almost all of the witnesses other than Ambassador Sondland, took unbelievable meticulous notes. I would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. And it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that’s based on contemporaneous notes.

So do we have Mr. Kent’s notes in this process?

We have no State Department records including these memos to file, the notes, Ambassador Taylor’s first-person cable and emails. There are so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation.

Why do we not have them?

The State Department refused to provide them, not withstanding our subpoena, under the President’s direction.

In authoritarian societies like Putin’s Russia or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, people are terrified to speak out about the crimes of their political leaders, but in the United States, a lot of people are not afraid. Even though President Trump has tried to intimidate or silence them. And he is trying to make our country more like Russia, and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heroes who stood up for the truth in our constitution. I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Ms. Lesko.

Debbie Lesko: (01:53:53)
Thank you, Mr. chairman. My first two questions are for the American people. America, are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham? And America, would you like Congress to get back to work and actually get something done? Cause I sure would. Mr. Castor, the rest of the questions are for you and I would like yes or no answers if possible. Mr. Castor, my first question is important. Did any of the Democrats back witnesses establish that the President had committed bribery, extortion, or a high crime or misdemeanor?

Mr. Castor: (01:54:32)
Good heavens, no.

Mr. Castor, the deputy assistant to the President of the National Security, Mr. Morrison, listened in on the phone call. He testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:54:52)
Yeah, he was worried about leaks.

Several Democrat witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons, including concerns that the country is corrupt and taxpayer dollars may be misspent. Ambassador Volker testified that this hold on security assistance to Ukraine was not significant. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:55:17)
Yes. A number of witnesses can also said the same thing.

Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, testified that in Ukraine, and I quote, “Corruption is not just prevalent, but frankly is the system.” Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:55:36)
Yes. All the witnesses confirmed the environment is a very corrupt.

Mr. Castor, Ukraine energy company, Burisma Holdings, had a reputation in Ukraine as a corrupt company. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:55:47)
Big time.

According to New York times, Hunter Biden was part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations. Is that correct?

Mr. Castor: (01:56:01)
Yeah. The New Yorker also had a pretty extensive report on that as well.

Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of state, George Kent, testified that he raised concerns directly to Vice President Biden’s office about Hunter Biden’s services on Burisma’s board. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Mr. Castor: (01:56:20)
Yes.

Mr. Castor, in the July 25th call, President Trump referenced Joe Biden bragging about how we stop the prosecution. We all saw that video earlier today where Joe Biden bragged about how he told Ukraine if the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Mr. Castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into Burisma?

Mr. Castor: (01:56:50)
It is.

In a similar scheme, Obama assistant attorney general said, and I quote, “Awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption plain and simple.” Mr. Castor, here is another key question.

Given that one, Burisma had a reputation of being a corrupt company, two Obama’s own State Department was concerned about Hunter Biden serving on Burisma’s board at the same time that Vice President Biden was acting as the point person to Ukraine, and three, Obama’s assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme that there was corruption, plain and simple, do you think then it is understandable, reasonable, and acceptable for President Trump to ask the Ukrainian president to look into the Hunter Biden/Burisma potential corruption scheme?

Mr. Castor: (01:58:06)
Yes.

Mr. Castor, there are four indisputable facts that will never change that prove there is no impeachable offense. There was no quid pro quo on the July 25th call. Ukraine leadership did not know the aide was held up at the time of the July 25th telephone call. Ukraine received the White House meeting, phone call, and aid, even though four, Ukraine didn’t initiate any investigations. Do you agree?

Mr. Castor: (01:58:35)
Ukraine received a meeting with Vice President Pence in Warsaw and a meeting not at the White House, but in New York, at the United Nations.

Mr. Castor, did Mr. Turley testify in the past hearing that this impeachment inquiry has not passed Chairman Nadler’s three prong tests?

Mr. Castor: (01:58:58)
He did. Thank you. And I yield back.

Speaker: (01:59:01)
Thank you. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized.

Pramila Jayapal: (01:59:05)
Thank you. Mr. Goldman, let’s focus on the Republican claim that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain. And let me be clear, we actually do not have to read the President’s mind on this. As your report notes on page 10 and as we will see on television, he told us himself exactly what his intent was.

Reporter: (01:59:32)
What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.

President Trump: (01:59:33)
Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation as to the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.

So the first and best witness about the President’s corrupt intent was Donald Trump. There is also plenty of corroborating evidence. So let’s just review some of the basic facts that we’ve already established. First, President Trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of his calls with President Zelensky, and he disregards all of the talking points that were prepared for him on corruption by the National Security Council. Second, investigations of the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official US policy. And third Congress authorized military aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine passed all the checks that the United States established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption. And there was unanimous consensus among the State Department, Department of Defense and National Security Council that the President should release the military aid that Ukraine critically needed to fight Russian aggression. So Mr. Goldman, between the time that President Trump put a hold on military aid to Ukraine and then release the aid, the President never conducted an actual review or corruption assessment on Ukraine, did he?

That is correct. There was no witness testified that there was any review or any investigation of any sort related to the Ukraine aid.

And isn’t it also true that the Defense Department actually determined not to conduct a review on Ukraine after the President froze the military aid? Because Ukraine had already met all of the corruption benchmarks in May of 2019?

Yes. And everyone involved in Ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path. And President Zelensky in particular.

And in addition to Ukraine having satisfied all the relevant corruption assessments prior to US military aid being withheld, there is significant witness testimony that both the State Department and the Ukrainian embassy actually advised that a White House meeting with President Zelensky would help further an anti-corruption agenda. Correct?

Both the anti-corruption agenda and fighting the aggression from Russia.

And in fact, President Trump’s budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in Ukraine. Now, Mr. Castor argues that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general. But in both 2017 and 2018 didn’t President Trump release military aid for Ukraine without any complaints about corruption?

That’s correct.

So Mr. Goldman, the President was perfectly fine giving military aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 but somehow not in 2019 so what changed?

Joe Biden started running for president.

Vice President Biden started running. So the sequence-

And I would add, the Mueller report came out, which did not, even though it did not charge the President and implicated the President and his campaign in welcoming the assistance from Russia and utilizing it.

And the sequence of events and all the corroborating evidence makes it crystal clear that President Trump didn’t care about corruption at all. In fact, as he told us himself on national television, he simply cared about his own politically motivated investigations into his political rival. And you saw the clip where Ambassador Sondland picked up the phone, called President Trump, and then Mr. Holmes asked him what the President thought about Ukraine and quickly what was Mr. Sondland’s answer?

Mr. Sondland said the President does not give a bleep about Ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff, meaning the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. And by the way, just to add that as a direct evidence conversation between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland on that day. And there are many that we have not talked about on the minority side.

So we know what President Trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and witness testimony. The President of the United States wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal political benefit to interfere in our election. And he was willing to use us military aid, which is taxpayer dollars and in-

… use US military aid, which is taxpayer dollars and an essential White House meeting as his leverage. That is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power. I yield back.

Mary Gay S.: (02:04:13)
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes.

Guy R.: (02:04:16)
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. In the Navy, we had a saying. BLUF, which is bottom line up front. Let me give everybody the bottom line. We’re here because Democrats are terrified that President Trump is going to win re-election. That’s really what this all comes down to. Let me get into the specifics. We’re here dealing with impeachment because Democrats don’t want to talk about the red hot Trump economy. They don’t want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. We’re dealing with impeachment because Democrats don’t want to talk about how the President has worked to protect American companies from Chinese aggression. How he’s renegotiated trade deals to benefit American workers, how he’s eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy and that help job creators.

Guy R.: (02:05:10)
Congressional Democrats don’t want to be reminded that the American people, that the Democrat agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes, giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-funded healthcare, and taking private health insurance away from the American people. That’s really why we’re here. This whole process is just a distraction. It’s an attempt to hide the far-left radical agenda. So let’s talk about the facts. Schiff’s report claims the administration froze military aid for Ukraine without explanation. Yet the facts are that Trump gave more military aid to Ukraine than President Obama. President Obama gave Ukraine well wishes and blankets. President Trump gave the Ukrainians Javelin missiles. That’s the difference, and those are the facts. Let’s go over some more facts. House Democrats want to claim it’s a conspiracy that Ukrainian officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. Yet Ukrainian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election are well documented by Politico, by Financial Times, and The Hill.

Guy R.: (02:06:26)
There was an attempt to influence our elections, and that’s troubling and that’s why President Trump brought it to attention of President Zelensky. Again, those are the facts. But at the end of the day, those facts don’t seem to matter to my Democrat colleagues. House Democrats don’t care that President Zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. It’s not important that the call transcript was the best evidence we have. It is the best evidence we have, it’s the actual primary document. And that transcript shows there was no quid pro quo, no bribery. I got to remember we’re calling it bribery after an old Latin phrase didn’t poll well or test well in a Democrat focus group.

Guy R.: (02:07:11)
My Democrat colleagues seem to really care about focus groups and polling. Unfortunately, again they don’t care about the facts, because the fact is that Democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began. Representative Tlaib said in January, I don’t even think we were sworn in yet. She said in January, “Impeach the mother.” Representative Green said in May, and I quote, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this President, he will get re-elected.” These proceedings, this entire process is nothing more than a political hit job. Well, unlike my Democrat colleagues, I actually do care about the facts, which is why I’m troubled that our committee did not hear from a single fact witness this entire time. We should be hearing from Hunter Biden. We should be hearing from Schiff’s staff. We know that Schiff’s staff coordinated with the whistleblower.

Guy R.: (02:08:09)
And again, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Last week, I offered a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to testify in executive session, meaning that he or she could testify behind closed doors. My Democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. Mr. Castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistleblower’s complaint?

Mr. Castor: (02:08:32)
Well, the first thing about the complaint that troubles us is that it’s clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. The information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted and it’s from a person who is, it seems to be making a case, like an advocate, about what happened on the call. The whistleblower references a number of individuals inside the White House and at the State Department that he or she has spoken to, to form the basis of the complaint, we have not been able to piece together all those people. And talking to all those people is important, and there’s a lot of… I’m running out of time here, but there’s a reference to Lutsenko in the whistleblower complaint, where witnesses have told us it’s likely Shokin. Vindman and Morrison’s testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers, very different reasons. Mr. Brechbuhl-

Mary Gay S.: (02:09:27)
The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Castor: (02:09:28)
I don’t believe he was on the call, but…

Mary Gay S.: (02:09:33)
[inaudible 02:09:33] I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida for five minutes.

Val Demings: (02:09:38)
Mr. Goldman, as a member of the intelligence committee, I saw significant first-hand evidence that President Trump conditioned our military aid on Ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens and betrayed our national security interests in the process. For example, Ambassador Sondland told us that once the Ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld, it was made and I quote, “Abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid,” and I quote, “They were going to have to make these statements.”

Mr. Goldman, beginning on and around the 25th of July call through September, would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed, Ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the White House visit, that they were going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations?

Mr. Goldman: (02:10:36)
Not only were they made aware, but they were made aware either by President Trump’s proxy, Rudy Giuliani, or form President Trump himself through Ambassador Sondland, who spoke to President Zelensky and Andrey Yermak on September 7th and told them what President Trump had confirmed to him, that the aid was conditioned on the investigations.

And by the end of August, President Zelensky did in fact commit to making that commitment on CNN. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:11:04)
That’s right. Finally, President Zelensky relented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic US political process, and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice to break the stalemate, as Ambassador Sondland told them, that he ultimately agreed to go on television before President Trump got caught and released the aid.

I’d like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you, which displays again a Washington Post article from September 5th. The headline says: “Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections.” And the article reports that President Trump is, and I quote, “Attempting to force Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign, he is using United States’ military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

So am I correct, Mr. Goldman, that by September 25th, allegations that President Trump was using military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported?

Mr. Goldman: (02:12:20)
I’m sorry, by what date?

September 5th.

Mr. Goldman: (02:12:23)
Yes. Well, widely reported, certainly the aid being withheld was widely reported.

And by September 9th, our investigative committees formally announced a Congressional investigation into the President of these issues… into the President about these issues. And Mr. Goldman, what day did Trump release the military aid?

Mr. Goldman: (02:12:44)
Two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the IG, the Inspector General, told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld.

So then am I correct that as the timeline on the screen in front of you shows, it wasn’t until after the whistleblower complaint, after the Washington Post report, and after Congress launched the investigations that President Trump finally released the aid?

Mr. Goldman: (02:13:13)
That’s right. And I would just add one thing briefly to the Congressman’s point, that it is true that President Trump has given more military assistance than President Obama. And so one would wonder if he does support military assistance so much, why then is he holding it up for more than two months?

And matter of fact, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that people at the NSC in fact discussed that Congress’ investigation, “Might have the effect of releasing the hold on Ukraine’s military aid, because it would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid.” Is that correct, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (02:13:52)
That was the testimony, yes.

In other words, the aid was released after the President got caught. And what makes me angry is that this President, President Trump, thinks he can get away with it. But he got caught and he tried to cover it up. But we won’t let him do that, and we thank God, Mr. Goldman, for the true courageous public servants who came forward in spite of intimidation and obstruction from the White House. You see, everybody counts, but everybody is accountable, up to and including the President of the United States. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mary Gay S.: (02:14:42)
Thank you, the Chair…

I don’t have anything.

Mary Gay S.: (02:14:47)
Okay. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Correa. I’m sorry, California.

A lot of people are moving from California to Texas.

Lou Correa: (02:14:56)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Goldman, my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the President apparently said, and I quote, “No quid pro quo,” on September 7th in a call with Ambassador Sondland. Mr. Goldman, did you receive testimony about this September 7th call?

Mr. Goldman: (02:15:15)
Yes, we received testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little complicated, but that was a consistent refrain through all of the witnesses is that the President did say, “No quid pro quo.”

Well, let’s try to clarify it a little bit. Ambassador Sondland described that call to Mr. Morrison that same day. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:15:36)
That’s right.

And Mr. Morrison then reported it to Ambassador Taylor, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:15:42)
That’s correct, yes.

And both Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor took notes of those discussions.

Mr. Goldman: (02:15:48)
They did.

Were those notes produced to the committee?

Mr. Goldman: (02:15:52)
They were not produced to us, but the witnesses said they relied on their notes to provide their testimony.

That set of notes was blocked consistent with the President’s direction?

Mr. Goldman: (02:16:04)
Correct.

And in his recitation to Mr. Morrison, Ambassador Sondland said that President Trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo?

Mr. Goldman: (02:16:15)
That’s right. Ambassador Sondland also said that too, yes.

And Mr. Goldman, what did the committee make of this fact?

Mr. Goldman: (02:16:22)
Well, it was quite odd that the President would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid pro quo that there was no quid pro quo.

Let’s-

Mr. Goldman: (02:16:31)
[crosstalk 02:16:31] But I think-

Go ahead.

Mr. Goldman: (02:16:32)
Well, I was just going to say, what’s even more important is that what he said immediately after that, which is effectively conduct that amounts to a quid pro quo. He said, “There’s no quid pro quo, but you have to go the microphone and make this announcement.”

Well, let’s talk about that. What did the committee make of the fact that according to Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison, right after President Trump said, “No quid pro quo,” President Trump then told Ambassador Sondland that Ukrainian President Zelensky would have to go to the microphone and announce the investigations of Biden and the 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do that himself?

Mr. Goldman: (02:17:13)
That’s right. We had a number of different accounts of this, and I think this is-

[crosstalk 02:17:18] They’re up on the boards here.

Mr. Goldman: (02:17:19)
Right, I see that, yes. Ambassador Taylor said that, Ambassador… or Mr. Morrison said something similar. Their understandings of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo factually, from the conduct, from the actions, and we’ve talked a lot today about the words and that Zelensky said, “No pressure,” and Trump said, “No pressure and no quid pro quo,” but as an investigator, as a prosecutor, you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean and that’s why this call in particular is so important.

So let’s go further. As we’ve discussed, multiple individuals reacted with concern to President Trump’s call with Ambassador Sondland. Do you recall Mr. Morrison’s reaction?

Mr. Goldman: (02:18:02)
Mr. Morrison said that he was shocked, I think, and that he-

Sinking feeling?

Mr. Goldman: (02:18:07)
Sinking feeling, correct. And that he went and then talked to the lawyers at the direction of Ambassador Bolton.

Correct. And Mr. Goldman, Ambassador Taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on Zelensky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogical, crazy, and wrong. Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:18:30)
That was what Ambassador Taylor testified to, yes.

Now, my colleagues have also pointed out that on September 9th, text message from Sondland reflecting the President has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo. Mr. Goldman, am I correct that Ambassador Sondland has now testified that prior to sending his text, he himself came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations?

Mr. Goldman: (02:18:59)
Yes, Ambassador Sondland’s subsequent public testimony revealed at least two things that were precisely false, that were not true in that text message, including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified, and we saw the video earlier that there absolutely, assuredly was as it related to the White House meeting.

And this September 7th call and the September 9th text occurred after the press reports, that is after the press reports that President Trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rival, is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:19:34)
Yes. And it also, this text occurred after Ambassador Sondland relayed President Trump’s message to President Zelensky.

Mr. Goldman, did the Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the President’s assertion that there was no quid pro quo?

Mr. Goldman: (02:19:53)
We received a lot of evidence and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo.

Thank you. I yield.

Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Or Madam Chairman-

Mary Gay S.: (02:20:08)
[crosstalk 02:20:08] Can you please hold it until after-

Madam Chairman?

Mary Gay S.: (02:20:09)
… I do my questions, thank you.

Or just, it’ll be very brief. It’s just unanimous consent.

Speaker 13: (02:20:14)
You recognize yourself.

Mary Gay S.: (02:20:15)
I recognize myself for five minutes.

Okay.

Mary Gay S.: (02:20:19)
Mr. Goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words. So I want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for President Trump to use the American government to pressure the Ukraine president to benefit his re-election campaign. Let’s look at what the President said in his July 25th call to the President of Ukraine. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman listened to the President’s call and testified that when President Trump asked Ukraine for a favor, it wasn’t a friendly request. It was really a demand. I’m going to direct your attention to this slide about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s testimony. Why did he say the President’s favor was a demand?

Mr. Goldman: (02:21:02)
He said because the power disparity between the United States as the greatest power in the world and Ukraine which is so dependent on the United States, not just for the military assistance, but for all of its support, made such a request effectively a demand because President Zelensky could not in reality say no.

Mary Gay S.: (02:21:25)
Am I correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because Ukraine has been at war with Russia since Russia invaded five years ago, and over 13,000 of the Ukraine people have died? Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:21:38)
Yes. And not only does the US provide 10% of their military budget, but the United States is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support Ukraine. Europe actually gives four or five… The European Union gives I think four times as much money as the United States overall to Ukraine.

Mary Gay S.: (02:21:58)
So, President Trump knew that the Ukrainian President’s back was against the wall and President Zelensky needed US validation and support, is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:22:07)
Yes.

Mary Gay S.: (02:22:08)
Now, according to the US Ambassador to the Ukraine, and we have Ambassador Taylor’s testimony up there. It wasn’t until after Ambassador Sondland told the Ukrainians that there would be a “stalemate,” on the aid that Zelensky agreed to announce the investigations that President Trump was demanding. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:22:29)
That’s right. Yes.

Mary Gay S.: (02:22:30)
Okay. And furthermore, the committee heard testimony that the Ukrainians felt they had “no choice,” but to comply with President Trump’s demands. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:22:41)
That’s right. Yes. Even after the aid was released.

Mary Gay S.: (02:22:45)
Okay. In fact, when asked in front of President Trump in September whether he felt pressured, President Zelensky said, “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic open elections, elections of the USA.” Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:22:59)
That sounds right, if you’re reading the quote. Yes.

Mary Gay S.: (02:23:04)
Okay. Now the President and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the Ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give into President Trump’s command. Did your investigative committees consider those statements by President Zelensky?

Mr. Goldman: (02:23:22)
We did, and we found that the statements of what is effectively an extortion victim are not particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter, because President Zelensky cannot in reality for the same reasons that he interpreted the request to be a demand, he can’t go out and say that he did feel pressure, because that would potentially upset President Trump and they’re so dependent on the relationship with President Trump and the United States.

Mary Gay S.: (02:23:51)
Once could almost say it’s similar to a hostage testifying under duress?

Mr. Goldman: (02:23:56)
It is certainly a… Duress would be a good word.

Mary Gay S.: (02:24:00)
So, when the President made these statements, and up to and including today, his country was still under attack by Russia, still hadn’t gotten a meeting at the White House, and still needed aid from the United States. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:24:12)
That’s right. And David Holmes testified I think very persuasively about the importance of the White House meeting and of the relationship to Ukraine, even after the aid was lifted, including pointing to today, when President Putin and President Zelensky met to discuss the war in the East.

Mary Gay S.: (02:24:30)
So the evidence is clear that President Trump knew he had the power to force Ukraine’s hand and took advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our taxpayer dollars, basically, to get what he wanted, right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:24:44)
Yes, and what’s really important here, and I think it has to be clarified, is that the President, the evidence showed that the President directly said to Ambassador Sondland that there was a quid pro quo with the security assistance and there’s been some debate and some discussion about that, but that is one thing that the evidence shows based on the Morrison testimony, the Taylor testimony, the Sondland testimony and the texts. So that’s very important to understand that whatever we want to say about hearsay or whatever, that is direct evidence.

Mary Gay S.: (02:25:15)
And that is precisely the kind of betrayal that our founders sought to prevent. I yield back to myself, and I’ll recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.

Madam Chair, you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform consent after you had asked your questions, so I’d ask for uniform consent. Or excuse me, unanimous consent to introduce two letters-

The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman, who is seeking unanimous consent? For what are you seeking unanimous consent?

Mr. Chairman, I have two letters addressed to you on December 4, 2019, and one December 5th, 2019.

Without objection.

Thank you.

Speaker 14: (02:25:58)
Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.

Speaker 15: (02:26:01)
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling.

The gentleman from Virginia’s recognized.

Ben Cline: (02:26:10)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week, I expressed concern regarding the deeply flawed and partisan process the Democrat majority has been undertaking during this impeachment inquiry. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly reminded of your quote, “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.” You made that statement back in 1998.

Ben Cline: (02:26:43)
Now, I’m glad we’re moving on to presenting the “evidence” gathered in this report. Not to hear from direct fact witnesses, but a 300-page report that’s built largely on hearsay, opinion, and speculation. And I’m especially outraged that the purported author of it, Chairman Schiff, is not here to answer our questions today. Now that we have the report and can discuss the facts within or the lack thereof, there are four facts that will never change. Both President Trump and President Zelensky say there was no pressure. Second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation.

Ben Cline: (02:27:24)
Three, Ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the President spoke and fourth, Ukraine didn’t open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting with President Trump. I want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it. Mr. Castor, did the Democrats’ impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions?

Mr. Castor: (02:27:51)
Yes, it did.

Ben Cline: (02:27:52)
How many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay?

Mr. Castor: (02:27:56)
We went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts [crosstalk 02:28:02]-

Ben Cline: (02:28:01)
Can you give us some of the examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case?

Mr. Castor: (02:28:07)
A lot of the information for example, that Ambassador Taylor was communicating, he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him, but it was about… It was one and two steps removed from the actual fact, and that’s the problem with hearsay, is that it’s a whisper down the lane situation and if some of the people that are doing the whispering are predisposed to not like President Trump, than what they’re whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted.

Ben Cline: (02:28:42)
Did you also find instances where the Democrats’ report used witnesses, speculations and presumptions?

Mr. Castor: (02:28:47)
The biggest one of course, and this has sort of become the big daddy of the hearing is, is Sondland presuming that the aid was tied to the investigations because as he engaged in a back and forth with Mr. Turner, nobody on the planet told him that that was the case.

Ben Cline: (02:29:09)
Mr. Castor, I want to move onto foreign policy and the idea that somehow, the President was abusing foreign policy. Repeatedly, witnesses came before the Intelligence Committee and talked about how the President was operating outside the bounds of the process for using norms. The President sets foreign policy, correct?

Mr. Castor: (02:29:30)
Absolutely.

Ben Cline: (02:29:31)
And from where does he derive that power?

Mr. Castor: (02:29:34)
The Constitution.

Ben Cline: (02:29:35)
Article II, Section II, in fact.

Mr. Castor: (02:29:37)
The people, yeah.

Ben Cline: (02:29:38)
Can you give us examples of these members of the foreign policy establishment who took issue with the President’s foreign policy direction and choices?

Mr. Castor: (02:29:46)
Well, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that when he was listening to the call, he had prepared talking points and the call package and he was visibly just completely deflated when he realized that his call notes weren’t being referenced by the President. And a lot of the inner agency officials, I think became very sad that the President didn’t revere their policy making apparatus.

Ben Cline: (02:30:15)
Is it safe to say there’s another reason the President’s skeptical of relying on some of these individuals to carry out his foreign policy goals like rooting out corruption in Ukraine?

Mr. Castor: (02:30:23)
I think the President in skeptical of the inner agency bureaucracy.

Ben Cline: (02:30:30)
Is that maybe why he instead relied on Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, and others?

Mr. Castor: (02:30:35)
Correct. And by the way, all three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of the US government.

Ben Cline: (02:30:43)
Would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in Ukraine to exempt or remove say, a political supporter?

Mr. Castor: (02:30:50)
Certainly would be.

Ben Cline: (02:30:52)
Would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent?

Mr. Castor: (02:30:57)
That’s correct, yeah.

Ben Cline: (02:30:58)
Would it be appropriate to remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation involving Ukrainian corruption?

Mr. Castor: (02:31:04)
Absolutely. I mean, this all goes to the heart of bias.

Ben Cline: (02:31:08)
Thank you for those answers. Mr. Chairman, I go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. I would argue that the facts in fact are disputed, and what you contend are facts are in fact, not. They are witness presumptions, hearsay and speculation. And the facts here are in fact that this is the shortest impeachment in US history based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds. Mr. Chairman, this impeachment process is a farce and a stain on the committee, and on the House of Representatives and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Ms. Garcia?

Sylvia Garcia: (02:31:48)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the President and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the President’s conduct. Now, I’m a former judge and you, Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:15)
No. There’s a lot of direct evidence, and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay.

Indeed, it is not true. Now, I don’t want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, I’d like to go over some examples with you, and please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Volker both testified that on May 23rd, 2019, President Trump told him to, “Talk to Rudy about Ukraine.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:48)
Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but yes.

Okay. Thank you. And then we have the memorandum of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:01)
Yes. That is.

So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both President Zelensky and US officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:18)
Yes. And if I could just jump in here on the July 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are, three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that there’s no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when President Zelensky says, “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC, and then he says, “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.” That is the quid pro quo that President Zelensky was informed of before the call. So that’s wrong. It’s also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call, even though that doesn’t even matter.

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:03)
And then finally, there was no White House meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so I do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as we’re focusing on what direct evidence is.

Well, let’s give some more examples. We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call. Is there testimony, direct evidence of what happened during that call?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:27)
Yes, although I would say, the call record is better evidence than their…

And the day after that call, David Holmes testified that on July 26th, he overheard the President ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was, “going to do the investigation.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:43)
That is direct evidence.

And after the July 25 call record was released, the President got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent’s family, the Bidens. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:59)
Yes, it is.

His own words. Now, that seems to me like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman-

Now that seems to be like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:08)
Well, there’s a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it’s not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other, and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible. So let’s not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence.

We don’t want to relive that evidence class.

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:33)
I understand, but it is very important because anything Mr. Giuliani says, anything Ambassador Sondland says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay, and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we don’t follow the federal rules of evidence here. It’s even more lenient, but that’s an important point.

Right. Well, is there anything wrong, Mr. Goldman, with drawing inferences from circumstances?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:55)
Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when Ambassador Sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that’s the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country.

Well, I agree with you. I’m just disappointed that rather than to respond to this serious, factual, direct, and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. It’s unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable.

I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

I yield back.

The genlady yields back. Mr. Neguse.

Joe Neguse: (02:37:01)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as we approached the ninth hour of this hearing, I want to thank both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Castor for being here today and for your testimony.

There’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not the facts in this matter are contested. I believe they are not contested, and so I’d like to level set here, and give you both an opportunity to address some of the facts that I believe are not in dispute. And I want to begin by addressing something that I think we all know for certain, and that’s that Russia interfered in our 2016 election.

So Mr. Goldman, after two years of investigation, the Special Counsel concluded that Russia interfered in our elections in, quote, “sweeping and systemic fashion.” Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:37:41)
Yes.

All right. Mr. Castor, is that right?

Yes.

And, Mr. Goldman, am I correct that zero intelligence agencies have publicly stated that Ukraine attacked our elections in 2016? Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:37:53)
That’s right. I don’t even think that the minority is alleging that the Ukrainian government systematically in any meaningful way interfered. I think this is just based on a couple of news articles.

Mr. Castor, correct?

The President had a good faith belief there were some significant Ukrainian officials-

I hear you, and you’ve said that previously. I guess I’m asking you-

I haven’t said that the Ukrainian government-

And there are no intelligence agencies in the United States that have publicly stated that Ukraine has attacked our elections right? You’re not testifying that that’s the case?

I’m not. Correct.

And in fact, President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine, for example, hacking the DNC server was, quote, “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” That’s President Trump’s Homeland Security Advisor that said those words that you see on the screen to my right. Is that right, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (02:38:49)
Yes. I saw that interview.

Mr. Castor, you saw that interview?

I’m aware of it, yes.

In fact, isn’t it true that none of the witnesses that appeared before your committee testified in support of the theory that Ukraine somehow interfered in our elections? Is that right, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (02:39:10)
That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Castor?

It’s correct, but-

Thank you. No witnesses testified in support … I’ll reclaim my time. No witnesses testified in support of that theory before your committee.

Mr. Goldman, isn’t it also true that your committee in fact received testimony indicating that there is evidence that Russia is in part perpetrating this false theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections because Russia wants to deflect blame for its own involvement?

Mr. Goldman: (02:39:42)
That is correct. We had evidence of that, and I think that it’s very important to emphasize what is evidence and what is pure media reports or speculation, because there is no evidence in our investigation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.

And, in fact, I’d like to put some of the testimony that I believe you might be referencing, Mr. Goldman, on the screen in front of you, both from Mr. Holmes as well as Dr. Fiona Hill, and I will quote from her testimony. “I am very confident based on all the analysis that has been done,” and again, I don’t want to start getting into intelligence matters, “that the Ukraine government did not interfere in our election in 2016. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” You recall that testimony, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (02:40:27)
I do. I also recall her testifying that in addition to the Ukrainian officials who made a couple of disparaging comments about President Trump, there are officials from countries all around the world who also made disparaging comments about President Trump. And as Dr. Hill said, their military assistance was not put on hold.

So given your testimony, and given yours as well, Mr. Castor, it strikes me that there are in fact four uncontested facts. First, Russia attacked our 2016 elections. Several intelligence agencies have independently confirmed that this is true. Second, Ukraine did not attack our 2016 elections. There’s absolutely no evidence of this baseless conspiracy theory. Third, there is evidence that Russia perpetrated the allegation that Ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. And, finally, that Russia benefits from the US investigating Ukraine, which was made clear through public testimony before your committee.

So, Mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that the intelligence community agrees with these four conclusions?

Mr. Goldman: (02:41:31)
The intelligence community definitely agrees with one and two. Dr. Hill testified to three, as well as there’s a public statement from Mr. Putin, and, yes, certainly the witnesses emphasized four, that Russia benefits from this. And we saw in my opening statement President Putin’s comment that it’s good now that Ukraine is all the talk.

And if that is the case, it begs the question, why would President Trump perpetuate this conspiracy theory already disproven by the entirety of the intelligence community that actually helps our adversary, a country that is attacking our elections in real time? With that, I yield.

The gentleman yields back. Mr. Steube.

Andy Biggs: (02:42:13)
Mr. Chairman, brief parliamentary inquiry about the schedule.

[inaudible 02:42:19] Mr. Steube has already been recognized. He has the time.

Greg Steube: (02:42:27)
So are you going to recognize him after for his parliamentary inquiry after my questioning?

I’ll make an announcement about schedule shortly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’ve never seen a more partisan spectacle than what I’ve witnessed here today. Democrats want the rules to apply when it benefits them, and not to apply when Republicans invoke them. Nine hours ago now, Mr. Burke, a hired gun for the Democrats, got 30 minutes to spread his partisan rhetoric, and then 45 minutes to cross examine witnesses. That’s 70 minutes more than most of the members of this committee, who have been elected by their districts to serve in the United States Congress. Mr. Burke is an unelected New York lawyer specifically brought in by the Democrats to give his opinion, a politically biased consultant who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal elections to the likes of ActBlue, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Biden. Mr. Burke gave over $5,000 alone to Hillary Clinton for her presidential race. No wonder why he has an ax to grind. Mr. Burke is a white collar criminal defense lawyer who brags on his website of getting New York financial brokers deferred prosecution for tax fraud, and fund managers off their insider trading charges.

And Mr. Burke was able to say whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony that it would be truthful. So he can sit before this committee not as a fact witness and directly lie to the American people without any threat of criminal prosecution. Make sense? He’s a white collar criminal defense lawyer. I’m sure he didn’t want to incriminate himself.

This is the same Mr. Burke who authored a series of reports as early as October 2017, two years ago, on his opinion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice and colluded with Russia. He also represented Mayor Bill de Blasio in a federal investigation of de Blasio’s fundraising activities.

For my fellow Americans and Floridians watching this charade, this is who was sitting at the top of the dais, next to the chairman, acting like a member of this committee. A partisan New York Laurier with written bias against President Trump who gave thousands to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

In all of this spectacle, all of it, not a single fact witness has appeared in front of this committee. We have been denied a minority hearing day, which I asked for the last hearing. All we have had testify are partisan lawyers giving their opinions.

So let’s talk about the facts that we do have before us. We heard from Mueller. No evidence that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. No obstruction of justice. After denying the president to call witnesses in closed door secret proceedings, and denying Republicans from calling all their witnesses in closed door proceedings, denying the President’s counsel to cross examine witnesses in intel hearings, the facts are this: Sondland stated when questioned, “Did the president tell you about any preconditions for anything?” His answer? No. For the aid to be refused? No. For a White House meeting? No. Ambassador Sondland also testified that President Trump wanted nothing from Ukraine.

Tim Morrison, when questioned, “and there was no quid pro quo” answered “correct.”

The aid was released. Four facts never change. Both President Trump and President Zelensky say there was no pressure. The call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation, no quid pro quo. Ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the President spoke. Ukraine didn’t open investigation, but still received aid and a meeting with President Trump.

Mr. Castor, has any committee heard from the whistleblower either in closed door hearings or an open hearings?

No.

Did Chairman Schiff state that he would call the whistleblower to testify?

He did.

Has that happened?

It has not.

Is it going to occur?

I hope so.

Have other countries aid also been held up?

Yes.

Mr. Goldman, on October 2nd, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower, quote, “approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump.” Is that accurate?

Mr. Goldman: (02:46:13)
Sorry, say that again?

On October 2nd, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concern about Mr. Trump. Is that accurate?

Mr. Goldman: (02:46:25)
I think the whistleblower’s concerns about President Trump are from the threats that [crosstalk 02:46:30]-

No, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking did the whistleblower approach a House Intelligence Committee … Let me ask you a different way. Have you had any communications with the whistleblower?

Mr. Goldman: (02:46:38)
As I said earlier in response to questions from your colleagues, I’m not going to get into any-

So you’re refusing to answer whether you’ve communicated with the whistleblower?

Mr. Goldman: (02:46:45)
The whistleblower is not relevant to this report and-

He’s the whole basis of the beginning of this investigation. His acts absolutely relevant to this committee and to the American people.

Mr. Goldman: (02:46:54)
He’s not relied upon. The whistleblower’s complaints for the reasons that Mr. Castor said are not included. His allegations are not included in our report because the evidence has been outstripped and surpassed by the 17 witnesses that we have had come in to testify directly about the conduct that the whistleblower blew the whistle about.

So as you sit here today, do you know the identity of the whistleblower?

Mr. Goldman: (02:47:13)
Sir, I’m not going to talk to you about the identity of the whistleblower.

Because you’re also refusing to answer whether you’ve had communication-

Mr. Goldman: (02:47:17)
No, that’s what the intelligence-

That’s my time, not yours. You’re refusing to answer whether you had communications with the whistleblower. Has any other staff in the intel committee had communications with the whistleblower?

Mr. Goldman: (02:47:26)
Sir, in the intelligence committee-

And you’re refusing to answer that question.

Mr. Goldman: (02:47:29)
The intelligence committee-

And unfortunately the American people want to know those answers, and unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr. Goldman: (02:47:33)
Congress has a right to obtain the anonymity of the-

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent. I have a unanimous consent.

The gentleman will suspend. The time of the gentlemen has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I have the unanimous consent.

The gentleman will state his unanimous consent request.

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I asked for the admission of the document entitled “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,” dated January 11th, 2017.

Speaker 16: (02:47:59)
That’s a political article.

If you give it to our staff, we’ll take a look at it and we’ll make-

Should I make a motion to insert instead, Mr. Chairman?

Speaker 16: (02:48:09)
It’s part of their inter proof. It’s political.

Before I recognize before I recognize Miss McBath, I want to announce that with respect to scheduling, that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. It may end before votes are called, which would be nice. If it does not end before votes are called, then we will recess for the votes and we’ll reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor over. It’s going to be a close call. We’ll see.

I will further announced that I’m not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond today’s hearing.

Speaker 17: (02:48:53)

Who has seeks recognition for a point of order?

Speaker 17: (02:48:59)
I do, Mr. Chairman.

Who’s I?

Speaker 17: (02:49:02)
To your right, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 16: (02:49:02)
It’s one of yours.

For what purposes, Mr. [inaudible 00:02:49:06]?

Speaker 17: (02:49:08)
I wanted to confirm. A point of orders is a rules of decorum, and I don’t believe that the gentleman from Florida meant to violate them, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but more than once he referred to a “New York lawyer,” and if he could just explain what he meant, then I’m prepared to withdraw my point of order.

That’s not a recognizable point of order.

Speaker 18: (02:49:26)
Mr. Chairman, point of order regarding the schedule.

Point of order regarding the schedule? There is no point of order regarding the schedule.

Speaker 18: (02:49:33)
Well, on on this case, there is because-

There is no point of order regarding the schedule.

Speaker 18: (02:49:36)
Will you answer my question? It’s a-

The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable point of order regarding the future schedule. Okay.

Speaker 18: (02:49:46)
A parliamentary inquiry, will you recognize that?

No. Miss McBath is recognized.

Lucy McBath: (02:49:51)

Mr. Goldman, I want to follow up on just one part of President Trump’s conduct that, excuse me, I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The investigative committees found evidence that President Trump intimidated, threatened, and tampered with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:50:13)
Yes.

And, Mr. Goldman, it is a federal crime to intimidate or to seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:50:24)
Yes, there is a little bit more to it, but that’s the gist of it, yes.

Mr. Goldman, am I correct that President Trump publicly attacked witnesses before, after, and even during their testimony?

Mr. Goldman: (02:50:38)
That is correct.

I’d like to quickly go through some examples.

On Twitter, the President tried to smear Ambassador Bill Taylor, a former military officer who graduated at the top of his class at West Point, served as an infantry commander in Vietnam, and earned a bronze star and an air medal with a V device for Valor. He was attacked for doing his duty to tell the truth to the American people. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:51:10)
He did his duty by testifying, yes.

President Trump also attacked other Trump administration officials who testified before the Intelligence Committee, including Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, who is the Director for Ukraine on the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, the Special Advisor on Europe and Russia with the Office of the Vice President. Am I right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:51:37)
That is right, yes.

Mr. Goldman, I think another troubling example of this is the President’s treatment of Ambassador Yovanovitch. When you questioned Ambassador Yovanovitch, you asked her about the President’s remark that she would, and I quote, “go through some things.” She told you that that remark sounded like a threat. Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:52:04)
Yes. In the July 25th call, that’s when President Trump said that.

Ambassador Yovanovitch is a career professional who served in Republican and Democratic administrations. She was once caught in live crossfire during a coup attempt, and here’s how she described that experience in her very own words.

Marie Y.: (02:52:28)
I later served in Moscow. In 1993 during the attempted coup in mosque in Russia, I was caught in crossfire between presidential and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries, me without a helmet or body armor, to get into a vehicle to go to the embassy. We went because the Ambassador asked us to come, and we went because it was our duty.

“It was our duty.” Even under such duress, this is a public servant who did her duty. And as she testified before you and the Intelligence Committee, the President tweeted yet another attack against her. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:53:14)
During the testimony? Yes.

At a rally, the President further attack Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the State George Kent, foreign affairs commission official with decades of bipartisan service.

I just have to say, I am so deeply saddened that our President has attacked our brave public servants. These attacks are an abuse of his power, and they betray our national interest. My Republican colleagues until now have agreed with me that this behavior is not okay, that in America we protect witnesses and people who tell the truth. We want people to come forward. We protect witnesses in our community. I, myself, am no stranger to these kinds of attacks. They are not okay.

I want to read a partial statement by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who was a military officer and a public servant. In his opening statement to the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Vindman said, and I quote, “I want to say that the character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible.”

I ran for Congress because I care urgently about health care, gun violence prevention, and our veterans. Those are the urgent policies for me and many of my colleagues, but these witnesses, these public servants, stood up and courageously told the truth, and I must be courageous and stand up for them as well.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

The genlady yields back the balance of her time. A few minutes ago, Mr. Biggs asking unanimous consent to admit an article from Politico into the record. Without objection.

Mr. Stanton.

Greg Stanton: (02:55:08)

We’ve heard today from some suggesting that this process has somehow been unfair. Mr. Goldman, let’s clear up that record. Minority members on the investigative committees had access to all witness depositions, is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:55:24)
Yes, and all the documents.

And were they allowed to ask questions of every witness?

Mr. Goldman: (02:55:30)
The minority was given equal time to the majority for every single interview, deposition, or hearing that we did.

And the minority were allowed to call their own witnesses to the live hearings, is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:55:40)
Yes, and they did they, and they got three witnesses. They were also allowed to call their own witnesses for the depositions. They chose not to do that. The only witness they requested for the deposition was Chairman Schiff, who is not a fact witness to this investigation.

Mr. Goldman, why did the investigative committees decide to conduct initial depositions behind closed doors?

Mr. Goldman: (02:56:01)
The best investigative practice when you’re doing a fact finding mission is to keep the information closed, and the reason is exactly what I described earlier with Ambassador Sondland, who, first of all, the day before his deposition, he spoke with Secretary Perry about his testimony. That is the type of tailoring that can happen when people are engaged in misconduct, and they try to line up their stories. So if you keep the information closed, they can’t line up their stories.

Mr. Goldman: (02:56:30)
And I think, frankly, part of the reason why Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Sondland’s public hearing testimony was so different from their deposition testimony is because the initial depositions were in closed session before we then released all the transcripts to the public.

And this is unprecedented because in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, there were either closed door depositions or grand jury proceedings at the beginning of the inquiries.

Mr. Goldman: (02:56:57)
That’s correct. Nor is it unprecedented in Congress. This is actually a rule in the House rules that was passed by Republican congresses. It was used in Benghazi. It was used by a number of committees for the past decade or so.

And for clarity, President Trump has received all procedural protections afforded to other presidents facing impeachment. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:57:16)
That is right. In the Judiciary Committee, he’s had all of the options. Our inquiry was not the Judiciary Committee’s investigation. That is where the President’s ability to present evidence. Of course, if the President wanted to present evidence in the Intelligence Committee, he could have provided documents, he could have provided the witnesses that we asked for him, but he obstructed rather than cooperate.

And the President has been invited to participate in the House’s impeachment inquiry, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:57:40)
Yes.

But the President declined the invitation.

Mr. Goldman: (02:57:43)
That’s my understanding, yes.

Twice?

Mr. Goldman: (02:57:45)
Twice thus far, yes.

In fact, the President not only refused to participate, but he has also tried to stop Congress from obtaining evidence. Isn’t it true that the President has refused to produce any documents in response to the impeachment inquiry’s subpoena to the White House?

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:00)
Yes.

Not a single one.

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:01)
Not a single document.

The President also directed all of his agencies to refuse to produce documents. Is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:07)
That is also true.

Based on the President’s order, federal agencies have ignored more than 70 specific requests or demand for records from the investigative committees. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:18)
Yes. And if I could just add, this would-

Quickly please.

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:21)
This would ordinarily be a document case. If you were prosecuting this case, you’d be basing it on the documents. So the fact that those documents are being withheld is quite significant, and it’s quite remarkable that we built the record we have on the witnesses.

The President’s order to obstruct Congress didn’t just extend to documents. at the President’s direction, witnesses also refused to testify, is that right?

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:44)
That’s correct.

And in total, more than a dozen members of the administration defied lawful subpoenas or requests for testimony or documents, as we see on the slide.

Mr. Goldman: (02:58:55)
Right, between testimony and documents, that’s correct.

And isn’t also true that when witnesses chose to follow the laws and testify, the President denied those witnesses access to the documents they needed to properly prepare for their testimony.

Mr. Goldman: (02:59:09)
For some of them, that’s correct.

Gordon Sondland: (02:59:17)
But I also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging, and in many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department emails, and many, many other State Department documents, and I was told I could not work with my EU staff to pull together the relevant files and information. These documents are not classified, and in fairness, should have been made available.

Speaker 19: (02:59:49)
The State Department has collected all materials in response to the September 27th subpoena that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. I have no such documents or materials with me today.

The President was not denied the right to participate. Quite the opposite. The President has chosen not to participate, and he has consistently tried to obstruct the impeachment investigation to ensure no one testifies against him, that no one produces a document that may incriminate him, and to engage in a cover up to prevent the American people from learning the truth.

I yield back.

Speaker 20: (03:00:19)
Mr. Chairman, may I just say something for five seconds?

The gentleman yields back.

Speaker 20: (03:00:21)
Mr. Chairman, please?

For what purpose does the gentlemen seek-

Speaker 20: (03:00:24)
No, this is the witness. Can I just say something for five seconds?

No. The genlady Mrs. Dean is recognized.

Madeleine Dean: (03:00:31)

Mr. Goldman. Some have argued that we should wait, that we’re moving too fast, that we should try to get more evidence. Let’s examine why these arguments are without merit.

President Nixon stated during the Senate Watergate investigation, quote, “all members of the white house staff will appear voluntarily when requested by the committee. They will testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper questions,” end quote.

During the investigation of President Clinton, Ken Starr interviewed White House staff. President Clinton also provided written responses to 81 interrogatories from the House Judiciary Committee.

Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has categorically stonewalled Congress’s investigation at every turn. Indeed, as far back as April, the President expressed his intent to stonewall.

Pres. Trump: (03:01:28)
Well, we’re fighting all the subpoenas.

More recently on October the 8th, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone echoed this sentiment in a letter reflecting the President’s instruction that all executive branch officials not testify in this impeachment inquiry. Are you aware of that letter, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (03:01:49)
Yes, I am.

And Mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that President Trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek to completely obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by this house?

Mr. Goldman: (03:02:02)
That is correct. It is unprecedented.

And, in fact, pursuant to President Trump’s order, 12 executive branch officials refused to testify as part of the House impeachment inquiry, 10 of whom defied congressional subpoenas. Am I right?

Mr. Goldman: (03:02:15)
Yes.

Given the President’s sweeping directive not to cooperate with Congress, did the investigative committees believe that there was any chance that other administration officials would come forward if subpoenaed?

Mr. Goldman: (03:02:26)
No. It became clear that the President was trying to block everything and block everyone, and eventually they came up with an alternative reason to write an opinion to prevent people from coming, which is quite an aggressive view that they took, but it was quite clear that they were trying to block every single witness.

Some have said that the Investigative Committee should’ve gone to court. Did you decide not to go to court?

Mr. Goldman: (03:02:55)
We thought about it a lot because obviously there are additional witnesses, and we want this to be as thorough an investigation, but as you can see from the Deutsche Bank case or the McGahn case, it takes months and months to go through the appeals court, and that’s effectively what the President wants is just to delay this as long as possible until the next election.

So let’s take a look at that exact case, the McGahn case, because we’re all intimately aware of it.

On April 22nd, this Judiciary Committee served a subpoena for testimony to White House counsel Don McGahn, and after McGahn refused to testify on May 21st, the Committee filed a lawsuit on August the 7th to compel his testimony. And even though we did request expedited ruling, it was another three and a half months before Judge Jackson found the Constitution does not allow a president to kneecap congressional investigations because, as the judge wrote, and I put up on this screen, quote, “presidents are not kings.”

As you know, McGahn has appealed, and a hearing is set for January the third now of next year. As we sit here today, eight months since we issued that subpoena, would you agree it’s likely we will not have an appeals court ruling for many months to come?

Mr. Goldman: (03:04:05)
It’s quite possible that it could be several more months, and then there may be the Supreme Court.

Exactly. McGahn may appeal to the Supreme Court, and conceivably that could take another many months, year, more?

Mr. Goldman: (03:04:19)
Depends on whether it’s this term or it gets pushed over to the next term, but, yes.

And given this delay illustrated by the McGahn example specifically, would you agree that if we go to court to enforce the Investigative Committee’s subpoenas, we could face another months or years long delay to hear testimony?

Mr. Goldman: (03:04:37)
Absolutely. And there’s an ongoing threat because the President is trying to cheat to win the next election. It’s not something that happened in the past. It’s continuing in the future, so we cannot delay and just wait for the courts to resolve this when the reason why we would have to go to the courts is because the President is obstructing an investigation into himself.

And the urgency is not just about our elections but also our national security. Am I right?

Mr. Goldman: (03:05:02)
That is a critical component to it.

Let me end with this. What is plain is that we cannot wait. What is plain is that wait means never. We must not let this president disregard, defy, and delay justice. This president has shown that he repeatedly abuses the power entrusted to him by the people. Every moment we wait is another opportunity to chip away at the foundation of our constitution so carefully crafted by our founders.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.

Genlady yields back. I yield to Ms. Jackson Lee for a unanimous consent request.

Sheila J. Lee: (03:05:37)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Castor.

I’d like to submit or ask unanimous consent to insert in the record referred in my questioning statement of administration policy, Department of Defense appropriations-

Without objection.

August 5th.

Without objection [crosstalk 00:30:52]-

And the call dated July 25th.

Without objection. Mr. Armstrong.

Kelly Armstrong: (03:05:59)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Castor, it’s been a long day. It’s been a long-

And Mr. Castor, it’s been a long day. Been a long couple months. You’ve been in the middle of this and I know previously you wanted to say something.

Mr. Castor: (03:06:08)
Thank you. I’ve resisted my willingness to be athletic here in the afternoon. But I want to say a few things. First of all, the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee submitted a number of subpoenas and we never got a vote. There was a motion to table that disposed of them. Ranking member Nunes sent a letter on November 8th asking for witnesses, ranking member Collins sent a letter on December 6th asking for witnesses. Some of these witnesses would have touched at the heart of the issue that our members are concerned about. And that is were Ukrainians trying to interfere with our elections? I mean, this is a fact that is meritorious of investigation.

Mr. Castor: (03:06:52)
The Ukrainians ought to investigate it and to the extent it happened here in the US, we ought to be investigating it. And so to the extent that hasn’t happened, Republicans have attempted to do that during this process. So I’d like to say that. And I have a couple of other things, Mr. Armstrong, if I may. Ambassador Sondland relied on, and he went from a witness that was not very favorable to very favorable at his hearing. And one of the remarkable statements at his hearing was that everyone was in the loop. And he types up this email to Pompeo, to the Secretary. And the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone was in the loop are not conclusive at all.

Mr. Castor: (03:07:51)
He talks about this statement that was going back and forth during the early part of August. First of all, Volker said all along that he didn’t think the statement was a good idea. Volker and Yermak toyed around with the statement and ultimately both sides decided that it wasn’t a good plan, so they didn’t do it. And so the fact that Sondland is emailing the Secretary talking about this statement and so forth… This doesn’t show that everyone’s in the loop. Ambassador Hale testified to us the people at the State Department, they don’t just email the Secretary. I mean the secretary gets email of course, but it’s not like this. There’s a whole secretariat that filters his email, and so emailing the Secretary of State is not quite as simple as I think Ambassador Sondland made it seem here. And so I just wanted to address that.

Mr. Castor: (03:08:56)
We talked a couple times about the reliability of George Kent’s notes. One of Ambassador Volker’s assistants, Catherine Croft testified, it was a rather startling piece of testimony, she was asked whether Kent’s notes would be reliable. Sort of a typical question. Everyone expecting the answer to be yes, except she said “No, I don’t think Kent’s notes would be reliable.”

Mr. Castor: (03:09:25)
So I think that’s important to put on the record that there is evidence that perhaps Mr. Kent felt some emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least according to one State Department official, might not in fact be reliable.

Mr. Castor: (03:09:44)
The CNN interview that there’s been discussion about. There was discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned. Maybe there was discussion of a CNN interview, but we did not really get to the bottom of that. That was sort of this amorphous fact that was out there. Ambassador Taylor testified that he was worried it would happen, but we didn’t really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur in the CNN interview and whether President Zelensky was actually going to do it. If you look back at the statement that Yermak and Volker were talking about, Yermak wasn’t comfortable doing it.

Mr. Castor: (03:10:26)
And so when it comes to the CNN interview, it’s possible that Yermak would have advised President Zelensky not to say what people thought he was going to say. So anyway, I’m sorry, Mr. Armstrong.

You’ve worked hard and you deserve it. I just want to end it and summarize with this: that because you cannot prove a crime. And chairman went on TV yesterday and said they’d get a conviction in three minutes, but my question is for what crime? The Mueller conspiracy fell flat. The obstruction charge was abandoned when the public hearing was over. Campaign finance is a nonstarter. The victim of conspiracy or the victim of bribery and extortion says he’s not a victim. Because you can’t prove any of it, does not mean you can use all of it. And that’s no way to prosecute a case and it is no way to proceed with impeachment. Thank you.

The gentleman yields back.

Jim Jordan: (03:11:18)
Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell is ready.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell is ready.

Debbie M.: (03:11:19)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Goldman, I want to come back and highlight what I think is the biggest national security threat, and that’s foreign interference into our elections. And I can tell you that in Florida, we’re extremely concerned about the security of our elections and the potential for election interference by foreign governments, especially Russia, because Florida, my home state was a victim of Russian hacking in 2016. And there’s every indication that they’re trying to do the same thing right now.

Debbie M.: (03:11:47)
Our country was founded on the premise that our elected officials are elected by the people, but President Trump doesn’t share these ideas. He has and continues to demand foreign interference into our elections. He doesn’t want the American people to decide. He’s inviting foreign interference, allowing foreign governments to decide that for us.

Debbie M.: (03:12:10)
Mr. Goldman, it’s been confirmed that President Trump’s campaign actively sought Russia’s interference in our 2016 elections, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (03:12:19)
What Special Counsel Mueller said is that President Trump did invite them and solicit them to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. Ultimately, the Trump campaign, I think it was welcomed… knew about the interference, welcomed it and utilized it.

Debbie M.: (03:12:31)
Right. And in 2016 Trump said, “Russia, if you’re listening…”, and within five hours, Russian intelligence targeted the emails of Trump’s opponent. On October 3, 2019 when asked what he hoped President Zelensky would do about the Bidens, this is what President Trump said.

President Trump: (03:12:52)
Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens because how does a company that’s newly formed and all these companies, if you look at… And by the way, likewise, China just started an investigation into the Bidens.

Debbie M.: (03:13:15)
And let me just point out, the President doesn’t mention corruption, does he, Mr. Goldman?

Mr. Goldman: (03:13:20)
No, he doesn’t. As I said, it became quite clear in all of his comments and all of the other witnesses that any mention of corruption or anticorruption was really meant, and the evidence showed this, was really a euphemism for the investigations.

Debbie M.: (03:13:35)
Correct. And Trump is not only asking… President Trump, excuse me, is not only asking Ukraine, but he also says China should start investigating his political opponents. The President’s pattern of behavior is incredibly disturbing. Russia, Ukraine, China, he’s inviting three countries to help him in his reelection campaign. And Mr. Goldman, I don’t see any reason to believe he wouldn’t ask any other governments, for example, Venezuela, correct?

Mr. Goldman: (03:14:05)
He could. I mean at this point he has shown not only a willingness to do it multiple times, but I think more importantly for all of the members’ consideration, he’s also shown a lack of contrition, a lack of acknowledgement that what he is doing is wrong and that it is wrong. And if you don’t recognize that it is wrong, then there is no reason why you won’t do it again if you’ve already done it.

Debbie M.: (03:14:28)
Exactly. I mean 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 advising on how to open a back channel between President Trump and Maduro. So I’m very worried about that.

Debbie M.: (03:14:47)
Now I don’t think we have any time to 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?

Mr. Goldman: (03:15:06)
Yes, for the same reasons that we just discussed. I mean, and I think the June television interview with George Stephanopoulos this year where the president indicated that he would, once again, welcome for an interference is another data point to understand where it is. And I would just say to Mr. Reschenthaler, who was saying that he’s got such a great record and that the Democrats just don’t want him 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 can’t he just go on his own platform?

Debbie M.: (03:15:42)
Exactly. I think the constitution demands that the 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 that I was elected by the people of Florida and I work only for the people of this country. I’m not going to let, while I’m in office, anyone interfere in our elections or threaten our democracy. The continuing pattern of behavior we’ve seen from this president should be a warning to the American people that it is a beginning of a dictatorship which I have seen in Latin America. I’ve witnessed men in office abuse the power inviting foreign interference and also obstructing any checks on their power. The constitution, the constitution has no partisan allegiance. We can not allow this behavior from this president or any future president. Our democracy depends on it.

The gentle lady yields back. I recognize Mr. Jordan for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.


Mary Gay S.: (03:16:42)
Mr. Chairman-

I recognize Mr. Jordan for the purpose of unanimous consent request.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The majority’s witness was wrong when he said that we were able to subpoena people and get our witness here.

A unanimous consent request.

We were not. So I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the two letters sent to Chairman Nadler and the other one to-

Without objection, the material would be entered into the record. Ms. Escobar is recognized.

Mary Gay S.: (03:17:04)
Thank you Mr. Chairman and many thanks to our witnesses who’ve spent the entire day with us. We’re very grateful. Despite what our Republican colleagues have stated over and over again, their own witness, Mr. Castor has agreed that these investigations have indeed produced direct evidence. Direct evidence, which any objective observer in my opinion would regard as overwhelming.

Mary Gay S.: (03:17:27)
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 to 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 we’ve seen with our own eyes and what we’ve heard with our own ears.

Mary Gay S.: (03:18:05)
So Mr. Goldman, I’d like your help in responding to some of the claims that my Republican colleagues have made today.

Mr. Goldman: (03:18:11)
Happily.

Mary Gay S.: (03:18:12)
The President and his allies say that there was no quid pro quo. In other words, they claimed that the President wasn’t withholding the aid in exchange for the manufactured political investigation. Isn’t it true that the aid was withheld and that there has been no logical explanation for the withholding of that aid?

Mr. Goldman: (03:18:32)
There’s common sense that leads one to conclude that the aid was withheld for the investigations and then there’s also direct evidence in that the President’s own words to Ambassador Sondland on September 7th said the same thing.

Mary Gay S.: (03:18:48)
Thank you. President Trump knew he had leverage over President Zelensky and in fact, David Holmes testified that Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that President Zelensky will ” do anything you ask him.” Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (03:19:04)
That is what Ambassador Sondland said… Or actually that’s what President Trump… Ambassador Sondland said to President Trump. Apologies.

Mary Gay S.: (03:19:12)
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 that there couldn’t be leveraged because they had no idea that the aid was being withheld. Yet there has been evidence that shows that they knew. Is that correct?

Mr. Goldman: (03:19:31)
Well, I think it’s important just for a second here to take a step back. It doesn’t matter when they knew, as long as they knew at some point. Then they realized at that point that the investigations were dependent on the aide. But in addition, there is a lot of evidence that they knew before it became public on August 28th.

Mary Gay S.: (03:19:50)
And you’re right, it doesn’t matter. If you’re about to be held up at gunpoint by a burglar, it doesn’t matter whether you know or 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 isn’t it true that it wasn’t released until the President got caught?

Mr. Goldman: (03:20:12)
It wasn’t released until the President got caught and all of the money didn’t 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.

Mary Gay S.: (03:20:25)
Thank you. Earlier today, Mr. Castor attempted to explain away the president’s request for foreign 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 burden sharing 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.

Mary Gay S.: (03:20:59)
Mr. Goldman, did the investigative committees consider those three explanations, and if so, what did the evidence show about whether President Trump’s request was actually motivated by those concerns?

Mr. Goldman: (03:21:11)
It’s a very good question. There are two things that were discussed here today. One is evidence and one are assertions and opinions. Based on the evidence, there is no evidence to support any of those three things that you just mentioned. There’s 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 about other European countries 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.

Mary Gay S.: (03:21:49)
Thank you. I’d like to close with what our scholars explained to us last week about why all of this is so important.

Pamela Karlan: (03:22:01)
Drawing a foreign government into our elections is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.

Noah Feldman: (03:22:12)
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.

Michael G.: (03:22:22)
If what we’re talking about is not impeachable the nothing is impeachable.

Mary Gay S.: (03:22:30)
Thank you Mr. chairman. I yield back.

Gentle lady yields back.

Mr. Castor: (03:22:33)
May I respond to that?

This concludes the five minute round of questioning. I now recognize Mr. Raskin for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, I’m seeking unanimous consent to introduce a statement by the late chairman Elijah Cummings of the Oversight Committee. In his first hearing in the new Congress, which was on examining prescription drug prices, his first hearing was not about Michael Cohen as was asserted earlier.

Pamela Karlan: (03:22:56)
Without objection, I now recognize the ranking member for any concluding remarks he may have.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. One quick thing before we end. It does matter when they knew and didn’t 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 about it and no linkage was made. So it does matter. And 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, “I’m not being pressured. I’m not being… “There’s nothing here. And again, it goes back to the amazing thought of this majority who keeps calling the Ukrainian leader a liar. It’s just amazing that we continue to propagate that myth here tonight.

But what did we learn today? Here’s some things we did learn today. This unprecedented hearing the Mr. Sensenbrenner and others talked about in which staff, basically not members gave testimony and questioned each other and got into a very heated debates with each other. This is not what the Judiciary Committee should be doing, it is not the way they should be held. Again, the reason it is, Mr. Goldman handled himself very well, but he’s not Adam Schiff. He doesn’t wear a member pin. This is ridiculous. We shouldn’t be doing this.

The Intel Committee also, what we did find out today took phone records and went on a political endeavor against the ranking member and others, but no one will take responsibility for telling the staff to use Mr. Nunes’ numbers or this or who decided to put the smear job in the report. We’ll just assume that’s Mr. Schiff. Since I do hold a member accountable.

We also found out today which was really interesting that staff can determine what’s relevant or not, not members of Congress. It’s interesting to me that staff told members of Congress that that wasn’t relevant or that wasn’t relevant. Again, it goes back to the problem, we all have have members here to actually talk about this.

Also, this is another thing we’ve learned today that the chairman continues to just disregard House rules. Just completely blatantly disregarding House rules on not addressing the minority hearing date. And if I hear basically one more time, I’ll address that when we’re marking up impeachment articles, what is the use of a minority hearing day, if you’re going to have evidence about the markup, if you get the confirmation at the markup itself? Even your most heated debate on getting rid of this president does not show any way that can be fair. And in the end, both parties are in the minority. If you destroy the institutional integrity, which again, the staff have talked about today. If we destroy the institutional integrity, there’s nothing else for us to do.

But while we were here, there was something that did happen. And as we were sitting here discussing whether to impeach the president over a call he had with the Ukrainian president and President Zelensky, which took place on how… there was a look at how it happened in 2016. Democrats are seeking to impeach the president over that. And we’re seeing the problems with Russia investigation play out again in front of our eyes. The fuss over the Ukraine is the same thing using the same playbook. A select group of individuals colluding against President Trump to ensure they get him. And they are blowing through every procedure and principal of fairness and honesty to ensure they get him in time.

So what happened today? While we were stuck here, the inspector general report, the review of four FISA applications and other aspects of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Here’s some of the top findings. The FBI included inaccurate information in the Carter Page FISA application, the FBI failed to include exculpatory information in the FISA. The FBI did not cooperate a huge amount of the information in the Page FISA. The FBI chose to defensively brief candidate Clinton, not candidate Trump. The FBI failed to disclose Bruce Orr’s information that Steele reporting was going directly to the Clinton campaign. An FBI attorney altered another agency’s email to mislead about whether Carter Page had actually been a US intelligent source.

The bottom line, the report shows the Page FISA should have never been obtained. If you don’t have the Page FISA, you don’t have a Russia investigation. If you don’t have a Russia investigation, you can’t knock out the president as a candidate at the time of 2016 election and you can’t hamstring the president’s first two years with a special counsel investigation.

I could go on, but Mr. Durham who has already weighed in has the next batch of this and we will see where it goes. But I do want to take one last thing from our side because this undoubtedly will be the last hearing because we have no desire to hear anything from our side, minority hearing or otherwise. I want to take time to thank Mr. Castor and Ms. Callan. They’re the top investigators in the intelligence and judiciary committee and they combined to have 15 to 20 years experience in the House conducting investigations to protect American interests and taxpayer dollars.

What these public servants don’t usually do as a part of their work is field questions from others who comes before them, from Democrats, donors and pundits, Nr. Castor and Ms. Callan usually work for and alongside members of Congress and fellow public servants. I’m sorry today the majority chose to highlight their investigators and also the ones that had been brought in over these public servants.

I’m sorry to choose that this is where we’re at, but I would like to thank them for their work today. I’d like to thank them for their work on our behalf. But also I think really for all the ones listening here, if you look around the room, this is what’s happening to the American people. By the end of the day, most in the back left, most of the members of the media are begging to go somewhere else because at the end of the day, your case isn’t made. And one thing that just keeps amazingly said from Mr. Goldman, the Chairman, to others, these facts are undisputed.

The very nature of the fact that I say I disagree and you say you don’t is a disputed fact. These are disputed facts. It’ll be the first impeachment that is partisan on facts that are not agreed to. That is the state in which the judiciary has become. We have become a rubber stamp just as the chairman predicted almost 20 years ago when we willingly accept from someone else a project or a report that we don’t investigate ourselves. And with that, that is the problem we have and that is the farce called the Judiciary Committee impeachment scam today. I yield back.

I now recognize myself for concluding remarks. After hearing the reports and the evidence today, we now know several things with certainty. We know that the president was at the center of a scheme to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of the president’s political rivals. He applied that pressure by withholding both a White House meeting and vital military aid. He made that demand directly to President Zelensky and confirmed his personal involvement on the White House lawn. We know that there are no excuses for this conduct. It is no excuse that President Trump eventually released the aid after his scheme was revealed to the public. And there is no excuse that he insisted that there was no quid pro quo only after his scheme was revealed to the public.

We know that his actions endangered our a national security, putting our alliances, our reputation, and our safety at risk. We know that the president also compromise the integrity of elections for a corrupt private political purpose. We know that President Trump in an unprecedented act of obstruction ordered everybody in the executive branch to defy all congressional subpoenas for documents and subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry.

And we know that his attempts to solicit a political favor from the government of Ukraine fit a pattern of conduct that the president established in 2016 when he solicited political assistance from the government of Russia. That pattern of misconduct undermines our national security and undermines free and fair elections. In abusing his office in this manner and in obstructing the investigation that followed, we know that President Trump has put himself before his country.

I am struck by the fact that my Republican colleagues have offered no serious scrutiny of the evidence at hand. They have talked about everything else, but they have offered not one substantive word in the President’s defense. I suspect that is because there is at base, no real defense for the President’s actions. President Trump put himself before his country.

There is a constitutional remedy for a president who undermines our national security and our elections, who puts his own interests before those are the country. That remedy is impeachment. The facts are clear. The danger to our democracy is clear and our duty is clear. President Trump violated his oath to the American people. He placed his own private interests ahead of our national security and the integrity of our elections and constitutes a continuing threat to the integrity of our elections and to our democratic system of government. Such conduct is clearly impeachable. This committee will proceed accordingly.

This concludes today’s hearing. We thank all of our presenters for participating. Without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the presenters or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.

Tom Yamas: (03:32:04)
And that does it for today’s impeachment hearings here on Capitol Hill. I’m Tom Yamas for ABC News Live. We leave you now with some of the highlights from all those hours of testimony.

Order in the room.

Owen Shroyer: (03:32:14)
I’m not going to sit here and watch you run an impeachment scam and remove our vote.

Order in the committee room.

Owen Shroyer: (03:32:17)
We voted for Donald Trump, and they’re simply removing him because they don’t like him.

The president’s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair. The record before us is clear at this point as well. We invited the president to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President Trump chose not to show.

Berry Berke: (03:32:42)
Would you agree that Joe Biden was a leading democratic contender, the face President Trump in 2020.

Mr. Castor: (03:32:48)
I wouldn’t agree with that.

You disagree with it? So sir, it’s your testimony-

Mr. Castor: (03:32:51)
It’s too early.

-that President Trump did not view President Biden to be a legitimate contender.

Mr. Castor: (03:32:56)
I don’t know what President Trump believed or didn’t believe, but it’s too early. Can I add something there?

No, you can’t. Mr. Castor-

Mr. Castor: (03:33:03)
President Trump did mention-

Are you going to let him answer?

Mr. Castor: (03:33:05)
He did mention that there’s some very bad people there. [crosstalk 03:33:09].

The gentleman will suspend. The time is the questioner’s and he can ask the questions of whoever he wants. When you question you’ll have the same rules.

And Mr. Castor, in fairness you’ll be able to answer questions asked by minority counsel when it’s their turn. I have 45 minutes. So let me ask you-

Mr. Castor: (03:33:24)
Come on Barry, in fairness here, President Trump talks about very bad people.

Mr. Castor, you’ve been a veteran of a hill investigation for 15 years. And, this is crazy. I’ve never seen anything like this. You never have either. Would it be interesting to note, because, Mr. Goldman chooses not to answer because he doesn’t want to incriminate, I believe, either himself or the Chairman, or, somebody else. Would it be interesting to you to find, as you’ve dealt with committee staff for a long time, somebody to just have an epiphany, just to do those match records on their own? Or, were they under direction by somebody to do that?

Mr. Castor: (03:33:56)
It’s obvious they were trying to figure something out.

That’s it. And I’m not going to say a question. Is your motive though, your position here today, but we need to make sure that this thing is already blown out of proportion. We’re already not answering questions, and you are here without a pin because your Chairman will not testify. That says all we need to hear. He don’t even stand behind his own report and he sends you. I hope it works out for you. I’m done at this point. I turn it over to Ashley.

Mr. Goldman: (03:34:19)
Can I respond? Are you trying to say that I… What are you trying to say? What is the implication here? But by the way, I didn’t give anything close to a million dollars remotely.

The implication is that we want Schiff in that chair, not you. The implication is the person that wrote the report is the person that should come and present it and you weren’t elected by anybody, and you’re here giving this testimony in place off the Chairman. I hope that clears up the implication.

The gentleman does not have the time and the gentleman has been warned before. You cannot simply yell out and disrupt the committee. The gentleman, Mr. Collins says the time.

Mr. Goldman: (03:34:51)
That was exactly the type of conduct that Vice President Biden wanted to shut down in Ukraine. That was exactly the type of anti non-anticorruption policies that Vice President Biden was objecting to using the official policy. So that’s one of the reasons that he… I mean, I don’t know if that was one, but that’s the type of thing that he based, he and the Americans and the Europeans based-

Steve Cohen: (03:35:15)
That’s the issue we’ve got to get in this committee, to understand the difference between doing something for the national good, for the international good, for the common good, and for your own good. That’s the difference.

It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the country’s best interest. History, future generations will be the judge.

House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing Transcript – Day 2

Jerry Nadler Opening Statement

Doug Collins Opening Statement

Democratic Counsel Barry Berke Opening Statement

Republican Counsel Stephen Castor’s Opening Statement

Democratic Counsel Daniel Goldman Opening Statement

Part 1

Part 2

Other Related Transcripts

Stay updated.