Bonus Edition: The House Intelligence Committee vs. the House Judiciary Committee with No Bull


I'm Elena Kagan and this is the law fair podcast. Bonus edition December Ninth Two Thousand Nineteen in American Day. The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony money from committee staff. Berry Burke Daniel Goldman and Stephen Caster the hearing was contentious and filled with interruptions. But we cut out all the grandstanding and theatrics Batra to leave you with just the questions and answers that you need to hear. It's the law fair podcast. Bonus edition the House Intelligence Committee versus the Judiciary Committee with Noble. Thank you Mr Chairman ranking member Collins and all the members before I had the great honor of being a council this committee Eddie. My young son asked me a question. He said Dad. Does the president have to be a good person like many questions a 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 here. 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 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 and putting his 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. We're concerned that someone would be elected president. who had used all the power of that office to serve his own personal interests at the 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 were they had no remedy the the remedy they they impose was that if a president commits a grave offense a high crime or misdemeanor beater. 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 an unfortunate occasion that these proceedings are necessary but the president's actions have left no choice. The founders were very clear and spill 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 abusive power betrayal the national interest corruption of elections and what is so extraordinary is the conduct. We're going to be talking talking about today of president. Trump didn't violate one of these but all three I. The evidence is overwhelming whelming that the president abused his power by President by pressuring Ukraine and its new president to investigate a political opponent the evidence it's is overwhelming that the president abused his power by ramping up that pressure by conditioning a wanted White House beating and they we needed military aid that had been approved in order to get that president to investigate a political rival it is clear and overwhelming that an 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 risk corrupting our elections actions by inviting foreign interference to knock out an adversary to help us prospects in reelection. It is y. and 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 in the scheme by President Trump was so brazen so clear supported by documents. Actions sworn testimony testimony uncontradicted contemporaneous records. That it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those act. Wchs 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 Gerhardt Hart said if what we're talking about is not impeachable. Then nothing is impeachable. President President. Trump's actions are impeachable offenses. They threaten our rule of law. They threaten our institutions and as James Madison warned warned us they threaten our republic. Let me begin where we must with the facts and evidence i. It's important to understand and why Ukraine was so important to our national security Ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbour 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 diplomats and recognize diplomats for over forty years served our country honorably and he was appointed by president trump himself to be in charge of the US embassy in Ukraine the Russians are violating all the rules treaties. Understandings that they committed to that actually. He kept the peace in Europe for nearly seventy years. That rule of love that order 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 and our children will grow up in our grandchild. This affects the kind of world that we want to to see evolve. That is ambassador Taylor. Explaining why Ukraine was so important in 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 Ukraine train presidents. Alinsky that he wanted him to investigate a political rival former vice president Joe Biden. And you'll hear a lot about that today but that proof is only the tip of the Iceberg Berg. There are so many more events and meetings and contemporaneous text messages emails. Other documents. That show. This happened and happened exactly really as it is alleged and it is clear that in the 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 Aaron Orrin to put his political interest above that of the nation. I'm going to turn to another expert. Witness Dr Fiona Hill the National Security Council Senior Director in the the trump administration. And she's going to explain what happened but it struck me one yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador Sunderland's emails and who was on these emails and he said these people you need to do that. He was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errant and we we were being involved in national security foreign policy and there are still things had just diverged. And that tells you what the evidence shows as the president put his own domestic political interests over the nation's national security and foreign policy a president cannot abuse his 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 an abuse of power but the truth holds together. It makes sense is consistent with the evidence when someone is offering. Excuse that is not true. It is not consistent with the evidence it does is 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 earlier. The president trump put his own political and personal interests over the nation's interest. Like to go through what you were going to see about the president's scheme and you're going to hear about today from the facts that we have I you're gonNA hear ear that president trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pushed Ukraine to open an investigation of his political rival. Mr Giuliani prior to the July. Twenty fifth. Call he made public statements. That Ukraine should investigate the vice former vice president Joe Biden. He tweeted about it putting pressure on the new WHO President He. He went to Ukraine and later went again with the assist and direction of US officials who were told to aid the president's personal title lawyer on the president's behalf you'll hear that president trump told his aides that he was is relying on for Ukraine that he wanted them to quote. Talk to Rudy. What you're going to hear is that his close advisers had just gotten back on May twenty third from the inauguration of the new president presents Alinsky they told president trump we were impressed? He was elected on an anti-corruption corruption platform of 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 the Ukraine Ukrainian president had to do was investigated his political rival. You'll hear that president trump's advisers told presidents alinsky that president trump would not schedule the one White House meeting unless he announced a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Biden. They're documents they're sworn testimony. This happened and there is no question from the evidence that the president did this and presidents Alinsky desperately needed a White House meeting both the 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 Tori insecurity 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 sees involved State Department Fence Department National Security Council said it should be released that had been approved it was going to be released until president trump personally stopped it and again contemporaneous evidence and documents show it and proven people said that they were shocked? Ambassador Taylor said he was in astonishment. Men 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 the July twenty fifth call. President trump explicitly told them he wanted to conduct he wanted into two Ukrainian investigations one of a US citizen and his political arrival and the other about the origins of the interference in the two thousand sixteen election. Some conspiracy theory that Russia who all the intelligence agencies disagreed interfered with the two thousand sixteen election that may be was Ukraine again. Another investigation intended to help the president politically that is it. And you know the president cared about the investigations that would help him politically and not Ukraine and not the national security interest. And 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 Sunlen who donald WHO president trump appointed jointed vassar son. That had just come to the Ukraine on the twenty six he met with presidents Alinsky. He went to a restaurant with Mr Holmes the US political affairs counselor in Ukraine and he called call president trump on his cell phone. Mr Holmes could hear that call and then he spoke to Mr Solomon. Let's see what happened on July twenty six the day after that call. I heard ambassador. Sahlin greet read the president and explaining was calling from Keefe. I heard President Trump and clarify that embassador song was in Ukraine. Bassil replied yes. He was in Ukraine and went onto stayed read. The president's alinsky quote loves her ASS. I didn't hurt president trump. Ask so he's going to investigation ambassador Song replied and that he's going to do it adding presence Alinsky. We'll do anything ask him to do. That is sworn testimony by David. Holmes heard it from the president himself and it was clear to everyone the most experienced people in government who donald trump himself appointed their positions. They knew what was going on. Let's look at a text message from Ambassador Taylor Round this time on September ninth. He said as I said got 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 interest to hold aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order A to combat Russia and show the support. He did it to help his own campaign now. There have 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 ultimately released and president trump met with Mr Lewis Alinsky. We 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 number nine. 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 and he also there also was a news article which will talk about in a moment by the Washington Post on September fifth exposing his scheme and it was only after that that he met with Mr with presidents ends Alinsky not in the White House but in New York another excuse offered. The president was motivated by General corruption concerns and again again. The evidence shows that is not true. That that's what caused him to withhold. The president's Alinsky in fact was elected on an anti-corruption platform. He was a reform candidate. His zone people told him again and again presence. Alinsky is a hope. He's doing it the right way. They urged him just be supportive on his call with presence Alinsky on July twenty fifth. 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 in politically every intelligence agency unanimously supported releasing aid to Ukraine. That it was appropriate. They did a study a corruption study. They said release it. The the White House never provided an explanation. The aided already been approved and it was not for anti corruption issues that President President trump withheld it. The next is Ukraine was not pressured and the argument about that as well today. They haven't said they were pressured. We'll Ukraine was pressure after then and still is pressured. They are desperately in need of the of the United States support as they battle the threat of Russia so of course they have to be careful what they said but contemporaneous documents emails tax from the Ukrainian officials themselves. Show the pressure. They felt show. They knew what the president trump was doing showed what they had to do you. This is one from Bill Taylor to again. Embassador learn saw linen. Kurt and ambassador. Kurt Volker borden one thing. I talked about yesterday with Sasha Russia Donald Duck a senior aide to President Zilenski point that presidents Alinsky is sensitive about Ukraine. Be Taken seriously not mere merely an instrument in Washington 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 create unless they furthered president. Trump's reelection efforts that is a corrupt abuse of power another argument. That's that's made is that trump never said quid pro quo. And what you're gonNA hear is on a call with embassador sunlen. After a the Washington Post article came out on September fifth which we will look at after that there was a Washington Post article that came out that again exposed the Ukrainian Ian Scheme days after that president trump was on a phone call with embassador sunland without prompting said there was no pro quo because he got caught so he's offering his defense but even ambassador Sunlen in sworn testimony by it because ultimately then president trump not only was was not dissuaded. He again describe what he wanted. He didn't want Ukraine. Actually conduct these investigations. He wanted to and then to announce investigations of his political critical rival to help him politically he continued. And you'll hear more about that again. None of these excuses hold any water and they air 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 are 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 directed his most senior aides. Who are involved in some of these events not to come testify? Why to defy subpoenas told every one of his agency's with records and could be relevant not to produce those records to us to try to obstruct our investigation and now this is evidence that president trump is replaying the playbook used in the Prior Department of Justice investigation the Gatien in that investigation? He directed his White House. Counsel 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 horrible names justice he is done here and president trump thought he got away with it. On July twenty fourth was the day that special special counsel the special counsel testified before this committee and the House Intelligence Committee the twenty fourth. It was exactly the following day. The twenty fifth that President Trump spoke to presidents Alinsky in furtherance of his Ukrainian scheme. He thought he got away with it. Not only that he thought he could. I use his powers to interfere with that investigation so he could do what he wanted. He could act like he was above the law. And if he got caught he would again use his powers to try to obstruct the investigation instigation and prevent the facts from coming out. And that's exactly what he did but fortunately fortunately because of the true American patriots. Let's who came forward to testify. Despite the threats by President against the people who worked in his own administration they told the story Ori They on their own produce documents that provide uncontrovertible clear and overwhelming evidence. That president trump did this skiing eighteen. He put his political reelection interest over the nation's national security and the integrity of its elections. He did it intentionally. Essentially 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 and one of the concerns and requirements of finding impeachable digital fences. There an urgency. Is there a sense that you have to move. Could be repeated. Well again I all the constitutional experts who testified justify recognized that obstructing an investigation is an impeachable offense. But here the offense we're talking about. It's being interfered obstructed with is interfering with very election. That's coming up and I submit to you given what happened. 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. What a future president? May they 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 the ABC's of of potential presidential abuses. It is extraordinary that the president's conduct was was a trifecta checking all three boxes. Let's begin with abuse of power. What that means? It's to use use the power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring her injuring the national interest or acts in ways that are grossly mostly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. Now these this question. I should've whether president engage in abusive power. Came up before when this Congress considered the impeachment of President Nixon and after actually 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 Department of Justice and defending his conduct. Here's what he said 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. President that is as wrong as when president. Nixon said a similar thing that is not what the Constitution provides that is now with the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power most concerned betrayal the nation of autumn foreign powers. The American people have suffered that foreign influence. When president trump treated military aid that had been approved wbt tax payers dollars and decided to treat it as his own checkbook? Try to further his own. re-election chances that had reflects what the founders were concerned about and finally corruption of our elections the framers knew that corrupt leaders or leader's acting corruptly concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. They talked talked about it frequently. That is why the framers thought electoral treasury particularly evolving foreign powers was a critical abuse and that could support and lead to impeachment impeachment. Now the American people learn last election. How dangerous foreign intervention or elections can be let me show another clip from President from candidate trump on the on the campaign trail Russia? If you listening I hope you're able to find and the thirty thousand emails. That are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded. Mightily by our press in Russia was listening within approximately five hours. Five hours of president. Trump's invitation to Russia. Uh Do interfere in our election by trying to hack and obtain the emails of his political opponent. Russian fact tried to do that for the first first time the very officers who then indicted by the Department of Justice for that conduct they took candidate trumps. Invitation now the American people learned a lesson. President trump unfortunately apparently learned at different lesson. Let's look well. I would think that if they were honest about it that Dr two major investigation to divide is a very simple answer. They should investigate the by so this was president trump answering question about what did he want prisons Linski 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 two thousand sixteen when he only had a campaign platform which extend the invitation to a foreign power now he has is the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invited 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 and what's most striking as we come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about. Is there continuing wrist of wrongdoing. The fact that president trump did this after he was caught shows. The risk shows the risk 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 duct that he can put his personal and political interests over the nation's interest over the nation's national security interests over the nation's nations integrity of its elections. So of course we do have an election 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 future presidents. Do not do it. It is the hope that in these discussions discussions can put aside political rancor disagreements and have a fair discussion about the fax six and 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 cannot happen again with this president or any president. It is a reason to talk about whether we 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 interests over the interests of the people who elected them. It is a reason for these debates to gin 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. What is that really are intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here? It is a reason to focus on on the facts and what is in the country's best interest history future generations will be the judge morning Chairman Nadler ranking member Collins members of the Committee Mitty and members of the staff. My Name's Steve Caster. I'M A congressional staff. Member served with the Oversight Committee on the Republican staff with Mr Jordan also also for purposes of this investigation shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee. Mr Collins and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Mr Nunez. It sure is a typical for a staffer to be presenting 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 high crime and misdemeanor. It does not such. The committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president it from office and it should not this case in many respects comes down day. Eight lines in a call transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally you 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. President who sixty three million people voted for over eight lines in 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 FACS in which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration association on January Twentieth Two Thousand Seventeen just twenty seven minutes. After the president's inauguration day the Washington Post ran a story that the campaign pain to impeach. The president has already begun. The article reported Democrats and Liberal. Activists are mounting broad opposition to styming trump's agenda and noted that impeachment strategists leave the constitution's emoluments clause would be vehicle in the first. There's two years the Administration Democrats House introduced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office on several very different factual basis on January third. The very first day of the new Congress Congressman Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against the president the same day representative to lead said. WE'RE GONNA go in there. We're going to impeach the president in May Twenty nine thousand nine hundred representative Green said on MSNBC. If we don't impeach this president he will be reelected even and 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 two thousand. Twenty the obsession with impeaching. The president is reflected in house. Democrats have used. I used the power of their majority in the past seven months. In the Oversight Committee the Democrats I announced witness was Michael Cohen disgraced felon who was who pleaded pleaded guilty to line 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 presidency accounting firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal 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 turns they said was to oversee the IRS audit process for presidential tax returns. You can judge for yourself in the Financial Services Committee. Democrats demanded and subpoenaed the President's bank records going back ten years the Financial Services Committee staff the Republicans. Tell for me the information demanded would cover every withdrawal credit card. Swipe we're 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 CI- With Banking Statutes and regulations here in the Judiciary Committee. Democrats sent out letters letters. Demanding information from over eighty recipients fooding. The president's children business partners employees his campaign campaign businesses foundation or the main event for the Judiciary Committee was the report. A special counsel Muller which Democrats would believed Steve would serve as the evidentiary basis for impeaching the president despite interviewing five hundred witnesses issuing twenty eight hundred subpoenas executing almost five hundred search warrants and spending twenty five million dollars the special counsels news. One thousand nine hundred attorneys and forty. FBI agents analysts and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the trump campaign the Russian government after the trump Russia collusion allegations did not pan out. Democrats focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They criticized attorney general bar for concluding that no crime of obstruction had occurred in special counsel investigation but in fact was entirely the appropriate for the attorney. General make that call because the special counsels declined to do so not surprisingly the Democrats Muller hearing was underwhelming to say released and the sequel with Corey Lewandowski definitely did not move the impeachment needle either. The Intelligence Committee to was heavily invested 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 twenty-fifth with Ukrainian president so Lansky the Foreign Affairs Committee. The committee of jurisdiction wasn't the committee leaving the impeachment inquiry or holding hearings either was the Oversight Committee Houses Chief Investigative Entity the Judiciary Committee. He was only recently brought back into the mix after finding concluded instead. The impeachment inquiry was run by the House. Intelligence Committee and these former Federal Prosecutors Prosecutors Democrats intelligence committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a manifestly unfair way. All the fact-finding was unclassified ossified and that was made clear at the top of every single deposition but the Democrats took advantage of the closed door process in the capital basement. Bunker the skiff gift to control access to information secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation allowing misleading public narrative. Art Form and catch hold with careful leaks of witness testimony. Democrats refuse to invite Republican witnesses and directed witnesses called by the Democrats not not 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 emotion to table with no notice subpoenas for documents and testimony requested by Republicans. I'll note that Democrats never once brought got 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 report allegations of obstruction before landing on the Ukraine phone call. The impeachment inquiry is clearly an orchestrated effort to up and our political system. According to politico the speaker has tightly scripted every step of the impeachment inquiry Democrats have reportedly convene focus groups to test which allegations whether it be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion. Russian were most compelling to the American Public Speaker. Pelosi said Democrats must strike while the iron is hot on teaching. The president under the entire duration of the impeachment inquiry from the dime Speaker Pelosi announced it on September twenty fourth until today has been seventy six six 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 president. The artificial and arbitrary political deadline by which Democrats are determined to finish impeachment by Christmas leads to a rush process and and missed opportunities to obtain relevant information. Democrats avoided the accommodations process required by federal courts in disputes between Congress and the Executive Democrats declined to attempt to negotiate with the administration for the production of documents and witnesses. Democrats did not exhaust all their options to entice witnesses or agencies to cooperate such is allowing witnesses to appear with agency lawyers or initiating contempt proceedings seatings sometimes the threat of contempt preceding. Gets you a different results. Sometimes the witnesses choose to appear when contempt is on the table. Democrats withdrew subpoenaed 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 where they didn't like the presiding judge Judge Leon instead? Democrats made their demands and refused to budge. Democrats told witnesses. 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 a productive for gathering information in any serious inquiry. This rushed take it or leave it. Approach to investigating is contrary to how L. Successful Congressional Investigations Typically Work Congressional investigations. Take Time. There is no easy button. Uh 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 council 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 Gatti's as investigation into the Justice Department's decision during two thousand sixteen the IRS targeting investigation the Benghazi investigation and fast and furious there or have been give and take between Congress and the executive in the good lockout he investigation for example. It took two months two months of negotiations. Before the committee's conducted inducted the first witness interview with Deputy Director McCabe the Justice Department only began producing documents to the committee. After many more months of discussions. It's in none of these investigations. Did Congress get everything it wanted right at the beginning. Certainly not within sixty or seventy six days but with persistence since and patients eventually did receive enough information to do our work and contrary to talking points. The trump administration has in fact it cooperated with and facilitated congressional oversight and Investigations for example earlier this year the oversight committee conducted investigation nation into security clearances at the White House. The central allegation put forward. was that the White House. Deviated from established procedures grant clearances to certain White House staff. The Democrats sought the interview career staff. Who perform these security clearance reviews but declined the witness initially to appear with Agency Council House in the White House elsewhere? Impasse however after a little bit of time. We the Republican staff with with the help of Mr Jordan convinced the witness to appear with with agency Council for our own transcribed interview and the Democrats came along the subsequent interviews in the security clearance. Investigation were conducted with Agency Council. The testimony allowed the Community of team. The evidence to get to the bottom of what was going on and it wasn't what was alleged. I nobody outside. The security clearance office was handed 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 council to accompany witnesses. Democrats regrets have turned away. Information by declining negotiate in good faith with the administration about the scope of document requests as a result of these failures the evidentiary record in the impeachment inquiry is incomplete and in many places incoherent the failure to exhaust all avenues to obtain information severely risks undermining the legitimacy of any articles of impeachment as Professor Turley said to the committee last week. I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a positive evidence and abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment 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 this substantive case for impeaching president trump as a result of artificial arbitrary and political schedule relies heavily on ambiguous ambiguous facts? Presumptions and speculation. President Turley warned here to that impeachments have been based on proof not presumptions. The Democrats do not have the proof now my Democrat counterparts counterparts on the intelligence committee or talented attorneys. I'm sure they will tell you. A riveting story about a shadow or irregular foreign policy the apparatus and a smear campaign designed to extort Ukraine for the president's political benefit. They'll tell you about president trump. How he put his own political medical interests ahead of national security by mentioning former president former vice president? Joe Biden by name raising the allegations of Ukrainian influence in two thousand sixteen election on July twenty fifth call. They'll try to convince you that. The trump administration the same administration democrats regularly accused 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 impeach narrative revolves all ambiguous facts and conflicting evidence in a way that is most unflattering the President the Democrats impeachment narrative ignores public statements from senior Ukrainian officials that contradict the narrative as you listen to the Democrat that 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 I won't provide a detailed presentation now but allow me to highlight a few points. I The summary of July twenty fifth phone call reflects no conditionality or pressure. Presidents Alinsky never vocalized any discomfort or pressure on the call contrary to Democrat allegations. Gatien's 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 from the divisiveness of the Russia. Collusion investigation second. Since president trump is declassified and publicly released the call summary. You seventy five days ago. Presidents Alinsky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure he said it on September twenty fifth at the United United Nations General Assembly. He said it in an interview published on October sixth. He said it again October tenth and most recently he ed just last week in Time magazine are their senior. Ukrainian officials have also said there was no linkage between a meeting scurity assistance and an investigation. If president trump was truly orchestrating pressure campaign to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president biden. One would think that Ukraine would have felt some some pressure third at the time of July Twenty Fifth Cau- Senior officials in key did not know that the security assistance was paused. They did not learn. It was paused until the pause was reported publicly in the US media on August. Twenty eighth as ambassador. Volker testified because the highest levels so the Ukrainian government did not know about the pause there is no leverage implied. Finally Presidents Alinsky met with with President Trump in New York on September twenty fifth at the United Nations shortly thereafter. Shortly before before that the the the security assistance fled 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 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 US tax payer 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 twenty sixteen election. These events bear directly directly on the president's state of mind presidents Linski had run on an anti-corruption platform but he was an untried politician with a relationship nations ship to a controversial Ukrainian lagarde when vice when former vice president pence met with presidents Lansky in Warsaw. I'm sorry when Vice President Pence met with presidents in Warsaw on September one. He stressed to him. The need for reform and reiterated the president's concern about burden-sharing especially among on European allies in late August and early September after his party took control the Ukrainian parliament Ukraine pass historic reforms to fight corruption. These reforms including removing parliamentary immunity. which witnesses said it'd been a historic source of corruption members of our Congress had immunity entity president trump later lifted the pause on security assistance and met with presidents Alinsky? Two weeks later. The aid was paused for fifty. Five days it's very simply. The evidence in the Democrats impeachment inquiry does not support the conclusion that president trump abused his power for his own personal personal political benefit. There is simply no clear evidence that president trump acted with malicious intent and with holding 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 the 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 their matter in which governs. But those disagreements answer not enough to justify the irrevokable action of removing him from office Democrats Hyperbole Histrionics are no. Oh good reason. Eleven months out from election to prevent the American people from decided 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 as a factual matter the only direct testimony investigation has obtained about the president's reaction to the inquiry is from ambassador Sunland who testified president the new trump told them to cooperate and tell the truth. President trump has also declassified and released the summaries of his two phone calls with the President Presidents Alinsky 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 early testimony from last week when he left the house for proceeding on impeachment so rapidly and on such a thin record. Professor Turley said to set this abbreviated schedule. Demand in documents and then impeach. Because they haven't been turned over when they go to court. I think is an abuse of power impeachment of a duly elected president resident as chairman and Adler said in one thousand nine hundred. Eighty eight is the undoing of national election. Now I understand. Democrats issued a report over the weekend. Arguing that contrary. Sorry to the Chairman Stephen In one thousand ninety eight impeachment is not on doing it an election. I would just respond by saying that. I don't think many of the sixty three million Americans and from all around the country who voted for president trump in two thousand sixteen would agree by impeaching president trump. The House would essentially be nullifying. Find the decision of those Americans and House. We'd be doing it less than let less than eleven months before the next election. There's still is 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 Nineteen Ninety Eight. The chairman said that a bare minimum. The president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and Innuendo and beyond the demands ends that the president prove prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. I Would Smith that those words ring as true today as the chairman believed them to be in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight. 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 Houses Impeachment Authority is not warranted on the evidentiary record presented. Thank you for allowing hiring me to present this information this morning and you'll back used Goldman. You may begin thank you. Mr Chairman German Nadler Lower ranking member Collins members of the Committee we are here today because Donald J trump the forty fifth president of the United States. It's abused power of his office. The American presidency for his political and personal benefit president trump up directed a months-long campaign to solicit foreign help in his two thousand and twenty reelection efforts withholding official acts from the government of Ukraine in order to coerce and secure political assistance and an interference in our domestic affairs as part of the scheme. President trump applied increasing pressure on the president of Ukraine to publicly announce announce to investigations helpful to his personal reelection efforts. He applied this pressure himself and through through his agents working within and outside of the US government by conditioning a desperately sought Oval Office meeting and and three hundred and ninety one million dollars in taxpayer. Funded Congressionally appropriated security assistance. Vital to Ukraine's CRAIN's ability to fend off Russian aggression and he conditioned that on the announcement of these two political investigations that were helpful to his his personal interests. When the president's efforts were discovered he released 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 when faced with the opening of an official impeachment inquiry into his conduct? President trump launched an unprecedented campaign obstruction of Congress ordering executive branch agencies and government officials to defy subpoenas for documents in testimony today. The investigating committees have received no documents from the trump administration pursuant to our subpoenas. Pinas were it not. For courageous public servants doing their duty and honoring their oath to this country and coming forward and testifying defying. The president's scheme might still be concealed today. The central moment in this scheme was a telephone call. Between President Trump and Ukrainian Ukrainian President Wlodimierz Alinsky on July twenty fifth of this year during that call. President trump asked presidents Alinsky for a personal favor. You're to initiate the two investigations that president trump hoped could ultimately help his reelection in two thousand twenty 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 next year's presidential election the second investigation sought to elevate an entirely debunked conspiracy theory promoted by Russian Chin. 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 two thousand sixteen election are patently false but that that did not deter president trump during his phone call with Ukrainian president and it does not appear to deter him today just two days ago president. Trump's 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 uh-huh persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win. An election is a clear and present. Danger two are free and fair elections and to our national security. The overwhelming evidence of this scheme is described in detail L. in nearly three hundred page document entitled the trump Ukraine impeachment inquiry report formerly transmitted from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Agence 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 around the globe. The evidence from these witnesses cannot seriously be disputed. The president placed his personal interests above 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 Adviser and director of investigations at the beginning of this year previously. I serve for ten years as a prosecutor in the southern district of New York when I joined the Department of Justice Status Under the George W Bush administration. The team that I lead on the intelligence community includes other former federal prosecutors a retired FBI agent and investigators significant national security expertise. The report that I am presenting today is based entirely on 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 were in a fair professional final and thorough investigation. We followed the House rules for depositions and public hearings including the rule against agency counsel being present in 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 only to the fact that president trump obstructed the inquiry and refused to make them available nevertheless the extensive acidic evidence that the committee's uncovered during this investigation led to the following critical findings. I president trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly elected president of Ukraine to interfere in the twenty twenty 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. Instigations that president trump wanted president trump withheld coveted oval office meeting and three hundred ninety one dollars of essential military assistance from Ukraine. Third President Trump's conduct sought to undermine our free and fair elections and poses an imminent didn't threat to our national security and fourth faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine. President trump. DOC directed an unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress's impeachment inquiry into his conduct and with that context in mind I would. I'd like to turn to the evidence of president. Trump's conduct concerning Ukraine. My colleague Mr Caster said that it revolves around eight lines In one call record. But that's sorely ignores the vast amount of evidence that we collected of a months-long scheme by directed by by the president. But I do want to start with that. July twenty fifth phone call because that is critical evidence of the president's involvement and intent and 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 cranium president's election success but the second call would diverge dramatically from what those listening had expected now just just prior to this telephone call. President Trump spoke to Gordon sunland the US ambassador to the European Union who had donated one million dollars 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 Ambassador Sunland relayed the president's message to presidents Alinsky through ambassador. Kurt Volker who had had lunch that day with presidents Alinsky is a top aide. Andrei earmark who repairs throughout Italy appears a repeatedly through this scheme as presidents Alinsky. He's right hand man. Ambassador Volker Texted Mr Year mark with President Trump's direction. Good lunch thanks. Heard from White House. assuming President Z.. Convincing trump he will investigate get to the bottom of what happened in two thousand sixteen. We will nail down visit for. We'll we'll nail down for a visit to Washington. Good luck. See You tomorrow Kurt. So even before the phone call with presidents Alinsky took place. President trump had directed that Ukraine initiate the investigation into two thousand sixteen. The debunk conspiracy theory. That Ukraine had interfered appeared in the election in order for presidents Alinsky to get the White House visit that he desperately coveted ambassador. Sunland was clear in his testimony about this quid. Pro Quo 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 important to the United States such as Ukraine's efforts to root out corruption instead. President trump veered quickly into the personal favour that he wanted President Celeski to do two investigations. That would help. President and trump's re-election effort witnesses who listened to the call described it as unusual improper inappropriate and concerning turning two of them immediately reported their concerns to White House lawyers. Now let me take a few minutes walking through that important. Call all step by step because it is evidence that is central to the president scheme near the beginning of the call presidents. Alinsky said I would also like 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 javelin from the United States for defense purposes the great support in the area of defense included the nearly four hundred million dollars of US military terry assistance to Ukraine which one witness testified was nearly ten percent of Ukraine's defense budget and this support comes as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in two thousand fourteen when Russia illegally annexed nearly seven percent 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 twenty fifth call president trump had inexplicably placed a hold on military assistance to Ukraine without providing any me 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 support for Ukraine. It was not reciprocal that somehow Ukraine needed to give more to the United States. What did he mean? While it became clear because immediately after after presidents alinsky brought up. US military support and purchasing javelin antitank 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 reference there included to demands that had nothing to do with official US policy or foreign policy. I president president trump. Said I would like you to find out what happened with this. This whole situation with Ukraine. They say crowd strike as you saw yesterday. Excuse me I guess you have one of your wealthy people. It says the server they say Ukraine crane 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 after 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 did with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Muller an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do you? It's very important that you do if that's possible here again. President trump was referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government not not Russia was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee in two thousand sixteen. Not a single witness in our investigation testified. There was any factual support for this allegation to the contrary unanimous assessment of the US intelligence community found that. Russia alone interfered interfered. In the two thousand sixteen election and Special Counsel Muller who indicted twelve Russians for this conspiracy testified before Congress that the the Russian government interfered in the two thousand sixteen presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Dr Fiona Hill an expert 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 putting his homeland. Security Adviser end is former national security adviser that the alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election was false and although 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 two thousand seventeen President Putin said second as we all know during the presidential campaign in the United States the Ukrainian government and adopted a unilateral position 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 who benefits from this unfounded theory report forward by President Trump and his associates President Putin made it clear very recently when he said thank God. No one is accusing us anymore of interfering in. US elections now. They're accusing Ukraine in the face of clear evidence not only from intelligence community experts but from his own own national security team that Russia Not Ukraine interfered in the two thousand sixteen election for the benefit of Donald Trump. President trump still pressed oppressed 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 presidents alinsky during the July twenty fifth call was was to investigate the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President in twenty twenty former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter President Trump's stated the other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son that Biden Stop the prosecution and a lot of people wanna find out about about that so whatever you can do with the attorney. General would be great by didn't win 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. US policy to clean up the prosecutor. General's office in Ukraine despite these facts by the time of the July twenty fifth call. Mr Giuliani had been publicly advocating for these two investigations for months while also using. I'm back channels to press Ukrainian officials to initiate them in support of his client. DONALD TRUMP AMBASSADOR SUNLAND understood Mr Giuliani's role very clearly. 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 it to others. Mr Giuliani was working at cross purposes with official policy channels toward Ukraine even as he was working on behalf of President President trump according to former national security adviser ambassador. John Bolton Mr Giuliani was a hand grenade who's going going to blow everybody up unquote near the end of July. Twenty Fifth Call Presidents Alinsky circled back to the precooked message that embassador Volker had relaid to presidents alinsky top aide before the call presidents. Alinsky said I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United Spates 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 he would agree to pursue the investigations. This statement shows the president's Alinsky fully understood at the time of the a July twenty fifth. Call the quid pro quo between these investigations in the White House meeting the president trump required and that ambassador sunland had testified testified so clearly about numerous witnesses testified about the importance of a White House meeting with the president of the United States specifically the meeting in the Oval Office an official act by President Trump as David Holmes senior official in the US embassy embassy and Ukraine said it it is important to understand that a White House visit was critical to presidents Alinsky Presidents Alinsky needed to show US support at the highest levels in order order to demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had US backing as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda under at home in other words the White House visit would help Zilenski anti-corruption reforms and support remains critical as presidents. Alinsky 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 presidents Alinsky got the message on July twenty six. US officials met with presidents Alinsky Alinsky and other Ukrainian officials and KIEF and presidents alinsky mentioned that president trump had brought up some very sensitive issues unquote after to that meeting ambassador. Sunland had a private one on one meeting with under a year. Mark Presidents Alinsky top aide during which ambassador Sunland said that they probably discuss discuss the issue of investigations at lunch. Right after that with Mr Holmes and two other State Department Officers Ambassador Sunland pulled out a cell cell phone and called. President trump somewhat shocked. Mr Holmes recounted the conversation that followed I heard ambassador. sunlen greet president and explain. He was calling from Keefe. I heard President trump then clarify that ambassador song was in Ukraine ambassador. Song replied yes. He was in Ukraine and went on to state that presidents alinsky quote loves your ASS UNQUOTE THEN president trump. Ask so he's going to do the investigation investigation ambassador responding Sunland replied that he is going to do it. Adding the president's Alinsky will do anything you ask him to do. After the call ambassador Sunland 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. Sunland spoke to President Trump before the July twenty fifth call with Presidents Alinsky and related to Ukrainian officials cels 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 in the meeting of these two political investigations immediately after the Ukrainian president brought up US military support for Ukraine which president trump had recently suspended suspended or put on hold and at the end of the call presents. Alinsky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that President President Trump requested and the White House meeting that presidents Alinsky desperately wanted and then the following day ambassador Sunland confirmed to president trump on the telephone in person that the Ukrainians would indeed initiate the investigation discussed on the call which were the only which was the only thing thing about Ukraine. The president trump cared about now. It's very important to understand that. This investigation revealed that the July I twenty fifth call was neither start nor the end of president trump's efforts to use the powers of his office for personal political gain. And 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 Ivanovich to clear the way. Hey for his three handpicked agents to spearhead his corrupt agenda in Ukraine secretary. Perry Ambassador Sunland and ambassador. Volker all of whom attended Presidents Alinsky inauguration on May twentieth all political appointees they proved to be more than willing to engage in what Dr Underhill later described as an improper domestic political errand for the president on April twenty. First Presidents Alinsky won the Ukrainian election action with seventy three 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 released following the call stated that president trump expressed his shared commitment commitment to quote root out corruption unquote. President trump in fact did not mention corruption at all on this call just like he did not mention corruption option on the July twenty fifth. Call shortly after this call. President trump asked vice president. Mike Pence to attend presidents Alinsky inauguration but on May thirteenth 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 Twenty first and may thirteenth when Vice President Pence was originally invited and then disinvited or removed from the delegation a few things I on April Twenty Firth Twenty Fifth Vice President Biden formally announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for president. Then about a week later on May third president trump spoke with President Putin on the telephone one senior State State Department official testified that the conversation between president trump and President Putin included a discussion of Ukraine. Third on May ninth. Mr Giuliani told 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 unquote quote but after public backlash an apparent pushback from the Ukrainians. Mr Giuliani canceled his trip the next day claiming the president's Alinsky he was surrounded by enemies of president trump at a critical may twenty third meeting in the Oval Office. President Trump said that Ukraine was corrupt and tried to take him down in two thousand sixteen. The same false narrative pushed President Putin and Mr Giuliani and in order for the White House meaning meaning 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 related to both Ukrainian officials and the government officials that president trump had designated at the May twenty third meeting to take to take lead on Ukraine in policy directive from President Trump. That a White House meeting would not occur until Ukraine announced the two political investigations that president trump trump required and well before the July twenty fifth call ambassadors Sunland and Volker also relayed this quid pro quo to the Ukrainians including leading to presidents alinsky himself Ambassador Volker conveyed the message directly to presidents Alinsky at the beginning of July urging him to reference investigations allegations associate associated with the Giuliani factor with president trump and in meetings at the White House on July tenth ambassador Sunland inland told other. US officials and two presidents ALINSKYITES advisors including Mr Year mark that he had an agreement with acting chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney that the White House House visit would be scheduled if Ukraine announced the investigations. One witness testified that during the second of the meetings Ambassador Sunland on and began to review what the deliverable deliverable would be in order to get the meeting. Referring to an investigation of the Biden's the witness told the committee that the request was explicit. There was no ambiguity and then ambassador Sunland also mentioned Barista a major Ukrainian energy company that Hunter Biden and sat on the board of to the witnesses that testified before the committee. The references to Barack Obama was shorthand for an investigation into the Biden's ambassador Bolton as well as staff members objected to this meeting for investigations. Trade and Ambassador Bolton told Dr Hill you go and tell Eisenberg John Eisenberg the legal adviser for the National Security Council that I am not part of whatever drug deal sunlen and Mulvaney or cooking up on this and you go ahead and tell them what you've heard and what I've said yet. This was not a rogue operation. Asian by Mr Giuliani and ambassador. Sunland Volker as ambassador Sunland testified everyone was in the loop including Mr Mulvaney Secretary Terry Pompilio Secretary Perry and their top advisors on July nineteenth ambassador sunland emails Mister Mulvaney Secretary Perry Secretary Pompeo and others after speaking with presidents Alinsky the subject was I talked to Alinsky just us now an ambassador Sunlen wrote he is prepared to receive Podesta's call the president of the United States. We'll assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and we'll quote turnover every stone unquote both secretary. Perry and chief of Staff mulvaney quickly responded to the email noting that given that conversation 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 serious reservations. Particularly because Presidents Alinsky had won the election on an anti-corruption platform in fact a few days before the July twenty any fifth call ambassador William Taylor the acting. US Ambassador to Ukraine and the former permanent ambassador to Ukraine texted ambassador Sunland and Volker rather he. He stayed in his testimony on July twentieth. I had a phone conversation with Mr Donnelly. During which he conveyed to me. That presidents Alinsky Linski did not want to be used as a pawn in a US reelection campaign but president. Trump's pressure campaign on presidents. Alinsky did not relent. Don't just four days later. Presence Alinsky received that message via Kurt Volker that he needed to convince president trump that he would do the investigations in in order to get that White House meeting. And as I have described President Zilenski tried to do exactly that on the July. Twenty fifth call with President Trump in the weeks following the July twenty fifth call presidents alinsky heated president trump's request sending his top aide Mr Year mark to Madrid to meet with Mr Giuliani Elhiani in coordination with Mr Giuliani President and the president trump's hand-picked representatives. They continued this pressure campaign and to secure a public announcement of the investigations. Now according to Ambassador Sunland 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. Ukrainian government needed only to publicly announce the investigations. It is clear. The goal was not the investigations themselves or not any corruption that those investigations might have entailed but the political benefit that president trump would enjoy from an announcement of investigations into his twenty twenty. Political rival will end against a unanimous assessment. That showed that he received foreign support in the twenty sixteen election for that 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 ambassadors Sunland and Volker worked with President. Trump's eight Mr your mock to draft a statement for Presidents Alinsky the ski to issue when the aid proposed a statement that did not include specific references to the investigations that president trump wanted the Barista and Biden investigation and the two thousand sixteen 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 Harrison on the left of the original statement drafted by Mr Earmark the top two presidents Alinsky and on the right. A revised statement with Mr Giuliani requirements requirements and on 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 difference including those involving Barista and the two thousand sixteen 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 president trump wanted and told presidents alinsky about on the July twenty fifth call now ultimately presidents Alinsky administration temporarily shelved this announcement even 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 and the hold on the vital military assistance that the president had put in place for more than a month still without any explanation to any of the policy. Experts are investigation revealed. That a number of Ukrainian officials had made quiet increased of various. US officials about the aid as early as July. Twenty fifth. The day of the phone call increased by Ukrainian officials continued in the weeks that followed until the hold was revealed at the end of August. I but this is important. It was important for the Ukrainian officials to keep it quiet because if it became public than Russia would know Oh 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 to politically motivated investigations to benefit his reelection to a coveted White House. Meeting was expressly conditioned on Ukraine announcing those investigations three president trump had placed a hold on vital military leterrier assistance to Ukraine without any explanation and notwithstanding the uniform support for that assistance from the relevant federal the agencies and Congress Ambassador Taylor testified that this quid pro quo between the investigation president trump wanted and the security assistance that president then trump needed was crazy and he told ambassador Sunland as I said on the phone. I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with with a political campaign now in an effort to move the White House meeting and the military aid along ambassador. sunlen wrote an email to secretary. I pump Peyot on August twenty second. He wrote Mike. Should we block time. In Warsaw for short pull aside for Podesta Meets Alinsky. I would ask Zilenski to look him in the eye and tell them that once you crain's new justice folks are in place Parentheses Mid-september Z.. Presidents residents Alinsky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to us and to the US. Hopefully that will break. The logjam ambassador Sunland testified that this was a reference to the political investigations that President Trump discussed on the July twenty fifth call. Aw which Secretary Pompeo ultimately admitted to that he listened to in real time ambassador Sunland hoped up to that this would help lift the log jam which he meant the hold on critical security assistance to Ukraine and the White House meeting and what was Secretary Pump House. Dell's response three minutes later. Yes after the hold on military assistance became public on August. Twenty eighth 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 remain confidential Joel also about the public message that is sent to the Russian government on September first at a pre briefing with vice president as an pence before he met with presidents alinsky ambassador. Sunland raised the issue of the hold on security assistance. He said I mentioned the vice is 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 is meeting with presidents. alinsky ambassador. Sunland went over to Mr Earmark again presidents. Alinsky top aide and pulled him aside to explain the hold on security. Assistance was also now conditioned on the public announcement of the Barista Biden and the twenty sixteen election interference. Investigations Ambassador Sunland 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 White House meeting and the vital security assistance to Ukraine was now conditioned on the public announcement. President trump wanted presidents Alinsky in a public box. A private commitment was not good enough nearly one week later on September seventh the holds remained and president trump and ambassador. Sunland spoke on the phone. The president immediately told ambassador Sunland that there was no quid pro quo but and this is very important. The president's alinsky 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 we that quid pro quo and immediately after this phone call with President trump. This was the precise message. That ambassador Sunland passed passed directly to President Alinsky. According to ambassador Taylor Ambassador Sunland also said that he had talked to presidents Alinsky and Mr Year mock and he told them that although this was not a quid pro quo. If Presidents Alinsky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate and I understood a stalemate that Ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance needing the military assistance and hoping for the White House meeting. Presidents Alinsky finally relented to President Trump's pressure campaign and arrangements were made for the Ukrainian president to make a statement and during an interview on CNN where he would make a public announcement of the two investigations. That president trump wanted in order for presidents Alinsky 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 seventeenth. Acting Chief of Staff Mick. Mulvaney confirmed in public. There was such a quid pro quo. Let's watch what he said. That was those were the driving factors that did he also mentioned to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server. Absolutely no question about that. But that's that's why we held up the money now. There was a report. Social Search for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he it was on to withhold funding. Crazy the look back to what happened in two thousand in sixteen certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. Then that is absolutely there you have it by early. September September. The president's scheme was unraveling on September Ninth 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 whistle blower had filed a complaint nearly a month earlier related to Some unknown issue but which the president and the White House new rules related to Ukraine and had been circulating among them for some time and then two days later on September eleventh 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 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 heatedly called on Ukraine to investigate Vice President Biden his rival these and other actions by the president and his associates demonstrate that his determination determination to solicit foreign interference in our election continues. Today it did not end with Russia's support for trump in two thousand sixteen 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 three hundred page age report. And I'm grateful that you have offered me the opportunity today to walk you. Through some of the evidence underlying admittedly it is a lot to digest Eh. 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 I. The president trump directed scheme to pressure Ukraine into opening two investigations. That would benefit has twenty twenty reelection campaign and not the US national interest second. President trump uses official office and the official tools of us. Foreign Policy Withholding think of an Oval Office meeting and three hundred ninety one million dollars in security assistance to pressure Ukraine into meetings demands third. Everyone was in the loop his chief of staff the Secretary of state and Vice President and fourth despite the discovery of the scheme which prompted the president to release the aid he has is not given up. He and his agents continue to solicit Ukrainian interference in our election causing an imminent threat to our elections. Wins in our national security. All right what we're GONNA WE'RE GONNA Chairman Nadler has just gaveled in We'll see the president has been tweeting. He tweeted quote. Read the transcripts scripts. I've been hearing. All been hearing about is the transcripts for the last Feels like forever in my life But let's Let's listen to Chairman Nadler. The committee will reconvene when we recessed. we're about to hear from Mr Cassar newscaster. You are recognized for forty invite minutes afternoon. Chairman ranking member Collins members of the committee members of the staff. Thank you again for having me back. Give me the opportunity to testify about. The evidence gathered during our impeachment inquiry at the outset. Let me say that the evidence it does not support the allegations that my Democrat colleagues have made and I don't believe the evidence leads to the conclusions. They suggest rest. I'm hopeful add some important perspective and context to the facts under discussion today. The chief allegation that the Democrats impeachment inquiry has been trying to assess over the last seventy six days. Is this whether president trump abused abused power of his office through a quid. Pro Quo bribery extortion. Or whatever by withholding meeting order security assistance as a way of pressuring Ukrainian Presidents Alinsky 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 is whether president trump obstructed congress during the equerry. 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 on an abuse of power. The inquiry has returned no direct evidence that president trump without a meeting or security assistance in order to pressure presidents Alinsky to investigate former VP Biden. Witnesses who testified any inquiry have denied having awareness of criminal activity or even an impeachable offense on the key question of the president's that state of mind there is no clear evidence that president trump acted with militias and ten overall at best the the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay presumptions speculation. There are conflicting an in an big useless facts throughout the record facts that could be interpreted in different ways to paraphrase to to paraphrase professor Turley from last week. The impeachment record is heavy on presumptions an empty on proof. That's not me saying that. That is professor surly so 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 Zilenski 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 NFC. The summary was accurate and complete and staff member. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Zondervan. Men testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant. Editing was not done maliciously. The 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. The president's Alinsky 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 presidents alinsky exit engaged in pleasantries and cordiality 's summary reveals laughter. Simply put the call is not the sinister. Her 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 twenty twenty 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. Presidents Alinsky has said he felt no pressure on the call on September twenty fifth at the United Nations. He said we had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody push me on October. Sixth the president's Alinsky said I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed four days later on October tenth breath residents Alinsky said again. There is nothing wrong with a call. No blackmail this is not corruption. It was just a call and just recently in Time magazine. Presidents Alinsky said never talked the president from position of a quid pro quo because presidents alinsky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme. His statements denying denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here. Others senior senior. Ukrainian government officials confirmed presidents Alinsky statements Foreign Minister Per Steak Au said on September twenty. First I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure. Olexander Danny Look. who was then? The secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council told them Basseterre Bill Taylor on the night of the call that the Ukrainian the government was not disturbed by anything on the call. President trump of course has also said that he did not pressure Presidents Solanki on September twenty fifth. President Trump said. There was no pressure when asked if he wanted Presidents Alinsky do more to investigate the former. VP president trump trump responded. No I want them to do whatever we can whatever 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 July twenty fifth. Call from both with the Ukrainian government and the State Department raised no concerns although Lieutenant Colonel Edmon noted concerns earns. Those concerns were not shared by National Security Council leadership. They were not shared by General Keith. Kellogg dog who listened on the call tenant General Kellogg said in a statement. I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call I had ad and have no concerns. Lieutenant Colonel Linneman Superior. Tim Morrison testified that he was concerned. The called 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 July twenty fifth call call to Hunter Biden's position on the board of Burma Corrupt Ukrainian energy company and the actions of certain officials in the run up to the two thousand sixteen election. Democrats dismissed these conspiracy conspiracy theories to suggest that the president has has no legitimate reason other than his own political interests to raise these issues with presidents Alinsky. The evidence however shows sit. There are legitimate questions about both issues with respect to Barack Obama. Deputy Assistant Secretary. George can't hint testified that the company had a reputation for corruption. The company was founded by Mykola Chessy. Who served as Ukraine's Minister Ester of ecology and Natural Resources when cheifs ski served in that role? His company Charisma received oil expiration licenses without public. Auctions rismawan brought hunter biden onto its Boorda direction directors according to The New York Times Times as part of a broad effort by charisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations back not not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama Administration. George Kent testified about these efforts parts. Hunter Biden reportedly received between fifty thousand and eighty three thousand dollars a month as compensation for his position on Charisma's board at the time that Hunter Biden joined the board his father the former. VP was the Obama. The administration's point person for Ukraine Biden has no specific corporate governance expertise. And we don't believe believe. He speaks Ukrainian or Russian. We don't believe he moved there so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for the Washington. Post wrote at the time of Biden's appointment to Barista's board that it looked nepotistic at best and the Washington Post said the Washington Post just nefarious at worst. According to the Wall Street Journal anti-corruption activists in Ukraine also raised raise concerns that the former. VP Son received money from zone. Shefty and worried that that would mean so jeff. Ski would be protected. Did 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 of inman testified that Hunter Biden did not appear qualified to serve on charisma's board. Witnesses testified that Hunter Biden's role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise. In fact George Kent explained that in in two thousand fifteen. He raised a concern to the office of former vice. President Biden that Hunter Biden's role on Business Board award presented a potential conflict of interest however Hunter Biden's role did not change and former Vice President Biden continue. Can you delete. US policy in Ukraine. On this record there is a legitimate basis for president trump trump to have concern about hunter Biden's role on Barista's board the prospect that some senior Ukrainian officials officials worked against president trump in the run up to the two thousand sixteen election draws and even more visceral reaction from most Democrats. Let me say very very clearly that election interferences not binary. I'm not saying that it was Ukraine and not Russia. I'm saying that both countries can work to influence election a systemic a coordinated. Russian interference effort does not mean that some Ukrainian officials some Ukrainian officials did not work to oppose 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 contemporaneous news articles in twenty sixteen noted how President Trump's candidacy led keeps wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before intervene however indirectly in the US election in August twenty sixteen the Ukrainian ambassador to the US published an op-ed 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 parliamentary explained that the majority of Ukraine's political figures. We're on Hillary Clinton's side a January twenty seventeen politico article lays out in more detail efforts 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 our Ukrainian American contractor paid eight 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 to explain 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 twenty sixteen election was appropriate to examine ambassador. Volker testified that he thought it was fine to investigate allegations about twenty sixteen influence ambassador. Taylor said for example that the allegations surprised and disappointed him on this record. I do not believe that one could conclude clued that president trump had no legitimate basis to raise a concern about efforts by cranes to influence to twenty any sixteen election. Let me now turn to the first assertion that president trump withheld meeting with presidents Alinsky as a way of pressuring pressuring him to investigate the former. VP here. It is important to note Ukraine's long profound profound history of endemic corruption. Several witnesses in the inquiry of testified about these problems ambassador. Marie Ivanovich for example. Full said Ukraine's corruption is not just prevalent but frankly is the system. Witnesses testified to having firsthand knowledge. The President Trump is deeply skeptical of Ukraine due to its corruption dating back years and that this scepticism contributed to president trump's initial hesitancy residency to meet with President. Dolinsky 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 say okay. I'll invite him. I'll invite him. He didn't really want to do it. Volcker said and that's why the meeting kept getting delayed another relevant set of facts. Here is the effort of some Ukrainian officials to pros president. Trump's candidacy in the two thousand sixteen election. Some of these Ukrainian politicians is initially remained in government when presidents Alinsky took over. Witnesses testified that these Ukrainian efforts in two thousand sixteen colored how President Trump viewed Ukraine. It's also important. To note that presidents Alinsky was a relatively unknown quantity for. US Policymakers Ambassador Ivanovich called him an untried untried politician. Dr Hill testified that there were concerns within the National Security Council abouts Alinskyites relationship with Egos Gore Cola voice scheme a controversial oligarch in Ukraine. Although Presidents Alinsky ran on a Reform Platform Presidents Alinsky appointed Colin Meloy Skis. Lawyer Mr Bohdan as his chief of staff both Ambassador Volker Senator Ron Johnson noted that this appointment raised concerns concerns. These facts are important. In assessing the president's state of mind in understanding whether Presidents Alinsky was truly committed the fighting corruption in Ukraine the evidence shows the president trump invited presidents Alinsky to meet at the White House on three separate occasions all without any conditions. The first was on April twenty first during the initial congratulatory phone call. The second was via letter on May twenty ninth this letter followed an Oval Office meeting on May Twenty third with the US delegation to the inauguration during this meeting president trump again expressed his skepticism about Ukraine Ambassador Volker recalled the president saying he's terrible people and a corrupt country ambassador sunland similarly testified Ukraine in the president's view tried to take him down in the two thousand sixteen election. Senator Ron Johnson confirmed this testimony testimony in his submission to the impeachment inquiry. Finally the third time. The president trump invited Dolinsky to meet again without any preconditions was during the in July twenty fifth phone call although some time passed between may two thousand nineteen when the president formally invited to meet and September twenty fifth when the president. It's met the evidence does not show that. The Ukrainian government felt additional pressure due to this delay to the contrary embassador Volcker testified that the Ukrainian gene felt pretty good about its relationship with the trump administration in this period. During those four months senior Ukrainian government initials had at least nine meetings or phone calls with President trump vice president pence secretary pompeo National National Security Adviser Bolton and US ambassador's. The evidence does not support a conclusion that president trump conditioned into meeting with presidents Alinsky on investigating former Vice President Biden. Mr Jahr MAG presidents and Lenzi's close advisor. I said that explicitly in August twenty nine thousand nine hundred New York Times story which was published before the beginning of the impeachment inquiry in this article. Your Mak said that he and Mayor Giuliani did not discuss a link between a presidential meeting and investigations. The witness testimony confirms your Max Statement Ambassador. Volker testified there was no linkage between a potential meeting and investigations Sion's although ambassadors Sunland 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 Sunlen testified that he believed the meeting was conditioned on public anti-corruption statement not all investigations themselves distinction that during his deposition he was keen to note ambassadors. Tomlin said then that nothing about the request has raised any red flags in his public testimony. Ambassador Sunlen clarified. That he had no first-hand first hand knowledge of any linkage coming from the president and never discussed any preconditions with the president he merely presumed there were preconditions additions. I'd also like to address the July tenth meeting 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. Von Testified ride that ambassador. sunlen raised investigations during this meeting causing ambassador Bolton abruptly and the meeting Dr Hill testified. She confronted Ambassador Sunlen over his discussion about investigations. Vascular silent testimony about this meeting however ever 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 and 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. Aw He maintained that Dr Hill never raised concerns the him and that any discussion of investigations did not mention anything. Specific such as Biden Haydn or two thousand sixteen let me lastly address the allegation that president trump directed vice president pence not to attend presidents. Alinsky is inauguration. As another way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate former vice president biden and Jennifer Williams a senior advisor in the office of the vice president testified that a colleague and she said it was. The chief of Staff Assistant told her that chief-of-staff assistant the president trump had directed vice president pence not to attend the inauguration. However Williams had no first-hand knowledge of any such direction or the reasons given for any such direction if indeed such direction was has given? Its 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 schedule schedule the election on an extremely short timeframe it was just four days notice Williams explained and that there was a window. There was a window of dates may thirtieth through June first. During which the vice president could attend the inauguration and that was communicated and 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 it was also planning and unrelated trip to Canada to promote the US. MCA during the same window. The US MCA was and still is significant. Priority for the Administration Vice President Pence has done a number of public events in support of president. Trump was also planning foreign travel during this time period and as Dr Hill testified with President. President trump and vice president pence cannot both be out of the country at the same time. Williams explained that these factors created created a narrow window for the vice president's participation in the inauguration Dr Hill testified that she had no oh knowledge that the vice president was directed not to attend on May sixteenth. The outgoing Ukrainian parliament scheduled the inauguration for May twentieth only four days later May twentieth 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 timeframe George Kent at the State Department said at 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 Twentieth. The date of Presidents Alinsky is inauguration Vice President Pence in Jacksonville Florida for an event promoting. US MCA finally on September. Twenty fifth president trump an presidents Alinsky met during the United Nations General Assembly. The two met without Ukraine ever taking action on investigations. And according to embassador Taylor. There was no discussion of investigations. During this meeting. I will now turn to the second an assertion that president trump withheld taxpayer funded security assistance to Ukraine as a way of pressuring Alinsky to conduct these investigations. The context is critically important. President trump has been skeptical 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 on the campaign trail something he's raised consistently since it's also important to note that. UN Security Assistance is conditioned to countries around the world and that US aid including aid to Ukraine has been temporarily paused in the past for various reasons and even even for no reason at all ambassador. Volker testified the fifty five day pause on security. Assistance did not strike him as uncommon and that the pause was not significant cricket Dr Hill and State Department official Catherine Kroft both testified that security assistance to Ukraine specifically had been temporarily paused in the past. In fact Basseterre David Hale the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs the third most senior person at the State Department testified that the National Security Council launched 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 NFC in July there had been a directive for whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance. She said there had been more scrutiny. On Security Assistance as a result and other important data appointed president trump's willingness to take a stronger stance in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and compared to the previous administration nations 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 as significant decision when we discussed 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 all though 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 oem beneficial mark Zandi who testified that he learned in September. The pause was related to the president's concern about other countries contributing more to Ukraine crane he explained L. O. M. B. receive requests for information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine which show and be provided in the first week of September eight. Of course course was released. September eleventh. Several witnesses have testified that security assistance was not linked to Ukraine investigations. Ambassador volkers testimonials testimony is particularly relevant on this point because he was a key intermediary with Ukrainian government and someone they trusted and sought for advice. The 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 quid pro quo ambassador Volker volkers said he replied? There's no linkage here. During his deposition chairmanship 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 can at the State Department said he did not associate aid to investigations and he relayed. How Ambassador Taylor told him? Tim Morrison and embassador. SOM- also believed the two were not linked ambassador silence 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. Sunlen 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. An anti-corruption statement were linked ambassador Sunland. It also tested in his written supplement that he likely voiced this concern to Mr Your Mac a close advisor Presidents Alinsky on September first in Warsaw Mr York however in a subsequent news account published on November twenty. Second disputed ambassador son's account and said he doesn't remember any reference to the military aid in his public testimony. Ambassador Sunlen 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 an actor. Here he testified in his deposition that he had a clear understanding that Ukraine would not receive the security assistance until Presidents Alinsky committed to the investigations however in his public testimony. Ambassador Taylor acknowledged that is clear. Understanding came from ambassador someone who was merely presuming that there was a link president trump to 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. US officials ten days as apart there would be no reason for the president to be anything less than candid during these private conversations on August thirty first president trump spoke by phone with Senator Johnson who was travelling to Ukraine in the coming days and sought the president's permission to tell President Alinsky that the security assistance would be forthcoming forthcoming. President trump responded that he was not ready to do that citing Ukrainian corruption burden-sharing among European allies. When Senator Johnson 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 enclosing the call? President trump told Senator Johnson that we're reviewing it now referring to the security thirty assistance. And guess what you. You'll probably like my final decision. He told that the Senator Johnson on August thirty first this statement strongly suggests that president trump was already leaning toward lifting the aid separately on September ninth. President trump spoke by phone with embassador sunland ambassador Osama asked the president. What do you want from Ukraine president? President trump responded. I want nothing I want. No quid pro quo. Once Alinsky to do the right thing. In addition senior Ukrainian government officials denied any awareness of a linkage between US security assistance and investigations these denials. Those 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 I would have been clearly communicated to the Ukrainians Foreign Minister told the media November following news of Ambassador Sunlen written supplemental testimony that Sunland never linked security assistance to investigations for steak. Said I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations nations 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 apartment about these issues with security assistance in July and August. The evidence does not show presidents Alinsky or senior advisors and key. Were aware of the pause until it was publicly reported by Politico on August twenty eighth of subsequent news article explain gene the conflicting testimony that embassy officials in Washington had made informal inquiries about issues with the aid while senior officials heave denied awareness awareness of the pause. The article explained that then Ukrainian Ambassador Charlie who was appointed by presidents Alinsky predecessor went rogue and did not not inform Presidents Alinsky that there is any issue with the aid. According to the news account Presidents Alinsky and his senior team only learned of the pause when it was reported on August. Twenty eighth as ambassador. Volker testified because senior. Ukrainian officials were unaware of the pause there is 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 aid was on hold in the fifty five days during which the security assistance was paused. President Dolinsky had five discussions with senior officials on the twenty fifth. He spoke with President Trump on the foam July twenty sixty met with embassador Volker Ambassador Taylor Ambassador Sunland and on August twenty seventh he met with embassador Bolton September first. He met with Vice President Pence in Warsaw and on September fifth he met with Senator Senator Ron Johnson Senator Chris Murphy in Cave in none of these meetings. The president's raise any concern about linkage between security assistance attend investigations in particular the September fifth meeting with Senator Johnson. Senator Murphy is notable. Because they're not part of the trump administration and presidents. It's Alinsky could be candid with them. Did occur during those fifty. Five days were historic effort. By Ukraine's parliament called the rata to implement climent anticorruption reform. Vice President Pant said Press Presidents Linski about these reforms during their September. First Meeting in their depositions ambassador Taylor loud presidents. He's rapid reforms and National Security Council official Morrison testified that during a meeting and Kief they noted that everyone in the Ukrainian side of the table was exhausted because they'd been up all night working on these reforms on September eleventh. President trump discussed the matter with vice president pence. Senator Portman Portman enacting chief-of-staff mulvaney according to Tim Morrison's testimony. They discuss whether whether Ukraine's progress on anticorruption reform was enough to justify releasing the security assistance. Mars testified that Vice President Pence was obviously we armed with the conversation he had with President Solanki and they convinced the president at the age should be dispersed immediately the president then and lifted the whole concluding this point we have considerable evidence that president trump was skeptical of Ukraine due to its corruption. We have evidence the President Skeptical Epochal Foreign Assistance in general and 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 further. US interests and that Oh and be researched and provided information about which foreign countries were contributing money to Ukraine. President Trump told Senator Johnson August thirty. First we're reviewing it now and you'll probably like my final decision. He told ambassador. Silent On. September ninth. I want to lend ski to you. Do what he ran on presidents Alinsky. Who ran on an anti-corruption platform was an untried politician with ties to a potential controversial oligarch vice president pence reiterated presidents Alinsky that on September first the need for reform was paramount after President Linski paused? I'm sorry after presidents alinsky past historic anti-corruption reforms. The pause on security assistance. Vince was lifted and the president's met two weeks later. The Ukrainian government never took any action on investigations at issue in the impeachment inquiry much has been made about so called shadow or irregular foreign policy apparatus. The president trump is alleged to have orchestrated as a mechanism to force Ukraine Ukraine initiate investigations. The allegation is president trump conspired to recall ambassador IANOVICH from Ukraine. So he's agents could pursue was scheme to pressure Ukraine to conduct these investigations but there are logical flaws with these arguments. I every ambassador interviewed in the impeachment. Inquiry acknowledged the president has an absolute right to recall ambassadors for any reason or no reason apparent to president trump. Lost Confidence in Ambassador Bridge. And it's simply not an abuse of power for him to recall her beyond that the trump administration replaced ambassador Yvonne of its with embassador. Bill Taylor who became one of the first State Department officials to voice concerns discussed during the course of our inquiry. Here fact Basseterre Taylor played a prominent role in some of the hearings last month. If president trump truly sought to remove ambassador Ianovich part of various plan. He certainly would not have replaced. Placed her with some of the lights of ambassador. Bill Taylor second the three. US officials who comprise the so-called shadow shadow foreign policy apparatus ambassador Volker Sunland and secretary. Perry can hardly be called irregular and certainly not outlandish all we're senior. US officials with official interest in Ukraine policy the three kept the State Department and the NFC informed of their activities. Finally there is evidence that Mayor Giuliani did not speak on behalf of the president. According to a new story on November twenty. Second Mr Jahr. Mac asked embassador volker to connect Tim with mayor. Giuliani because Alinsky team was surprised. By the NAACP by the mayor's negative comments about Ukraine. They wanted to change his wind. Both embassador Volker in his deposition in your Mac in an August New York Times article denied that mayor. Giuliani was speaking on behalf of president trump as his is 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 obstructive congressman by not agreeing to all the demands for documents and testimony a somebody with experience with the congressional investigations and strongly. I strongly believe in Congress's Article One authority but this impeachment inquiry is departed party drastically from pass. Bipartisan precedents for presidential impeachment as well as the fundamental tenets of fair and effective congressional oversight. I process matters the bipartisan rude. You know hide precedents guaranteed fundamental fairness and due process to the president it allows substantive minority participation in participation from the President's council in the fact finding process neither aspect. WAS President here. Democrats denied us. Witnesses Democrats voted down subpoenas. We saw at the issue for both documents and testimony and Democrats never brought to a committee. Vote any of the subpoenas that were issued. They were tabled Democrats directly witnesses. Not Answer our questions. And these sorts of actions de-legitimize the inquiry and do not give the witnesses or the president confidence that the inquiry is fair. The president or any potential witnesses to this impeachment inquiry should be allowed to raise defenses fences without it being used as an adverse inference against him courts have held that the constitution mandates and accommodations process between the branches for this reason. Congressional oversight is a time intensive endeavor certainly takes longer than seventy six days here however the initial letters. There's from Democrats instructed potential witnesses that if they did not cooperate in full it shall constitute evidence of obstruction. Democrats wanted to all their demands honored immediately. We and we're unwilling to consider the executive branches. Privileges or defenses. Finally there is no basis for obstruction. The one witness said he spoke to President Trump about his appearance as a witness ambassador. Sunlen testified the president told him to cooperate and tell the truth. The president has declassified and released the call summary of July twenty fifth and April twenty. First calls with President Lansky. Whitehouse wrote the Speaker Pelosi to say that it was willing to cooperate further other if the house returned to a well established bipartisan constitutional based impeachment process as we know these protections were never recorded in closing. I'd like to briefly address. The Democrats narrative is articulated in their report. The Democrat narrative virtually ignores any the evidence. It's not helpful. For their case. It ignores for instance that embassador silence testimony that he presented there was a quid pro quo and it ignores the many public. The statements made by Ukrainian officials. The report presents a story as if the evidence is clear when in reality it's anything but the Democrats have gone to great lengths to gather information to build their case and they've even obtained in released phone records relating to the communications of the president's personal attorney any 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 high hyper hyperbole. A lot of hysteria over the last three months about this inquiry and the underlying facts. I believe this can be traced back to the anonymous whistleblower. Complaint I believe the whistle blower 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 whistle blower finally some of like in the impeachment inquiry to a special prosecutor investigation. One accepts that comparison one should also expect expect that Ken Starr and Robert Mueller. The chairman should testify and our our members. All the committees. Believe very strongly strongly that chairman shift should should testify an answer questions with that Mr Chairman. The time is yours. I never recognize myself for the first round of questions. The Republican the Republicans 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 I have to prove it happened close quote. That was missed attorneys comment. Mr Goldman did they invent did the investigative committees conclude. The evidence proved that the president uses uses public office for personal gain. Yes Mr Chairman. And in fact finding effect five said President trump used use 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 evidence also proves that president trump withheld military aid in exchange for nouncement of an investigation of his political opponent. Yes it did. In fact finding a fact fact five BC said quote president trump acting through his agents and subordinates conditioned release over the vital military SEC- had suspended to Ukraine on the presence is 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 many. In several ways and finding a fact six said in directing and orchestrating the scheme to advance his personal a political interests president trump did not implement promote or advance. US Anti corruption policies. In fact the president sought to pressure induced the government of Ukraine to announce announced politically motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication. The US government otherwise discourages and poses as a matter of policy in that country country in and around the world in so doing the president undermine US policy supporting anticorruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine and undermine US national social security and did the evidence also show the president trump compromising national security of the United States yes in fact finding FAC ax. Seven said by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner. Government engage in ongoing military conflict Catholic illegally instigated by Russia. President trump compromise national security to advance his personal political interests and did the evidence disprove 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 a fact nine says using the power of the office of the President and exercising is the thirty over the executive branch president trump ordered and implemented a campaign pain to conceal his conduct for the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry finally the constitutional scholars. How's my hearing last week? That's divided the presence conduct toward Ukraine pattern of inviting foreign election. Interference was a continuing risk to our are free and fair elections. The evidence proved that president trump was a threat to our elections yester- DEMONSTRA chairman and in fact finding effect eight says faced with the revelation of his actions. President trump publicly and repeatedly persisted and urging foreign investments foreign governments including Ukraine in China to investigate political opponent this continued to solicitation of foreign interference in the US election presents. A clear and present danger. The president will continue to use the power of his office for his first political gain for his personal political gain. Close quote I would add in the next election value the council Mr Burke for additional questioning Castro's inexperienced investigator. Would you agree that is is relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president's state of mind that may help explain the president's actions talked about show. Michael Tell us your mic. Please Sir my only question to you. Is that a relevant thing to consider right. Like the Cali. Avid Senator Johnson. Is it relevant. Would you agree that Joe Biden was a leading democratic contender to face. President trump twenty twenty. I wouldn't agree with you disagree with so it's your testimony. It's too early. President trump did not view president biden to be a legitimate contender. President trump believes her didn't believe is too early serves party party year inquiry. Did you determine whether president trump tweeted at all about vice former vice president Joe Biden between January and July twenty fifth. And how many times I didn't I didn't look at twitter. I try to stay on twitter lately. The president trump tweet debate tweeted about former vice president. Joe Biden over twenty five times between January. You and July twenty fifth. I didn't I didn't look at those tweets. Did you look at how many times president trump mentioned vice president biden in a speech speech rally leading up to the July twenty fifth 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 is statements rallies. Mr Castor you are aware that president trump announced his candidacy for re-election Twenty twenty-nine announced the month before for the July twenty fifth call on June. Twenty first okay. Did you find that you look at that in your investigation. As part of looking at president trump's in ten somewhat he intended on on the July twenty fifth call the Dedi announced his and he's obviously running for reelection. What does it? What does the data announced his intent to run for reelection? And Sir Sir you knew that President Biden it already announces intend to run April of that year to correct. It's been related to me I. I don't know vice. President Biden indicated gated. He's GonNa run as I sit here today so you would agree with me that if the Ukraine announced the corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden that would hurt his credibility as a candidate candidate. Would you agree with that. Basic principle. Sir Nobody yes or no sir. Would you agree with that principle. I slightly disagree with the with the predicate with with the premise of your question. Hunter Biden question. That requests opinion gentleman is not back nuys. The gentleman has the floor. I object to the question. Gentlemen's Lon weather. The questions in order questions question is in order. The gentleman will continue why the gentleman will continue his time. Let's get back to the fact that we're talking about eight. Ambiguous lines in a transcript You know the president was not asking for a personal favourite. 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. Ukraine they say crowd strike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people so I'm not asking you to read that. Let me let me if you WanNa talk about the transcript. I don't want to talk to you about some day. You said it's eight lines. Let's look at slide three if we may the reference to buy so you see on the July twenty fifth call on page four. Is it the fact that president trump and his call with President Alinsky. He said that he heard that former vice president Joe Biden had stopped. The prosecution of the sun is that correct. Sir Yes or no you says the other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden son. That Biden Stop the prosecution and a lot of that is correct. He said he stopped the prosecution point of order. He's entitled to answer questions. I am fully gentlemen. 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 it was a little bit of the former. Vp a little bit audacious in in how he describes you went over Kamali. Asking you what it says on the transcript. Is that what it says. Her says the other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden son and that Biden stop the prosecution. It says that correct. That's what it says here. Yeah and then it also says it goes on to say president trump as presidents. Alinsky if you can look into it correct. Is that that the words if you can look into it correct. That's what it says. Many says so president trump I write president. Trump was asking Ukrainian presidents alinsky to have the Ukrainian officials look into vice president. Joe Biden correct. Is that correct yesterday. I don't I don't think the record supports that it. It doesn't say can you look into it. President trump is not asking him. I don't I don't think it supports then. I think it's ambiguous Goldman urine experience federal prosecutor. I know that firsthand is this. President trump asking presidents Alinsky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and UH. I don't think there's any other way to read the words on the page then to conclude that Mr. Castro Castro you made appoint let me ask you a question as an experienced investigator. Is it your experience that when someone has done something wrong floor corrupt. And they're dealing with somebody WHO's not in the scheme that they state take their intentions to do something wrong incorrupt. Is that your experiences investigator. I mean he's not GonNa have to call transfer just asking general in general you're saying that a schemer. Yes would talk about his scheme. Would he generally admit that he was doing something wrong. Corrupt someone not in the scheme and you made a big point certain year presentation that on that call. President trump did not go further and tell presidents Alinsky that he wanted the investigation announce to help his twenty twenty. He he definitely do not talk about twenty two hundred and Mr Goldman. Would you agree that if Miss President trump was acting corruptly wrongfully abusing his power that it was unlikely he was gonNA confess first the president's Alinsky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help his twenty twenty election prospects and my experience as ten years as a prosecutor. You you almost never have a defendant or a someone who's engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say in this case presidents Alinsky. I'm going to bribe you now. Where I'm going to ask for a bribe or I am now going to extort you? That's not the way these things work. Thank you Mr Goldman and Mister Kessler Giddy. Gak to you. You said that talk about Hunter Biden and talked about it. One Hundred Biden. It'd been on the board of Barista going back to two thousand fourteen correct correct yes. President trump supported Ukraine aid with eight and otherwise in both twenty eight twenty seventeen in two thousand eighteen correct. President trump has done a lot for 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 two thousand seventeen or eighteen. He only did it the year before his election in two thousand twenty when both he and Vice President Joe Biden. We're leading candidates is so that true sir. I take what happened. Is the president. Solve this video of the former. VP coalesced in his mind. Please answer my question. And he didn't raise any of these issues in twenty seven or twenty eight. I don't know that he that he did or he didn't. I mean that is not something that we've looked at. You have no evidence that he did. Did you know. But I've no evidence he did not. I mean this video is pretty sir. Let me let me ask you this. You talked about lieutenant. Colonel then men who was a highly decorated purple heart recipient and and worked in the trump administration. Correct is her. He had a reaction to the call didn't he he did. He was listening to it. Correct he did he wins look at his reaction he said I immediately went to John. Eisenberg the lead legal counsel you 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 Yeah No. That was the money. Yes yes and let me ask you this or you. You had said that. The Intelligence Committee majority report. The 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 personally said worked on the minority report. Correct Yesser was it important to you to be accurate it in the minority Portland. She worked on. 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 accurately report what people said. 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 to vice president pence it's on Europe and Russia. Fares is that correct. Yes she worked for vice president pence correct correct. And you said in your opening statement that these these accusations that president trump was trying to do something for political purposes that was made by people who were pre had predetermined motives for impeachment that correct but I also indicated that some of these the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry I think have revised their views. After after the call transcript came out and then whistleblower complaint was released. Are you calling vice. President Pence is special advisor. Aligarh Sir I didn't say that are you calling. Are you saying she was predetermined to impeach. I didn't say a question about Jennifer Williams is interesting is I ask you sir. She she never mentioned anything to supervisor. She never mentioned anything to anybody in the vice president's office in route to Warsaw when the vice president going to meet with presidents Alinsky she didn't even raise it as a potential issue that might catch the vice president off guard. Mr Her concern that she articulated during the course of the deposition in during the course of the hearing was incongruent incongruent and with the with the facts and what she did during times relevant Mr Castro. Let's look at your report. You wrote a report about Miss Williams so we could put up slide six please and you made the same point that you tried to make to discount her testimony you said. She testified testified that although she found the call to be unusual she did not. She did not raise concerns to our supervisor. Nobody in America Erica new about Jennifer Williams's concerns until she walked into the door for her deposition. So when you said that. Although she found the call to be unusual that was is an accurate. That's not what she said about the call. She didn't say was just unusual did she. She said it was unusual. That's all she said about. It was okay. I mean she she was here for nine hours in the bunker so she said a lot about that. was you in the mustard deck. We can't I just wanted to. Gentleman will suspend. The gentleman has the time we can't see the stuff came as I'm happy to read it. Jennifer Williams testified that quote. Although she found the call to be unusual quote. She did not end quote. She did not raise concerns to her supervisor. Isn't it a factor that Miss Williams said a lot more than that if we're GONNA have a point of order gentleman was status point of order. The climate of order is gentleman Florida's complained he can't see what the questioner is relying on and would like to see it and that is not a point of order and it was read to him gentleman Lukas Lucas only half of it was read to him relevant. Slow down a bit here. Let's slow down a bit here so that members are able to fully see what is being put in support of what you're trying to do. We can't do that without being able to see it or read it. Mr Gates said that Let's slow 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 of this gym. We'll send the vote. Gentleman will suspend the chairman. I could see we now. I appreciate the accommodation. It's the monitor was turned. Now we can see gentlemen were resumed. Thank you MR chairman. So inherit says Miss Williams said that she found it to be quote unusual and nothing more. Let's look at slide seven or let's look at it says unusual correct isn't it but it doesn't say nothing more no says unusual isn't effects or that will miss Williams says is she'd struck her as unusual end. Inappropriate is in that correct circa. That's what she said in her testimony. Okay and in your staff report you left out. The inappropriate part isn't a block quote and it was she. She felt it was unusual. She didn't raise the concerns. That Lieutenant General Kellogg so so let me ask you were. You is fair to the American people in describing what Miss Williams said as you were describing any everything else in your report. I don't have an issue with the way we described Miss Williams testimony. Well let's look at what else Miss Williams said. Can we put up slide eight. This is from Miss Williams a public testimony at thirty four. She said quote. I thought that the references to specific individuals investigations such 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. So you you live that out of your staff reported in you you know Miss Williams. Did you leave that out of your yes or no I. If you're telling me I did I mean I don't I don't know as I sit here right now. That's telling you you did okay and do you have an explanation sir. Are We said you said Miss Williams said that the call was unusual when she fact she said it was unusual in an appropriate and of a political nature because it raised vice president the vice president who she recognized was a political opponent of the president. Her views differ remarkably from Mr Morrison. Also Lieutenant General Kelly. That's how my question my question is. Why did you miss quote Miss Williams in terms of what would you miss quarter so you stand so from the standard that you apply? Lie to your fact finding in your report you believe that. It was entirely proper to say that Miss Williams found the call to be unusual when in fact she found the call. It'd 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 arrived Miss Williams said No. You didn't Miss Chairman. Mr Mr Castor. You just invoked. Tim Morrison he was someone on the call to correct. And let me put up. Slide nine of Mr Morrison's testimony on page thirty eight public testimony and Mr Morrison said well. The question was questioned by Mr Goldman. You heard the call you recognize recognize that president trump was not discussing the talking points that the NFC 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 NFC legal adviser is that correct claim. Events here and Mr Morrison said that's correct. Yes you Mister Kessler. Let me ask you Mr Goldman earlier before your presentation. We showed the testimony of Miss Hill where she referred to what president trump was trying to do is running a domestic political Erin. Is that what you understand. Is that what you intended as Mr Morrison about in your question to him. Yes it was about this too specific investigations that president trump ultimately did discuss and asked Presidents Alinsky to do. These are the same two investigations. Is that were discussed. And we're the only two investigations that were at issue throughout the entirety of the scheme. And so what are evidence found. was that any time time. There was a reference to investigations it reference the Biden Investigation and the two thousand sixteen election investigation and in fact ambassador. Volker actually really said that whenever he was saying using the term corruption what he meant was those specific to investigations. And what was the significance to you that Mr Morrison send who. Mr Castro himself has relied on invoked twice today where he said he understood. These were the investigations that Fiona Hill had warned him about out warned him about. What did you understand that to mean when Dr Hill left and to Morrison replaced her they had transition meetings and during in one of those transition meetings? Dr Hill told him Morrison about what she believed to be. This irregular channel. That ambassador Sunland was operating. Where they we're pushing for Ukraine to do these investigations? Dr Hill in particular is very concerned because as she said as you pointed out that was a domestic political errand and what she was working on. The National Security Council was working on related to national security and foreign policy and those were two entirely separate thing and when she expressing the view that president trump had chose his own personal political interests over the foreign policy positions that Ms Hill was trying to pursue at the time that she said that Tim Morrison she was not aware of whether president trump had actually endorsed these investigations. But she did testify that after after she read the call. Transcript which you only read after it was released like the rest of us. She said that she put two and two together and realize that that is exactly what he was talking doc and what was to in to again equals four and what is for in this investigation sir. Well there was used by two witnesses embassador sunland and David Holmes served as the only logical conclusion to explain why security assistance had been withheld was being withheld from Ukraine and based 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. Ah put pressure and as a condition on the initiation of the two investigations that are referenced. Here turn to you MR cleric. I got a clear a couple of things up here if I may. First of all Morrison was concerned. Marson didn't think the caller you know criminal questions. Yeah it'll mean has the time not the witting sir. Let me concerned about LE- let let me ask you. Sir Sir you said by the way in Volt Volker never meant as the time the clock will stop interrupted. This witness be able. We'll don't policy examine mister bark. Like he's being able to cross cam in the post as not not shout out in the middle of testimony and you need to call balls instruct the right way. You don't interrupt one of your your Kushner witness the donor I the gentleman will continue. Sir Sir I believe it was your testimony is I wrote it down. The Democrats are about blocking Info when they should be seeking information. That is absolutely right. Okay and then you. You said that. The trump administration has in fact cooperated and facilitated Congressional Oversight Investigations. That correct Sir just yes or no. Is that correct absolutely. The trump administration Australia's 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's Robert Blair. who was on this call? The trump administration the president himself directed him not to appear and give testimony Ronald Blair. Let's go I'm asking. The president directed not to appear give testimony. Yes or no. I think he was allowed to comment agency council. He was not allowed to come under the term set by the house. Intelligence Committee correct. I think he would have come with agency council. The trump administration version directed him not to come correct he would have provided testimony. I think if agency council could've come I mean it's really expensive dire. These outside lawyers. John Eisenberg Berg was directed not to come correct. The lawyers. Enberg presents another setback but he. He was directed not to come the lawyer. Who Lieutenant Colonel Vin men went to correct? Okay Eisenberg he's a he may have been able to come with agency council but he presents. Complexities I mean. He's the chief legal adviser for Ambassador Bolton's so he was directed not to come correct he. He may have been able to come with agency council but his testimony does present complexities. So let me ask you this was it. US Policy on July twenty six Mr 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 India. Joe Biden. He just mentioned offhand. Comment Matt Sir. Is that a no. It was not US policy to look into. Joe Biden you but you're presuming that then at some point became US policy to investigate. Joe Biden. And I don't think that's the case. Sir Let me show you what slide ten testimony of all again Lieutenant Colonel Vincent and he was asked. Are you aware of any written product from the National Security Council suggesting that investigations in the twenty two thousand election. The Biden's response part of the official policy United States. No I'm not now. Let me go also to Tim. Ed Morrison who you invoked if we could go to slide eleven. Mr Morrison was asked by our own congressman swallow who was also on the Intelligence Committee and said just go pick up in the middle of that long question. It said you listen to the the one call that you listen to the United States and the president of Ukraine. The president of the United States priorities priorities. Were to investigate the Biden's and I'm asking you sir. Why why didn't you follow up? On the president's priorities when you talk to the Ukraine Ukrainians Mr Morris. Sir I did not understand it as a policy objective Mr Goldman. LemMe ask you. There was a package prepared before that call of what president trump was supposed to talk about with the president's alinsky correct correct. Yes and like that. One of the things that he was supposed to talk about it was in his prepared. Remarks was the anti-corruption platform of presidents residents Alinsky 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 mentioned corruption once in his call with President with Mr Dolinsky. No he did not did he. Mention looking into anything other than the two investigations that were politically helpful helpful to him. The two thousand sixteen election investigation and the investigation of his political rival former vice president. Joe Biden No. He did not sir. There were two lawyers lawyers mentioned on the call Mister. We've heard testimony. We've heard testimony already. Mr Trump said to residents president president trump said the president's presidents Linski that he should speak to people his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and the attorney general bar. Correct okay immediately. Immediately after this call memorandum was release. Is it the case that Attorney General Bar and the Department of Justice issued a statement about his role in all this doc. Let's put up the statement slide. Thirteen please the parliament of justice. The president has not spoken with the attorney. General About having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden the sun. The president has not as 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 presidents alinsky on the call. Well I think it goes a little further. I think. Attorney whether the attorney general one in anything to do or not is in addition to the fact that the attorney general 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 a became an issue in the investigation. There is a formal channel that the Department of Justice has in the United States. Government has to obtain evidence related to an ongoing investigation. Matt is generally the proper way to engage a foreign country through treaties to get an information but several witnesses testified that they looked into that at the urging of the Ukrainians and they determined that there was no formal ongoing investigation Gatien nor any formal request on these topics. Now the 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 pushing for these investigations for several months before the July twenty fifth call and then for several months after including apparently three days ago. And Sir Mr Catcher degree 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 of that presents Alinsky was a serious reformer correct well Ukrainians trainings knew that sorry. Isn't that what you said. Your report rudy had the president's ear and he was a conduit there you put up a a slide. Fourteen 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 convinced. President trump that presidents alinsky serious about reform. Is that what you wrote your mortar. Okay and and in fact during the call president in trump asked presidents Alinsky to speak directly to his personal lawyer about Ukrainian matters that president trump was interested in correct you referred to Rudy. Yes Uh and in fact presents Alinsky said Oh. We already knew that in. And he's been in touch with my aides correct. That's right. In fact I mean Ukrainians are the ones that first presidents Linski is the one who first brings up district Juliani on the call because they knew that Mr Giuliani was a conduit to the president and if they made Mr Giuliani happy they make per the president trained at the ambassador. Volker testified that Mr Giuliani had a negative impression of Ukraine and he was possibly fueling and the president's views and so they had there were some discussions about. Hey you can convince rudy that presidents skis a true reformer the real deal all that that would be a beneficial beneficial link. We'll so you agree. That President Giuliani before July. Twenty July twenty fifth call and after was pushing for the Ukrainians to investigate vice former vice president. Joe Biden in that correct the record is somewhat spotty with usually on the New York Times reported may ambassador. Volker gave pretty detailed account of his meeting in July nineteenth. Well let's let's take a look if we could put up slide. Sixteen the The New York Times article you refer to article says I'll read it. Mr Giuliani and this is dated. May Ninth Two thousand nineteen before the. Call Mr Giuliani said. He plans to travel to Kiev via the Ukrainian capital in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation's president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that continues that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about to matters of intense interest. Mr Trump one is the origin. Special Counsel's investigation goes on to describe it. New Sends the other is the involvement of former vice president. Joe Biden's son and now that was in the New York Times article and we've we talk about the breakfast with Volker we could. We could not yet if we could continue the rest of the article to the next slide which is slide seventeen. This is the same article and Mr Giuliani was very explicit when he was interviewed he said and this is in foreign policy. Now you've quoting the words that are highlighted. Says they'll be very very helpful to my client. My only client is the President United States. He's the one I have an obligation to report to to him. What happened regarding the Ukraine rain? Now so were you aware on that same day. Mr Giuliani gave an interview about what he intended to do. And let's go to slide eighteen. This is from Rear Real uh-huh real clear politics and should be in the screen in front of you as well and what. He's 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 to election day without being investigated. Not because I want to see him investigated gated the collateral to what I was doing so you agree. Election Day refers to the twenty twenty election where president trump will be running against. We'll be running for re election. I acton which I guess you're right the that was my only question to you. You'll have a chance to answer questions. That minority council now and president trump. Let me show you. He's seven. We're we'RE GONNA SIDESTEP VOLKER meeting on July nineteenth so you'll have an opportunity to talk about that when when Minority Council questions you let me go to slide. Nine thousand nine please. And the President says he's being interviewed now the same day and politico and he's asked about Mr Giuliani. He's leaving soon own. 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 supplied twenty because president in this one. It's actually a tweet that he put out on June twenty-first twenty nine thousand nine roughly a month before the call. He says new president of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in two thousand sixteen election and allege Biden bribery of the prior president and president and again Sir as you said the Ukrainians new. The Mr Giuliani had the year of his client. President trump. Isn't that correct sir. That correct sir. Yes or no. The Giuliani was in doing some things out here. And then he became involved with the official channel with bulker with Sunland and and at that meeting on July Nineteen Volker counseled against the perspective. Giuliani was taking so my question. Is this tweet what they're talking about. Well let me issue Mr Goldman Channel. This tweet is that referring to a personal political issue of president trump or official official. US policy. That's A. That's a personal political issue. If you don't mind I'll just take a moment to respond to Mr Castro because these do on July nineteenth meeting between handbasket or volcker and Rudy Giuliani ambassador. Volker told Mr Giuliani that the allegations about Joe Biden. Were completely bogus. Yes and wrong and Mr Giuliani actually told according to ambassador volkers testimony. Mr Giuliani said that he knew that and yet for the next two months he continue to push for that same investigation at the direction of president trump who had also directed presidents Alinsky to contact Mr Giuliani so that July nineteenth meeting Mr Castro brought up is actually quite important to this investigation and so you you already explained that on May twenty third. When the official folks who went to the inauguration of president came back to tell the president how impressed they were the only thing he had to say to them was talked to rudy? He was taking his official government people responsible for Ukraine and handing them over to Rudy Giuliani. So that they can work with him for the issues that he was focused on for the president as evidence in the tweet is that fair. I agree with Mister Kessler. I think that's that's what the evidence shows that at that may twenty third meeting. President trump directed and delegated authority over Ukraine. Matters is to ambassador Sunland Volker 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 let me show you what is slide. Twenty two. 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 I think from their own internal conversations because Mr Giuliani had back channels to getting to to the Ukrainian officials and Ambassador Volker told to the Ukrainians as well there was this quote. Giuliani factor that presidents alinsky actually told to presidents alinsky Giuliani factor that they needed to deal with with the the president. And in fact this is the senior aide to presidents alinsky saying to Vascular Volker on August thirteenth which is obviously after the July twenty fifth call. Aw thank you for meeting. And you're 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. You ready to talk to him with him at any point. Please let me know when you can meet Audrey and again that's rooted the my right. That's the Ukrainians recognized that Rudy Giuliani. There's demanding the investigation of Mr Trump's political rival was key getting anything done. I don't mean to be stickler but I believe this text was actually July tenth uh-huh and this was a critical text because what it is saying is Mr Earmark after having spoken to Mr. Volcker 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 nineteenth breakfast that Mr Castro said July twenty second phone call and then ultimately they met in Madrid on August. Second thank you. Mr Goldman further evidence of the meticulous investigation that AW Chairman Chef and his staff directed we will stand corrected. Thank you and I will take that. As the record reflect that that is the correct date and I either case Rudy. Thirty one key whenever it was set correct certainly and now let me ask Sir let me put up slide twenty four and Mr Goldman am I correct that there came a point in time when president trump through his chief of staff Mr Move All old Mick Mulvaney ordered that the approved military Ukraine be withheld as you previously indicated correct. Yes and this is the testimony the people who were involved Mr. Ken said when this happened. There was great confusion among the rest of us because we didn't understand why that happened since there was unanimity that this it's eight 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. Miss Croft the only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President President. So Sir let me ask question. Did all the agencies involved believed that the it should be given yes. It was is the unanimous view of all of the Agencies Secretary State Department of State Department of Defense National Security Council literally every one of of the interagency agencies that that believed that the aid was vital and had already been approved and should be released immediately really and in the minority staff report. and Mr Castro's testimony earlier he said the US government did not convey the the policy the Ukrainians well. That wasn't correct. Was it. Then Mr Sunlen a convey that according to Mr Saban Lund's affidavit and testimony Mr Sunland automatically conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the now public announcement of the investigations. And we can put up slide twenty-six from the APP. What he said? Well if I may just in response we'll put up the side. We put up at the actual affidavit that MR ambassador acid than the president trump's ambassador to the European Union that he swore to under penalty of perjury and he says if we read the highlight which is also in front of you you I now recall speaking individually with Mr Your Mac where I said that where I said to Mr Your Ukrainian aid that going back to the quote that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-crruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks. Is that correct sir. Yes he said that on on at a meeting on September first with Mr Earmark in Warsaw and the statement that they had been talking about. Let me put up a slide that we put together slide twenty seven and you recall sir. That and the draft statement that the Ukrainians were GONNA have president's alinsky gifts. So they could it. was that that statement on their minds so they could get a White House meeting and satisfy president trump and the aid released yes. Ambassador Sunland testified to that and Ambassador Volker also testified to that and am I correct that Mr Chairman 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 second one that it had to include a reference that they were going to investigate Burris Ma and the two thousand sixteen election that's right and what did Burris Stanford that was was that did you all your witnesses say they had an understanding of what that meant? The witnesses say that so every single witness said after reading the phone call on July twenty fifth that it was clear Barista Equal Biden. They were one and the same there. 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 all 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 did not know that the Barista investigation related to the Biden's and is that why and that's how Mr Giuliani publicly referred to as often as brief and vice president Biden correct right here and did the Ukrainians complained repeatedly? We talked a little bit about it. They didn't want to be upon and US democratic politics by helping president trump's reelection in 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's Alinsky was was an anti-corruption reformer they had reservations about engaging in US domestic politics. I WANNA go back to you Mr Castor. You who said that. When President Trump said to Mr saw ambassador saw and then on September seventeenth that he had no quid pro quo? You said he had no reason. You said ninth to September ninth. You said he had no reason to be any less than candidate. That's what you said. No reason be any less than candidate. Let me show you sir. What happened happen though on September fifth let me show you slide fifty two days before he made that statement? The Washington Post printed an article that says trump tries to fours Ukraine to meddle in the twenty twenty elections and goes on to describe some of those efforts. And 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 fifty. Three now and again this is. He is putting out at tweet. That essentially saying the Democrats based on and follow up the article that they are pursuing impeachment again showing awareness that this has now been reported on so Mr Goldman is it fair 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. I think president trump had every reason to try to put out that message at that point as ambassador. Sunlen said even when he even if you credit ambassador Zahn Lind's version of the testimony which is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes and are far more credible than Mr Sunland who had to amend his testimony a a couple of times he said. Even in that comment he said no quid pro quo out of the blue without without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo the chair. Now recognizes ranking members. I for his first round of questions. Question is a question that you had earlier you know. How many approximately? How many times do you wrong Gordon testimony in your report? It's a nearly three hundred page report. Would you be raised. Took six hundred times or better. I wouldn't have any idea or not. I have no idea okay. You did over six hundred times. Would you also understand if you do imple- check of your report over one hundred and fifty eight times mistress island said instead of not knowing something to the best of my knowledge. Or I don't know the surprise you or are you talking about the reporter deposition that the deposition and the closed door testimony. Yes and over time. He remembered a lot more refreshed by other people's tests the question. We're having here though is Mr Sunlen also said and many times. He said he presumed what actually happened. Let's go back to something else. We'll continue continue this in just a moment. According to your report hip scene were classified that and more determined that to be the intelligence community and the other investigation with the other two committees. We okay with that certainly issue. Dozens of subpoenas is that right. I'm not certainly over a dozen. Yes some of the subpoenas as we're not publicly reported until the hippie issued as majority report correct Most of the subpoenas answer the question is Mr Burke had so much free rein. Let's go at it either. Either answer the question or elaborate one of the other so I'm trying to answer the question I didn't you. Did it. Come out or not. Did what cup outraged it again. Publicly reported until the hips he issued as majority report correct. Yes they were given to the minority not pub- The public. Yes leaving aside the witnesses who the publicly been identified. Did you issue any other subpoenas for testimony other than the ones publicly identified. I don't uh I'm not sure I don't think so. Thank you and I'm not sure. How many subpoenas were issued for records? Well we issued a a number of subpoenas for records we did issue six subpoenas to executive branch agencies and they all defied are subpoenas. And this just moving on to other issues here. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Committee issued at least four subpoenas to verizon. At and T.. For call records. Is that correct. We are wondering yes. We are because there are multiple numbers. It's 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 Minson testimony of their own. Absolutely wonderful FL- Asthma question for well. I am trying to answer your question was it. At least I four. Yes thank you good to save us a lot of time there. How many subpoenas were issued? At and T.. I don't know check your records this. This is important because we just found out about this week and we've got a massive document dump over the weekend preparing for this hearing in which the chairman admitted their staff admitted they're not going to read it all anyway away so for all of you riding imports all that massive document on. We're just simply going on a shift report which she refuses to come testify about percents staff so this is important that we just found found out about this. So how many subpoenas issued. At and T.. I don't know if you'd like me to find that's fine. I know them. Maybe you're chairman can be heard accent so this was it targeted a single telephone number or numbers. We we subpoenaed for call records multiple numbers. How many I don't know none? None one of this is very important though. None of members of Congress none of staff of Congress. We're getting out of Germany getting to that. We only did it to the subjects who are involved in the investigation which is a very very routine and standard investigating practice. And you're not GonNa hear anything from me about a subpoena and legality of Spain and my problem is who asks who on the committee asked that those numbers the numbers that you actually did put into the into four subpoena and get those numbers back. Who Was it that asked that they be cross checked for members of the median and members of Congress? WHO ordered bet? I don't think that's how we did it so you came out with her for that. Actually showed these people such as Mr Chair Nunez and others were actually on these calls. Yes now someone in united. We're not gonNA play cute here. Somebody took that you ask for at least four to those numbers and say hey. Hey let's play match gang. Who ordered the match game for members of Congress and the press with each you? I don't I don't think anyone did sir. Then then how did you get. Yeah okay come on. That's 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 him. Who ordered them to actually match from members of Congress and the press? That's actually what you just described is exactly how it happened. You order to find out if Nunez number was on those calls if I I just explained Sir you pick an event of significance in the investigation and you look for sequencing patterns surrounding that event you look at the numbers and you try to identify What those numbers are? And then you start to build a circumstantial case at this point. That's a wonderful explanation but not an answer to my question. Those are you looking for the four numbers you ask for and to see. See how they're connected. I understand the pain that you issued my question directly it was it you or was it chairmanship. They said why we're doing this list. See if this matches chairman Nunez number. Let's listen this matches a member of the press number somebody along the way just didn't all of a sudden having a piff Unie unless you're getting ready to throw a low level staffer under the bus that these numbers might match so who who did it. WAS IT chairman shift or was it you be careful. You're under oath. I know I'm under oath Sir. Then answer the questioner and I will the answer the question if you give me a second here. It's not a simple thing second. It was not a forty two mile witness by the way I think he was decided to leak it by the way. If you're not gonNA tell me the other way y you're thinking about how you GonNa ask that question who decided to leak it the information. Why did you included in report? That's not a leaks. How did you include in the report after? Not Saying anything else about this not publicly now. So two questions hanging out that everybody's looking for Nance for including me who ordered it was it you chairmanship. And then why was within decided except for nothing but smear purposes to be included in the report. Well I'm not going to get into the deliberations of our investigation with you and I will tell you. The reason reason it was included in the report is because it the calls were 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 conversation. Oh no no no. We're not going to believe that. We're not GONNA play that game as Mr Berg. You're not gonNA play that game. You're not asking the question and every remember 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 at reporters telephone numbers which they ought to be scared about. You took over subpoena for four and then you decided to play match game. You've found numbers that you thought were like. Some of them actually didn't exist because they claim that the White House budget office and they were not so. We're throwing stories out there because nobody was nobody was out there. Actually so I'll go back to my question. Are you going record in front of everybody here today and say that you will not tell who ordered this. You are mister gold. Mr Goldman you or Mr Smith. I am going to go on record and tell you that. I'm not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation. miscast I have some information on the subpoenaed. We know. Let's go up. We did receive copies of the subpoenas. And we we track this. There were six as I understand sanded and let me just say at the outset. Our members have concerns about this exercise for three reasons. You're the subpoenas yielded information about members of Congress whether subpoenaed members from records are not. It's a concern earn when the information yields member of Congress own records and then the information is publicized second is with journalists is just generally a very tricky area to start investigating journalists call records and the third is is with regard to. Mr Giuliani was serving as the president's personal attorney. But they're six subpoenas as we understand. Stand it I went. At and T.. For Giuliani numbers. The second was in regard to Ebore Fruman to a company. CSC CSC Holdings. The third related to Mr Sandra and that was off to verizon the fourth was. At and T. seeking information on a certain number the fifth was back to at and T.. And the the sixth was seeking subscriber information which impacted the veteran journalist. John Solomon Tom and also involved with these are some some of the attorneys involved could ask you a question. Ton Sing in Geneva Jill degen ladies witness Thank you Mrs Caroline Day. Yes certainly I have. I have a number of things I think i. I need to clear up if I may. Yes certainly have to bear with me because I have a number of them here. First of all on the CAU- aw. Tim Morrison General Kellogg. I have a totally different view of the call. Then Lieutenant Colonel Women and Jennifer Williams going the point that the call is ambiguous. So that's the first thing Tim Morrison testified that he he went to the National Security Council lawyers for very different reasons. He did not say he went to the NFC lawyers because he was concerned about the call. He went to the National Security Council lawyers for 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 leaks weeks and he was concerned that if this call leaked out how 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 act by partisan supporting congress. Issues of Ukraine have traditionally been one of the few issues where Republicans and Democrats. Let's share interests. And the third reason was that he didn't he didn't want the Ukrainians to get distorted perception of what actually happened on the call because on the call we're talking about eight lines of concern and a lot of ambiguity this Oval Office meeting on May Twenty third. There's this question I guess it Sam ambiguous. I didn't think it was a question about whether when the president referred the delegation goes to the inauguration may twentieth they come back at Sunland it's Volcker her and it's secretary Perry and Senator Johnson briefing the president and the president is having he says Ukraine is concerned or corrupt. And he he doesn't want to invite Zilenski to the White House and the president in Volker testifies to this pretty definitively the president essentially. He doesn't order anybody to do anything. The President says talk dirty the Volcker testified both at his deposition and at the public hearing that he didn't take direction. It's just like look if you guys. If you I think this is important and you WanNa work it just go talk to rudy very different than a than a direction. It's very different than the president ordering a scheme and it's very very different from the president sort of collecting up a bunch of agents. Go do something because he simply league. According to Ambassador Volker go talk to rudy now whether the Ukrainians new of the aid pause or the was paused for fifty five days whether the Ukrainians knew about it or not has been Laura Laura Cooper from dod and some State Department. Witnesses testified about light queries that they had received. There was an article article on November twenty second in Bloomberg and Linski Administration so they never knew about hold in the eight until August list twenty-eighth political article and they said in the article on your Mac is the principal person. They're relying on your says that they believe the embassy see was keeping information from the other interesting thing. Mr Garmak says in that November Twenty Second Bloomberg article is that sign. He he recounts the whole aside meeting with sunland which has become very significant. Apparently the pull aside meeting. He says he doesn't recall it. The way ambassadors on them recalled it. Now keep in mind ambassador. Mr Yard speaks English but but it's not as first language and so he. He does not recall the policy meeting which by the way happened on the way to escalator after the meeting with the vice president so he recalls it very differently so the question. The facts of what happened between ambassador. Sunland Mr Jahr Mac. On the way to the escalator remain gene in dispute now turning attention to the Ron Johnson. Letter if I may on August thirty first Senator Johnson's getting ready to travel to Ukraine on September fifth with Senator With Murphy and he wanted to Johnson one of the release release so he calls the president. He actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news right. President said I'm not ready to lift the aid. And they had this Senator Johnson. I mean he writes a ten page letter very detailed and he gives some some remarkable detail. And I'd like to read it. It's on page six. I this is Senator Johnson speaking. He said I asked asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the whole we'd be lifted without hesitation. Senator Johnson says President President Trump immediately denied such an enrichment 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 that President Trump's reaction here was adamant vehement an angry senator? Johnson goes on to say that as of August thirty first the president told on Bud. AH YOU'RE GONNA like my decision Indian so I think that's very important context on what the president's state of mind was at least as of August thirty first I fully expected. Do you agree that the aid would eventually be released after the fifty five day pause right absolutely yes. Yes and I'd like to talk about some of people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador Volker Ambassador Sunland and Secretary Perry. You had the the opportunity to talk to. Two of those three people is that correct. Yes and the Democrats report. I would like us to believe that. These three individuals were engaged in some sort of cobol or some sort of nefarious venture. But that's not true. Is it 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 and with the highest integrity. That's right I think. Everyone testified that ambbassador Volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service across the board all the witnesses including embassador Basseterre. Uganova she talked about integrity. That Ambassador Volker brings to the table. But there's a lot of people with firsthand knowledge that we didn't talk to. Is that correct correct. Now I WANNA talk about the president's skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical foreign aid. Is that correct. He he is deeply skeptical of sending. US Tax payer dollars into an environment that is corrupt. Because it's as good as kissing goodbye the by and is that something new that he believes or is that something. He ran on something that he has ran on something that he is implemented policies as soon as he became the president and Basseterre Hail third-ranking State Department official told us about the over overall review of all foreign aid programs and he described it as almost zero-based evaluation right and you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark. Sandy who is career official. Show at Olympia. Is that right grits. And he had some information about the reason for the pause. Is that true. I think that he he had a conversation with an individual name. Rob Layer and Mr Blair provided some insight into the reason for the sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had was able to give us firsthand account inside of the reason for the for the a pause related to the president's concern about European burden burden-sharing in the region and he and in fact in in his conversations the president's conversations with Senator Johnson he mentions his concern about burden-sharing hiring and I believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the Chancellor of Germany And in fact the whole first part of July twenty four transcript. He's talking about burden-sharing and wanting the Europeans wants to do more But yeah I mean Senator Johnson was and president trump. Were Air Pretty candidate in in you know. They believe that allies like Germany were. Were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid right now. I'd like you know there's been a lot of Allegations sounds that presidents. Alinsky 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 he said it consistently said at the the United Nations September twenty fifth. He said it into three more news availabilities over the course of the period including last week I want to change subjects subjects and talk about something. That professor Turley raised last week. And that is The partisan nature of this investigation And urine experience congressional investigator professional. He's he's no trump supporter. That's right he is a democrat. That's right and but professor truly cautioned cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned is that correct correct and worse than you can can have with. An impeachment is partisan rancor because nobody's going to accept the result on the other side and our Democrat friends have all the sudden become originalist and are citing the founders and their intent routinely as part of this guy impeachment process. I think that goes to the this. This is whether this constitutes burke bribery. There's there's there's case law bribery and I'm no. I'm the Supreme Court scholar lawyer advocate. But there's new case with McDonnell case about what constitutes an official act and that certainly hasn't been addressed in this space and I think Professor Turley mentioned them and I think Professor Turley said that a meeting certainly certainly does not constitute an official act. I think it's the McDonnell case. Right goes to the professor Turley. Pointed that out for us last week. Yes Since this inquiries unofficial and unsanctioned start in September the process has been then partisan biased unfair republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely. I think we saw that in lieutenant colonel vitamins deposition. There were some you know we were barred from asking asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to very basic things like who what win wear aw and instead and I would say to this rapid. We're in days seventy six and it's almost impossible to sophisticated sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly especially when the stakes of this high because any congressional investigation of any consequence it it it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stakeout their their interests. And how they're going to respond onto them. Good lockout probe into the first letter. I think went in October of twenty seventeen eighteen and in December we finally got a witness and it was the following spring with Saudi probe. After a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war we reached a deal with doj where we went we went down to the OJ and they gave us access to documents and they gave with access to. I think north of eight hundred thousand pages but they made us come down there. They made us go into a skiff breath 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 and that is disappointing. Obviously we all wish there was an easy button but congressional investigations of consequence. Take time 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 view it and camera and then going back. Even further to fast and furious The investigation of the death of a border patrol agent fast and furious. We issued subpoenas. Mis- Mister Iso- I send some subpoenas I think in February of Twenty Some twenty eleven and we we had a hearing in June with experts about proceedings of contempt. So you know what does it take to go to content and that was the first time in June when we got any production and the production was largely publicly available information and we went. We spent with most of the year trying to get information. The Justice Department at the time we were also working with whistleblowers who were providing US documents and and chairman ice at the time then in October issued another subpoena that was to the justice this department and so the the investigation had been ongoing most of the year. We were talking to whistle blowers were doing interviews. And we're doing our best to get documents out of the Justice Department through that channel but these things take time right and maybe not seventy six days. Yes if you truly want to uncover every every fact as you shouldn't an impeachment. Do you agree. You have to go to court sometimes 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 XYZ. And I think I think think that's great but you have to back it up with something. Isn't that cracked a number of ways to enforce requests. I mean the the fundamental rule of any congressional investigation it. Is You really get what you're asking for. Unless until the alternative is less palatable for the respondent so so you issue a subpoena and you're trying to get documents one technique you can use. Try to talk to the document custodian or somebody in the legislators function about what documents exist. Chairman Schaefer fits during his era had used to have these document production status hearings where you bring bringing in legislators officials and try to get the lay of the land because he had alleged affairs officials. At least nominally are supposed to be directly responsible. Little serving the interests you can saber rattle rattle about holding somebody in contempt. oftentimes witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you when you attach a contemporary eating or prospective respective contempt proceeding to their name a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a contemporary heating. You've got a couple of different steps along. Along the way you could raise the prospect of contemporary eating. You could schedule contempt proceeding after you schedule. A contemporary eating. 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 starkly 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 with the Good Luck Gaddi pro. We didn't get a witness and it was deputy director Andrew McCabe in for a couple of months but once we we got WTI director McCabe in a couple of weeks later we got director Komo's Chief-of-staff a couple of weeks later. I mean the witnesses start once she she get the ball rolling again. You don't always like one hundred percent of the terms. Sometimes you gotta deal with Agency Council. Sometimes you gotta go look in cow in camera but once you get the ball rolling usually it leads to positive results in historically has allowed the congress to do its work work and were any of those things done here in fact they decided we're not going to. We're not going to subpoena a certain people that are important. Is that fair to say. And we're not going to go to court and enforce them so these people have you know these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle uh-huh and that's that's an unfortunate position for any employee of one of the concerning things. Dr Kupperman who has been described by Dr Fiona Hill and a number of witnesses is a solid citizen. A good witness he filed a lawsuit in in the face of a subpoena and a judge was assigned to a judge. Leon and the issues the government raise were slightly different than the Don mcgann issues. Because you don mcgann is the personal or the White House. Counsel Kupperman of course is a national security official Kupperman filed the lawsuit seeking guidance covering wasn't asking the court to tell him not to come testify. The contrary Kupperman was seeking the court's Guidance Titans to facilitate his cooperation and ultimately This committee with withdrew the subpoena. Yes which raises questions about whether the committee's really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues right instead. The committee is chosen. The Intelligence Committee has chosen to rely on ambassador Sunland and his testimony. I think they rely by six hundred times in. There will tell you what I did. I on this point I yesterday yesterday. I opened the Democrat report and I did a control F. Control that yes and silence named shows up. Yup I think six hundred and eleven times in fairness it's going to be double counted because it's a sentence and then it's in a footnote. It's too but in relative comparison to the other witnesses relied on big time and I think Dr Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and the the record is mixed on this front. Dr Hill talks about raising raising concerns with Solomon and Solomon and his deposition. At least doesn't he didn't share the same view. And there's a lot of instances of that where you're embassador sunland recalls one thing and other witnesses were call another is that correct sunland is a witness is A. He's a bit of a `Nigma let's just say it that way he was in his deposition that the security assistance wasn't linked to anything and then he submitted a he submitted addendum. I call that the Pretzel Sentence it's and even in that addendum supplement. Whatever it's called? You know it's talked to him and her and anyway ends with I presumed so it wasn't awesome. Really any first-hand information. We don't have a lot of first hand information here. Is that correct on certain facts. We don't I mean we have firsthand information on the May twenty third meeting sitting in the Oval Office. We've got a lot of first hand information. Although all conflicting on July tenth 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 education hasn't hasn't been able to reveal you know firsthand evidence relating to the president other than to transfer and I think we've already talked about this. That ambassador sunlen would presume things assume things six and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand. Is that cracked you know. It started with his role with the Ukraine portfolio. A lot of people at the State Department were wondering saying why the ambassador to the EU was so engaged in issues relating to the Ukrainian. You know there. There are answers for that. Ukraine is aspirant to join the E U And there's a lot of other reasons Mister Turner I think explored explored this really well at the at the hearing but we asked him Asir Silent. He said that he did a TV interview and Keiv on on the twenty sixth next July where he said the president given me a lot of assignments and he's the president signed 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 was exaggerating and I think at the public hearings. You pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses ambassador Sunland isn't a note taker. He in fact he said I do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Let's say this way ambassador Taylor walked us through. His is standard operating reading procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk and a notebook in his coat pocket of suit and he brought it with us and showed us so. Consequently when Ambassador Ambassador Taylor recounts to us. You know what happened. It's backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador Sunland on the other hand was very clear that one firsthand. He said that he did not have access to a State Department records while he said that at the public occurring simultaneously the State Department issued a tweet. I think or a statement. At least saying that wasn't true. Nobody is keeping ambassador silence from his emails State Department employees. You 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 you can see that he doesn't have recollections of on a lot of these issues and we sort of made a list of them and I think at the hearing I called it the the Trifecta of reliability. And you're not the only person that has concerns about Amazon Lind's testimony conduct I think other witnesses took the issue with his conduct. Is that correct. Yeah to Morrison talked about instances where Ambassador Sunlen sort of showing up uninvited. Marson didn't understand why sound them was trying to get into the Warsaw meeting. September first and Dr Hill Fiona Fiona Hill to tell us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses. You're correct and ambassador. Reeker an ambassador Sunland to correct believe investor massacre said he was yeah in. Dr Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said that he mighty A- intelligence risk. Is that correct. She she did she she. She had issues with his tendency to is mobile device in telephone calls in which obviously can be monitored by the bad guys and we talked about how he was spinning that you know certain certain things and he admitted that how he was spinning humidity exaggerated yes and also when it comes to communications communications with the president. We tried to get him to list all the communications. The President I think he gave us six and then when he was back at you no he walked us through each communication with the president by the way it was about Christmas party was about when the president of Finland was here and then congresswoman Speier. I asked him the same question the open hearing and he's he said that he had talked to the President Twenty Times so the record is mixed I think my time's thank you both now. We Will Gaijin questions under the five minute rule I yield myself. Five minutes for the purpose of questioning. Witnesses Mr Goldman. Can you please explain the difference between Vice. President Biden's request the Ukraine a few years ago and president trump's request to Ukraine earlier this year. Yes yes when Vice. President Biden pressured the Ukrainian President to remove the corrupt prosecutor general. He was doing so with an international consensus Part of US policy the entire European Union supported that the IMF supported the IMF which also gave the loans that that he was referring to and so so he did that is part of the entire international community's consensus and when president trump is asking for this investigation of Joe Biden all of the witnesses every single one testified that that had nothing to do with official. US policy and president and vice president. Biden's request had no personal political benefit whereas president trump's requested. Yes in fact. If the witnesses testified that if that corrupt prosecutor general were actually removed it would be because he was not prosecuting corruption. So the witnesses said that by removing that prosecutor general and adding a new one that there was an increased chance that corruption in Ukraine would be prosecuted including as it related to the Barista company which is son was on the board of thank. You go can you please explain exactly what happened. Happened with the phone. Records obtained by the Intelligence Committee. Yeah thank you. I'd I'd I would like to set the record straight on that. This is a very basic and usual investigative practice Where people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a scheme investigators routinely seek their records and just to be very clear? This is metadata it is only call to call from in length it is not the content of the calls or the text messages so there's no content content there's no risk of invading any communications with lawyers journalists attorney client that none of that exists in there are no risks to that and so what we did is for the people that several of the people that we had investigated and subpoenaed and who was alleged to be part of the scheme. We got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out. Maybe there's additional communications that we were unaware of what we then did is. We took the call records and we match it up with important events that occurred during the scheme and we'd start to see if there are patterns because call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evidence in this case. It just so happened that people who were involved in the president trump scheme were communicating with the president's lawyer who was also involved in the scheme a journalist staff staff member of Congress and another member of Congress we of course did not at all seek in any way shape or form to do any investigation on anyone a a member of Congress or a staff member of Congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the President Scheme. And everything you did was basically standard operating procedure ager for well run investigation every investigation in ten years that I did probably we got called records. Thank you Mr Goldman. Did White House counsel make his view clear about witnesses and evidence requested by the investigating committees. And what was that view. We never heard from the White House counsel they we other than the letter which basically elite just said we will not all cooperate with this investigation in any way shape or form. They never reached out to engage in this accommodation process. It was a complete fleet stonewall. Not only will the White House not participate in not cooperate and not respond to the duly authorized subpoenas of Congress but we are the White House says we are also going to direct every other executive branch agency to now have a series of questions and please keep his grief. If you can during last week's hearing my Republican Republican colleagues said that Congress has not built a sufficient record to impeach the president as foreign prosecutor. You've spent years building substantial case records. What does the strength of the record here? I think we have moved fast. And I think that the evidence is really overwhelming We have seventeen witnesses with overlapping and Kazumi statements and the Committee Committee managed to collect such a compelling record in the face of unprecedented obstruction by the president correct yes and was obstruction. So pervasive the evidence pointed into a course of conduct or plan to cover up any presidential misconduct. We did find that. There was an effort to conceal the president's conduct. Yes and I understand that Tober over eight. The White House wrote a letter explaining the president. Trump had directed his administration not to cooperate with the White House is impeachment inquiry led to the White House counsel road quote. President trump cannot and not permit his administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under the circumstances now the investigative committees tried to interview dozens of witnesses and including current and former trump initiation officials and was stymied with respect to most of them. Is that correct There were twelve witnesses who directed not to appear and ultimately they did not appear generally from California's recognized. Thank you MR chairman. The Gist of the question here is the potential of abuse of the president's. It's power to benefit himself in the next election now. America is based on free and fair elections and after Russia interfered in the two thousand sixteen election and the American people are rightfully concerned about ensuring that the next election of free of foreign interference. And keeping that in mind I'd like to ask you Mr Goldman the following question and bastard. Sawn Lind testified that according to Rudy Giuliani quote president trump wanted a public statement from President Celeski committing to investigations of Brisebois and the two thousand sixteen election. Isn't that correct just and a bastard. Sawn testified testified as the screen in front of you shows that presence alinsky quote had to announce the investigations. It didn't actually have to do them. Correct Art Mr Goldman. Urine experienced former prosecutor is it common to announce an investigation but not actually conduct doc. The investigation no usually works the reverse. Normally you don't announce the investigation because you want to develop as much evidence while it's not auto while it's not a public because if it's public then you run into problems so people matching a testimony and witnesses tailoring their their testimony which is part of the the reason why the clothes depositions in our investigation. We're so important so what did that. Evidence is evidence about the announcement. Tell you about why. President trump would only care about presents alinsky announcing the investigations but not actually conducting them. There were two things that said one is whatever he claims. The president claims about his desire to root out corruption. Even if you assume that these investigations are for that purpose as he he has stated it undermines that because he doesn't actually care if the investigations are done so even if you assume which. I don't think the evidence supports that it's corruption and then he's still not doing the corruption investigations and the second is just wanted the public announcement. The private confirmation was not enough and that's an indication that he wanted the political olitical benefit from them. It looks to me that the announcement of the investigation could benefit the president politically because the announcement alone one could be twitter fodder between now and the next election to smear a political rival that's consistent with the findings you know President Nixon. Nixon attempted to corrupt elections and his agents broke into Democratic Party headquarters to get a leg up on the election and then he tried to cover it up just as we've seen some obstruction here but even more concerning in this case president trump not only appears to have abused the the power of his office to help his own reelection campaign used a foreign government to do his bidding and he used military aid as leverage to get the job done now. This aid was approved by Congress. It was appropriated on a bipartisan basis for Ukraine to fight Russia who'd invaded them and while aid this aid was withheld. People died while this aid was being withheld and some have argued since alternate. The aid was released that there was not a problem but Mr Goldman. Isn't it true that the aid was released. Only out the the president it got caught and only after Congress learned of the scheme to make this life or death aid conditional on this announcement of investigation instigation of his political rival. There were several things that made The president realized that this was coming to ahead and could not be concealed The whistleblower complaint was circulating around the White House. The congressional committees announce their own investigation. And then the perhaps the Washington Post op EH. On September fifth linking the two and then the inspector general notified the committee that there was this whistleblower complaint that was being withheld by the trump administration. Jack's Weezer so Mr Doman. Let's get to the facts again. During the phone conversation on July twenty fifth with presence Alinsky President Trump was narrowly early focusing on his own political survival using his public office for private and political gain. The truth matters. Then we heard Council Council for the Republicans say the presence concerned about foreign aid because you could kiss it goodbye. Assuming that's referring to anti corruption Russia but let's look at the facts of the July twenty fifth call. I happened to read it. Just recently was sharply illustrates that President's willingness to abused 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 then trump says and by the way right after President Zilenski spoke about defense support and the chaplains. I would like you to do us a favor though. So this is the president's own behavior and words Mr Goldman. What was that favor? The favor was to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory related to Ukraine interference in the two thousand sixteen election the government the investigative. Committee's received evidence from multiple witnesses. Who testified the president trump was provided Pacific talking points in preparation in for July? Twenty fifth call geared toward protecting the American people's national security. Is that correct. The talking points certainly were part of the official the US policy and they included anticorruption efforts and national security efforts and those talking points were provided to help the president effectively communicate official US policy interest during calls at 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 was them or not use them. Witnesses said the president's not required to use them. What was so startling here is that he not only veered off from them but that he went to his own personal channel interests and it is fair to say such talking points signal the purpose of a given call correct yes Witnesses testified that the talking points for the July twenty fifth call include recommendations to encourage presidents Alinsky to continue to promote anti corruption reforms in Ukraine which has a focus of American foreign foreign policy in Eastern Europe. Is that correct. Yes so to be clear. The talking points created for the president or other 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 Director for Europe. Testified about what was not not in those talking points now. Mr Morrison were these references to crowd strike the server in two thousand sixteen election And into Vice President Biden and his son were included in the president's talking points. There were not. Are you aware of any witnesses. Who testified that investigating the bindings was an objective of official? US policy. No it was not before and it was not after this call in anything ever file. I don't know those investigations that might have occurred. I'm sorry can you repeat the thing ever found of those investigations that may have occurred with respect to the former vice-president every single witness said there's no the factual basis for either of the investigations. So Mr Trump did not use official talking points correct and there were witnesses who confirmed that. That's right when you hear those words. Do you hear the president requesting thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program consistent with US policy so we were hoping we recommended the president very clearly support. What presidents Alinsky had run on his own election and what is serving? The People party had run on its election where it received a majority mandate. That didn't come up in the call. Did it no sir. Her Goldman did the evidence. Prove that Mr Trump utilize his position of public trust in order to accomplish these goals his goals in order to hurt his domestic political liberal opponent. Yes that's what. The evidence showed the gentleman from Ohio. Thank you MR chairman. This is the second hearing on impeachment that this committee has held in the last last week. I would submit that. You're investigating the wrong guy. Let's look at the fax. Mr Caster Ukraine. That's been at the center attention to this impeachment. Hearing his historically been one of the world's most corrupt nations correct that's correct and under legislation relation 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. Yes that's right. And isn't it true that Joe Biden's son Hunter had had placed himself right smack DAB in the middle of that corruption. Yes he did. Burris was one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine and contrary to what House Democrats Kratz in many in the media would. Have you believe that concerns about hunter. Biden's involvement and Ukrainian corruption They're not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy concocted cocktail by supporters of the president. Are they in fact. The concerns about hundred Biden's or I raised by the Obama Administration. Is that right. That's right and also Washington Post a lot of publications and the State Department and the Obama Administration's Concerns About Abida Didn't there did they the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Ivanovich said she was coached by the Obama Administration on how to answer Pesky questions Russians related to one hundred Biden and Brima that might arise during her Senate confirmation process right. The State Department was so concerned about this. They gave her a mock few in a on this question and nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee of inquiry agreed that Hunter Biden's MMA deal created at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Is that correct. That's correct and you know deputy assistant secretary. George testified that there was an investigation and debris into their heads. Oh Jeff Ski and they were trying to track down twenty twenty three million that he had taken out of the country and they were working with the United Kingdom they were working the United States. The United Kingdom you Ukraine was working on track in this money down mm-hmm and there was an investigation and active investigation. Going on in a bribe was paid and that bribe was paid eight. Allowed to get off scot-free right around that time is wind Barisno when about Sprucing up their board shall shall we say thank you Sir Mr Goldman. I like to bring us back to the next president. Not President not the next president and stay focused on the July twenty five. Call the president's abuse of office for his benefit no-one else now as my colleague. Ms Jackson Lee confirmed the President's request for these investigations was not an objective of US foreign policy. Correct that's right. Is there any Evans. The National Security Council want an investigation into the Biden's Barista or any alleged Ukrainian interference in two thousand sixteen. No any evidence about the State Department wanting them know how about the Dod Dod want those investigations. No evidence of that did any witnesses tell you that they wanted Ukraine to investigate the Biden's of the two thousand sixteen election and we certainly know now that the Ukrainians did not wanted ended either. In fact they made it very clear that not want to be an instrument. The SA- quote an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics. So the only person who was benificiary breath from that investigation is president trump. And that's why everyone on the joy at twenty-five call news wrong. They knew it was wrong. The investigative gave committee heard testimony from three witnesses. Who Participated in that call? Is that correct. Yes listen to that call right Mr Goldman even a real time the witnesses who listened and that call testified they were concerned by the call. Is that correct. Yes and in fact. Both lieutenant colonel. Vin Men and Mr Morrison immediately reported the call to legal. Oh Council is that right. That's right and why did they do so they did it for separate reasons. Lieutenant Colonel Vinson was concerned about 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 and they reported the call that they actually reported that to the internal legal channels. Mr Goldman played lieutenant colonel. Then men's testimony about why reported the call on the screen. Am I correct. His concern was based on the fact that the president incident was asking a foreign power to investigate a US citizen yes and he was not the only witness to express that concern am also correct that he reported this concern because because he thought it was a sense of duty a duty that he felt something was wrong. Yes as you probably know lieutenant. Colonel Vin is a Purple Heart Award winner from Medal winner winner from Iraq and he has been in the Department of Defense for twenty years and has a great sense of duty and a great patriotism to this country and felt compelled compelled to follow that sense of duty and report. It and Miss Williams vice president pence is aid was present for the call and she testified as you brought out our was brought out earlier that was unusual and inappropriate. Is that correct. That's right now when Mr Vice President Biden got involved with the European Union and the IMF am math in 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 era where somebody's doing it for their personal good? Is that 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 and if I could just respond to something Mr Caster said when he said that the there were problems because slow chess ski paid a bride side the head of Barista 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 anti non anti corruption policies that Vice President Biden was objecting to using the official show policy. So that's one of the reasons that he 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 base the issue Mr Johnson. Okay I'd like to ask some questions about the president's role in what am Bassett a Bolton referred to as a drug deal did the testimony moaning evidence compiled by the Intelligence Committee established the fact that with respect to Ukraine Rudy. Giuliani was at all times working on behalf. A HALF president trump. Yes Mr Giuliani said. That president trump said that to a number of other individuals and those individuals. Israel's ambassador Sunland investor Volcker also said that. Thank you and on May ninth twenty and nineteen Rudy Giuliani on behalf of his client. President trump trump spoke with a New York Times reporter about his plan trip to Ukraine. And on that trip he planned to meet with presidents Alinsky. He said Ed and urged an urge him to pursue investigations relating to the Biden's and to the debunked theory that Ukraine in and not. Russia interfered in the twenty sixteen. Collect election isn't that correct. That's right and Mr Giuliani told the reporter that his trip was not about out official. US Foreign Policy and that the inflammation he sought would be very very helpful to his client. Client meaning it would be helpful to president trump. Is that correct. Yes if it's not official foreign policy it would be helpful to president trump's personal interest. That's correct there is no doubt Mr Goldman that investigations of the Biden's and the two thousand sixteen election meddling were in fact not about. US This policy. But we're about benefiting trump's reelection correct yes and even the Ukrainians realized that and on July twenty fifth president and trump place that fateful phone call to presidents Alinsky any asked Presidents Alinsky to imbed investigate. The Biden's correct yes and on that. President trump told the linski quote. I will have Mr Giuliani to give you a call correct. That's right and on and October second and October third president trump once again made explicit that he and Mr Giuliani were intent on making these investigations. Happen correct yes and just you know. We've been investigating on a personal basis through rudy and others. There's lawyers corruption in the twenty sixteen election. Well I would think that if they were honest about it that start. What a major investigation into the very simple add Mr Goldman? The evidence shows a course of conduct by president trump trump and his agents does it does and clearly. It continued long after our investigation began. It shows a common plan correct. That's right yeah. It shows a common goal correct and the goal was to get foreign help for the twenty twenty election. Correct that is. That's what all the witnesses said and Mr Goldman who was the kingpin of that plan. President trump is back Mr Jordan. Thank you MR chairman. This or castor. I want to go to the document that started it. All the August twelfth whistleblower complaint bullet point one on page one of the whistleblowers 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 Caster who are these half a dozen US officials. We don't know we don't know do we. 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 Cancer. We needed to talk to the guy who started it all. We needed talk to him to figure out who these more than half a dozen people were who form the basis of his complaint and we never got to Adam Schiff staff got to Adam. Schiff knows who he is. But we don't don't get to know and therefore we don't get to know the original people six people who form the basis at this entire thing. We've been going through now for three months but we did talk to seventeen people right. Mr Caster that's right. Seventeen deposition urine every single one. You were the lawyer doing the work for the Republicans and every single one is that right Sir and there's one witness who. They relied lied on built their report around one witness that witness because I read their report. It's it's obviously one witness that witness Mr Ambassador Sahn John I think you said earlier. His name was mentioned. I Dunno six. What would you say six hundred eleven hundred eleven times more than lieutenant? Colonel Van men the guy who was on the Paul Moored investor. Taylor I witness their star witness the very first hearing in the intelligence committee they relied on site not to whistle blower not the more than half a dozen people who informed the whistle blower they. They relied on ambassador son and why they pick sunlen. Mr Caster probably best a young. Because that's the that's the best they got the guy who had to file an addendum to his testimony. The guy that had had to file the clarification the guy who said two weeks ago sitting in this chair your sitting Mr Castor in his twenty three page opening statement he said at this and less presidents Alinsky announced investigation into prisma and the Biden's 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 ambassador. Sahlin said Mr Castor was there an announcement by presidents alinsky about investigating the Biden's are prisma no announcement it presents. Let's get a call from president trump. Yes the president's lives you get a meeting with president trump. Yes it presidents Alinsky get the money from the United States. Yes got the call July twenty fifth. They got the money on September eleventh. They got the meeting on September. Twenty fifth is that right. Yes but the guy who said no that was going to happen is the guy they build their case around. Guess Right Mr Solomon me let me go to one other thing. They built their case around. They built their case around a lot of hearsay. Didn't they the best example. The hearsay surprisingly enough is ambassador. sunlit emissions thank you getting back to the facts surrounding the president's it's abuse of power using the White House meeting as leverage for helping his political campaign Mr Goldman President trump offered Ukrainian president Linski a meeting in the White House. But but first he wanted investigations into the binds conspiracy theory about meddling in the two thousand sixteen election. You testify that. The committees found evidence that President cendant trump works to exchange official actions for personal benefit. And I want to talk about that on. May Twenty Third Twenty nine thousand nine hundred. A delegation of officials scholes returned from Zelenskaja's inauguration and they briefed the president in that briefing. President trump directed government officials to work with his personal lawyer Rudy. Giuliani is that correct guests and trump's handpicked Ukraine operator. Gordon Son testified that they faced a choice. Either work with Giuliani or abandoned. The goal of a White House meeting. What choice did they make Goldman? They decided to work with Mr Giuliani right. Right and six days later on May twenty ninth. President trump sent the new Ukrainian president a letter that said America stood with Ukraine and and invited President Alinsky to visit the White House. Isn't that correct. Yes that was the second time that he invited him to the white. So at this point the Ukrainian president expected that meeting meeting but then they learned that they've got to do something more for the president. sunlen testified that there was a prerequisite of investigations stations. Isn't that right. Yes and NFC staffer lieutenant. Colonel Edmund testified that silent told the Ukrainians in July tenth meeting and that investigation of the Biden's 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 Castro set about that meeting there really is no inconsistent statements about whether or not ambassador Sunland raise the issue of investigations in connection to the White House. Even Basset Volker in his public testimony was forced to admit that he did hear that and he said it was inappropriate. And and in fact on July nineteenth sunland John Lintel Presidents Alinsky directly that president trump wanted to hear a commitment to the investigations on July twenty fifth call correct. That's right Mr Goldman. I WANNA 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 in 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 it to pressure Presidents Alinsky to announce investigations of his political rival benefit his reelection campaign. I will answer that question in a minute but I would like just just to comment to Mr Buck that the majority staff and no one had any contact with ambassador sunland after his deposition but the answer to your question is yes myspace. My colleague. Mr Deutsch mostly focused on the period prior to the July twenty fifth call. I'd like to focus on the period. After following the call did presidents Alinsky. Alinsky come to the White House for meaning. No He's never come to the White House and several witnesses. Multiple witnesses said that. There's a huge distinction between a white White House meeting and a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly where they did meet on September twenty fifth so has a White House meeting Ben scheduled. No 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 and the White House meeting was conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. And so once in mid August when the Ukrainians Mr Year Malcolm Presidents Residents Alinsky decided that they were not going to issue that statement. That Rudy Giuliani wanted to include Barista in the two thousand sixteen 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. Well a following the twenty fifth call the July twenty fifth call ambassadors Sunlen. INVOQUER works worked closely with Mr Giuliani and the Ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make presidents. Alinsky was never yes and the the report say they were closely and then they're also phone calls is with the White House around the same time that they were working closely. Do you know what that statement was supposed to say according to Mr Giuliani in the US officials while the key difference is that it had to include that Ukraine would do the investigations of Burris Mo- which equalled the Biden investigation and the two thousand sixteen Ukraine crane interference but was there concern about doing the investigations? Or what were they just supposed to make a statement about it. What ambassadors on the very clearly testified that all he ever heard Mr Giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations? And so did the committee find. Find that without that public statement that there would be no White House meeting. Yes so I was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point tonight liked to play another example was there a quid pro quo as testified previously with regard to requested White House. Call the White House meeting. The answer is yes. Everyone was in the Luke. 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 so so what evidence to the committee find that cooperated the quote. Everyone was in the loop well ambassador Sunland produced for his public testimony. Moni and I think it's very important in light of the testimony from Mr Castro a minute ago with Mr Buck. As to how many times that Mr Sunland did not remember in his deposition because we agree it was egregious but the advantage of doing closed positions is that Mr Sunland could not match up his testimony. Tony so as other witnesses came in then he realized that he had to actually admit more and more stuff is the Richmond. Thank you MR chairman and Mr Goldman I want to start off with fats and that you all uncovered through the course of your investigation. I want to pick up. Where my colleagues Mr Deutsch? uh-huh and Myspace 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 I WANNA talk about how the president did the same thing with almost four hundred million taxpayer dollars to pressure Ukraine to do his personal bidding. So I'd like to start with turning back to the July twenty fifth call. It's a fact that in the president's own words in the transcript submitted by him reveals that after Ukraine ask for military aid trump. Says I would like you to do us a favor. Though right after presidents heath thanks president trump for the military assistance. Then president trump ask for a favor and of course by this point president trump had 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. How is that true no there? There was significant evidence that even as early as July twenty fifth but at the time of this call that Ukrainian officials 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 foreign in our deputy foreign minister who said that they that Ukraine the Presidents Alinsky office received a diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of July twenty fifth saying that the aide had been held correct. And what also show you on. The screen is that it was on July twenty fifth it 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 Terry A.D. Yes that's what I was referring to. I'd like to. Let's go back. There was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that that Mr Sandy from Owen said that the reason for the security assistance hold was related to the president's concerns about burden-sharing with Europe. Is that consistent assist with the evidence that you all uncovered. So it's A. 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 that reason was never provided to him or anybody else before early September for the first two months of the Holt and of course it was given at that point as the GIG was up so to speak so that was after everything came out to light it was. He wasn't sure of the timing. Yeah but he was ultimately told that the reason for the hold after it was lifted was for that reason. But that's a I think. An after the fact excuse use based on our evidence because no other witnesses wherever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held gentlemen yields back back. Mr Jeffreys let's focus on the aid to Ukraine Mr Goldman Congress allocated on a bipartisan basis. Three hundred and ninety one million dollars in military aid to the Ukraine is that correct yes and signed by President trump into law. The record established the military aid to Ukraine is in the national security interests of the United States absolutely the investigation concluded that president trump compromised. US National Security by withholding vital military assistance and and diplomatic support. Is that true. Yes the president trump and his defenders claim that he withheld military aid out of alleged concern concern with corruption in Ukraine. Let's explore this phony justification. Donald Trump I spoke to the president of Ukraine on April twenty. First call correct. That's right president. Trump never used the word corruption on that April twenty. First call true that that is true and the readout from the White House after the call did say that President Trump talked about corruption at read out was inaccurate in a May twenty third letter. Trump's department of defense concluded that Ukraine met the anti corruption benchmarks required to receive military aid from the United States. True yes and if I could just take a second to talk about that because that's very important and this goes back to what Mr Collins was talking about with Vice President Biden there is absolutely conditionality on aid in routinely all sorts of different ways. But it's done through official policy and these anti-corruption benchmarks that you're referencing. Here was as 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 anticorruption efforts to merit aid and yet the aim was not released correct. The aid was subsequently held it. It was supposed supposed to be released. Dod announced the release and then president trump held the aid without explanation 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. No the evidence really supports the fact that president trump views corruption in Ukraine to be synonymous with the two investigations. that he wants what the president did care about was a political political favor from the Ukrainian government and that is why he withheld the military aid. True that he told ambassador embassador son than himself that that is the only thing that he cares about now. Several witnesses testified as to the real motivation connected to the withheld. Military Terry a.d including ambassador. Bill Taylor here is what he said in his testimony to withhold that assistance for no good good reason other than help with the political campaign make no sense it was. It was counterproductive. All of what we had been trying to do it was illogical it could not be explained. It was crazy logical unexplainable crazy crazy Goldman. According to the testimony from to tailor the only explanation for the withheld aid that made sense that the president was seeking help with a political campaign correct. That is the only logical explanation as multiple witnesses said ambassador. Sunland is a trump appointee who gave a million dollars to the president's inauguration testified that he came to believe that the resumption of security aide would not occur until there was a public public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations correct yes and that was subsequently confirmed in a conversation with President trump himself. The tenant Colonel Vin men and is a decorated Iraq war veteran purple heart recipient and member of the White House National Security Council and 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 that was the pretty much unanimous view of all seventeen witnesses that came in to testify in before the Intelligence Committee. The evidence shows that President President trump withheld military aid from Ukraine as part of a scheme to extract a political favor and solicit foreign interference in the twenty twenty election intro. Yes and that the scheme part is very important because the minority wants to focus on these four very narrow facts that that ignore nor the vast majority of the evidence and so the fact that he used scheme is actually critical to the whole the whole case. Here gentlemen goes back Mr Gates and that brings us to your Mr Goldman. Are you here as a partisan advocate for the Democrat position or you here as a non-partisan investigator of the fact fats. 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 covered the witness testimony in the documents? Are you a partisan. I'm not a partisan Mr Castro. How long have you worked for the House since two thousand five same question school for the House since earlier this year Mississippi Cellini so I want to return Mr Goldman to the military terry aid? 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 I don't know a lot about Ukraine. Don't know about the geopolitical significance. Like why does it matter in the witnesses. Were quite clear about this and and they say it mattered for for multiple reasons. The first is that Russia invaded Ukraine. To take over part of their of their country and that this was the first military incursion Curtian in Europe since World War Two 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 died and prior to the call. July twenty fifth congress had approved the aid correct Congress approved the eight and then the president and the Defense Department had even publicly announced its intention to deliver the aid correct. That's right. The trump administration had already certified that Ukraine had taken substantial steps to combat corruption. Correct correct and that normally leads to the release of the aid. It sort of announced the release of the investigative committees question. Witnesses from the Defense Department the State Department O.. Oh Mb the White House and the National Security Council about the president's decision to withhold aid. Correct correct AM I. Correct that the witnesses that appeared before your committee confirmed there was no credible explanation for holding the military aid and that it was effective against our national security interest to do so everyone agreed it was against our national 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 contributions to Ukraine but that was only in September and of course there were no okay further commitments for many other gentlemen yields back Mr Swallow Mister Golvin. Would you welcome the problem of having eight thousand documents given to you from the White House. it would be a wonderful problem to have. How many have they given you zero? Mr Castor you said earlier that they got the aid they got the no harm no foul they got the age. But you would agree that although Mr Sandy said that the presidential concern was European contributions nothing change from when that concern concern was expressed to when they actually got the right. You agree on that. Europe didn't kick in a bunch of new money but they did a study. I mean they study okay. But they didn't kickin new money. You agree on that ambassador. Taylor discussed that they got a research talked a lot about the anti-corruption president that we have Donald Trump. The person who had a fraud brought settlement relating to trump university. The person who's 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 Caster. How many times has president trump met with Vladimir Putin or talk to him? I don't know the number eight. It's sixteen okay. How how many times is president trump met at the White House with presidents Alinsky? It's zero and whose president trump meeting with at the White House tomorrow. Do you know on nine. It's Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov now. Mr Goldman withholding aid from Ukraine obviously Hertz Ukraine. It hurts the United States. Does it help any country. The witnesses said that that would help Russia did you you also hear testimony that these acts by the president while being wrong in an abuse of power also harmed. US National Security. Yes did you hear anything about how it would harm our credibility. I would turn you to a conversation ambassador. Volker had on September fourteen of this year with a senior Ukrainian official were ambassador. Volker her impressing upon that official that presidents Alinsky should not investigate his own political opponents. What was thrown back in the face of Ambassador Volker after ambassador? Volker suggested to Mr Earmark again here that they should not investigate the prior president of Ukraine. Mr Chairman sent back. Oh Oh said back to him Oh like we we. You're encouraging us to investigate. Biden's in Clinton's during Watergate the famous phrase phrase from Senator Howard Baker was asked. What did the president know? And when did he know. There's a reason that no one here has repeated needed those questions during these hearings. We know what the president did and we know when he knew it. Mr Goldman who sent Rudy Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to smear Joe Biden president trump who fired the anti-corruption ambassador and Ukraine Marie Ivanovich President Trump. Who told ambassador sunland Passer Volker to Rupe to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine president trump? Who told Vice President Pence to not go to President Alinsky inauguration president trump who ordered his own chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance since for Ukraine president trump who refused to meet with Presidents Alinsky in the Oval Office President Trump? Who ignored on on July twenty five his own National Security Council's anti-corruption talking points? President trump who asked presidents Alinsky for a favor president trump who personally asked presidents Alinsky to investigate his political rival. Joe Biden President Trump. Who stood on the White House House lawn and confirmed that he wanted Ukraine to investigate vice president Biden president trump who stood on that same lawn and said that China should also investigate advice? President Biden President trump. As to anything that we do not know in this investigation. Who has blocked us from knowing? President trump the White House so as it relates to president trump. Is he an incidental player or a central player in the scheme. President trump is the central player in the 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 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 Donald J trump knew everything and I yield back gentleman years back. Mister Bigs Mr Catcher. What's direct evidence I? I went witnessed personally observes fact and testifies to it and what's hearsay evidence. Wow Statement for the truth of the matter. Asserted is something that you learn in law school right and then the federal rules of evidence adopted by most states. Here's as inadmissible. Unless the testimony falls under defined exceptions that right about twenty-three plus the residual exception and I believe leave your President Whenever witness testing Mr Solomon Right And much and that's a yes. Yes and much of the Democrats reporting impeachment narrative is based on the testimony. Is that a fair characterization of it is yes how many times Mr Solomon Mission in the Intel Committees report search just to control F in the name Sunlen shows up six six hundred and eleven times. Yeah and just to refresh your mind. Sunlen himself till the world that that basically nobody else on the planet told Holton the Donald Trump was trying to tie aid investigations. In fact he also said everything that he'd been testified to simply his presumptions that right that is correct. And so when we consider what a presumption is it's not direct. It's not circumstantial hearsay in fact we typically when we're trying to case we consider it as speculation nations era. That's right dude course allow speculation in. Why not because it's not reliable is inherently unreliable so uh can you name? Any Democrat wins asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those seventeen. That we've been hearing that we heard from. We had some direct evidence on certain things that we had some direct evidence on the May twenty third meeting and Silane gave some direct evidence But a lot of what. We've obtained has been circumstantial. How about with regard guard to a personal knowledge of the quid pro quo allegation? Well we have not gotten to the bottom of that for my direct evidence standpoint. How about tying to investigations brats correct to about political motives in asking for investigations? The facts surrounding are ambiguous. Liu So Mr Goldman in in this case the three hundred ninety one million dollars at issue that wasn't Donald Trump's money that was US tax payer funds is that right yes and certainly the president should not use our taxpayer money for his own personal benefit. Especially eight not to leverage it for his own reelection campaign. Isn't that right. That's correct. And in this case Congress with bipartisan support head appropriate taxpayer funds for this specific purpose of aiding Ukraine and its war against Russia's right. Yes and now only had that money. You've been appropriated. The money had actually been released department. Defense is that right there. Were about to release it. Yes and then suddenly without augmentation that present demanded that those tax funds be withheld from ally who desperately needed took aid. Mr Goldman to the president notified Congress about his decision withhold aid. No he did not so then Palmer. Control Act was designed to prevent the president from secretly taking congressional properly appropriate funds. And doing whatever he wants. It's with them. So is it true that and your intelligence report you found the following in your findings of fact. President trump ordered the suspension of three hundred ninety one billion dollars house and Vitamin military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine and the president did so despite his obligations under the contract. Did you find that yes. Is it true Mr Goldman at harming the cranium military also harms US national security pretty much every witness said last week Professor Carlin prefer that it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice a national interest for his own private ends a slide shows of what she said missed Golden Based on evidence that you found in your report is a fair to conclude that the president's actions both leverage taxpayer funds for his own private gain and sacrifice is a national interests for his own. Private ends that is what we found gentlemen yields back Mr Eskin and I count a dozen career State Department and national security officials 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 Vin men Morrison McGuire came forward to report trump scheme to NFC lawyers as soon as they learned of it. Didn't they Mr Goldman Morrison investment went to the lawyers as soon as they learned of it. Yes Dr he'll voiced her concerns. NSE's lawyers on July ten and John. July y eleventh long before anyone on this committee knew about it why would she. Why did she go to report what she had learned earned? What motivated her? She was concerned. That ambassador Sunland and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction shen whereby the Ukrainians would open up these investigations for president trump's political interests in return for getting the White House meeting that the president trump had offered and by one deputy assistant secretary. George Kent who served as a career Foreign Service officer for more than twenty seven years under are five different presidents Democrats and Republicans alike and he wrote her updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave. contemporaneous temporariness concerns about the president's conduct. Mr Goldman what were the events that led Mr Kent to drop. Drop these notes to his file. There were several several. There was a conversation at the end of June where several American officials had indicated to presidents. Alinsky that he needed to go forward with these investigations there was one on August sixteenth. I recall that he talked about. But you bring up a very important point which is all of the State Department -partment witnesses in particular and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador. Sunland took unbelievable meticulous notes. I would have dreamed for a witness like that. As a prosecutor her and it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that's based on contemporaneous notes gentlemen goes back. LESKO GO MR caster. 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 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 earns the country is corrupt and taxpayer dollars may be misspent ambassador. Volker testified that this hold on security assistance to your crane was not significant. Is that correct. Yes a number. Witnesses can also said the same thing for former US ambassador. You're to Ukraine. Maria von Bitch testified that in Ukraine and I quote corruption is not just prevalent but frankly is the system. Is that correct yes. All the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt. Mr Caster Ukraine energy company Burris Maa Holdings had a reputation patient in Ukraine as a corrupt company. Is that correct big time. According to New York Times Hunter Biden was part of a broader effort by Burris MMA MA to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations. Is that correct. The New Yorker also had a pretty extensive serve report on that. As well Obama's Deputy Assistant Obama's deputy assistant secretary of state. George can't testified that he raised concerns is directly to vice president. Biden's office about Hunter Biden Services. I'm Barista's board. Is that correct. Yes or no yes. Thank you the gentlewoman from Washington is recognized so Mr Goldman between the time that president trump put a hold on military aid to Ukraine and then release the aid. The president incident 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 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 review on Ukraine after the president froze the military aid because Ukraine had already met all of the corruption benchmarks in May of two thousand nineteen eighteen. Yes and everyone involved in Ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path and presidents Alinsky in particular and in addition to Ukraine having satisfied despite 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. Let's see actually advised that a White House meeting with presidents alinsky would help further and anti-corruption agenda correct oath anti-corruption agenda and and the aggression fighting aggression from Russia and in fact President Trump's budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in Ukraine. Now Mr Caster argues that president trump withheld military aid to Ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general but in both twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen. 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. I'm giving military aid to Ukraine twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen. But somehow not in two thousand nine hundred ninth so what changed. Joe Biden started running for president. President Vice President Biden's started running so this would add. The Muller report came out which did not even though it did not charge. The president at indicated implicated the 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. The 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 into his political rival. And you saw the clip where ambassador Sunlen picked up the phone. Call the called president trump. And then Mr Holmes asked him what. The president thought thought about Ukraine and quickly. What was Mr Scotland's answer? Mr Sunland said the president does not give a bleep about Ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. Meaning the Biden investigation. Mr Giuliani was pushing and by the way just to add that is a direct evidence. Conversation between President Trump and embassador sunland. On that day. There are many that we have not talked about on the minority so we know what president trump was interested in based on his words his actions and witness testimony. The gentlemen from Pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. Mr Caster. Can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistle blowers complain. 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 and a case like an advocate about what happened on the call references 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 happen able to piece together all those people and talking to all those people is important. And there's a lot of run out of time here. But there's you know there's a reference Lukashenko in the complaint where witnesses have told us. It's likely Shokhin Vitamin and Morrison's testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers very different reasons. Mister Brek Buell. The gentleman's time is six opening if he was on the call. I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida for five minutes. Mr Goldman beginning on and around the twenty fifth of July call through September. Would you agree that consistent with the testimony we 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. Gatien's not only were. They made aware but they were made aware either by president. Trump's proxy Rudy Giuliani or from President trump himself through embassador sunlen who spoke to Presidents Alinsky and Andre Earmark on September seventh and told them what president trump had confirmed to him that the aid was was conditioned on the investigation and by the end of August presidents landscape did in fact commit to making that statement on. CNN is that correct. That's right finally. The president's alinsky relented after months 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 Sunland told them that he ultimately agreed to go on television before the uh-huh before president trump got caught and released the aid. So am I correct. Mr Goldman that by September twenty fifth allegations that president trump was using military aid to pressure pressure Ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported. I'm sorry by what date September fifth. Yes well widely widely reported. There's certainly the aid. Being withheld was was widely reported and but September nine are investigative committees formally announced a Congressional investigation into the President President of these issues to the president about these issues and Mr Goldman. What Day did President Trump released the military aid two days after the investigations were announced and two days after the G? The Inspector General told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld. So then my correct that as the time line on the screen in front of US shows it wasn't until after the whistleblower complaint after the Washington Post report at after Congress launched the investigations that President trump finally released the aid. 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 or if he does support military assistant so much. Why then is he holding it up for more than two months? Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. Yes Mr Kara. I'm sorry California. Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Goldman my colleagues talking about the fact that the president apparently said and I quote no quid pro quo on September seventh in a call with embassador sunland. Mr Sure Goldman. Did you receive testimony about this September. Seven call yes. We receive testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little little complicated but that that that was a consistent. Refrain through all of the witnesses. Is that the president. Did say no quid pro. Let's try to clarify it. A little bit ambassador Sunland described that call to Mr Morrison that same day correct. That's right and Mr Morrison then reported it to ambassador Taylor correct. That's correct. Yes and both Mr Moore sent an ambassador. Taylor took notes of those discussions. They did where those notes outs produced to the committee. They were not produced to us but the witnesses said that they relied on their notes to provide their testimony that set of notes oates was blocked consistent with the presence direction. Correct and in his re citation to Mr Morrison Ambassador Sunland said that President trump trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo. That's right embassador. Sunland also said that too. Yes and Mr Goldman. What did the committee make of this? This fact 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 go ahead. I was just GonNa say what's what's even more important. Is that what he said. Immediately after that which is effectively conduct that amounts to a pretty create quid pro quo. He said there's no quid pro quo but you have to go to the microphone and make this announced. Let's talk about that. What did the committee make of the fact that according to embassador Taylor and Mr Morrison right after President Trump said no quid pro quo? President trump then told them Bassett or Sunland that Ukrainian presence Solanki would have to go to the microphone and announced the investigations of Vine and the two thousand sixteen election interference and that presidents and Lipsky. You should want to do that himself. That's right we had a number of different accounts of this and I think this is up on the boards. Here right I see that. Yes he ambassador. Taylor said that ambassador Mr Morrison said something similar. Their understandings of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo fractionally from the conduct from that actions. And we've talked a lot today about the words and that pressure and trump said no pressure no quid pro quo. Oh but as an investigator is 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 embassador sunlen. Do you recall Mr Morrison's reaction Mr. Mr Morrison said that he was shocked. I think and thinking feeling sinking feeling correct. And then he went and then talked to the lawyers. Here's the direction of Ambassador Bolton correct and Mr Goldman Ambassador Taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on Linski announcing the investigations and he testified that this was the logical crazy and wrong. Is that right that it was what Taylor testified to. Yes now my colleagues have also pointed out that on September ninth text message from sunland reflecting. The president has been crystal clear that there is no quid. Pro Quo Mr Goldman. Am I correct. That ambassador Sunland has now testified that prior prior to sending his text he himself came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations. Yes Ambassador Song Island 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 it kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that they're absolutely assuredly was as it related to the White House meeting and this September seventh call and the September nine text occurred after the press reports that is after the press reports that president trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of this political rival Zach. Correct yes and it also. This text occurred after ambassador. sunlen relayed president. Trump's message to presidents. Alinsky sqi Mr Goldman. The Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility. The president's assertion that there was us no quid pro quo. We received a lot of evidence. And all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. I recognize myself for five minutes. Lieutenant Colonel Kinman listened to the president's call and testified that when president trump asked Ukraine for a favor it wasn't the friendly request it was really a demand. I'm going to direct your attention to this slide about Lieutenant Colonel Vin. Men's testimony. Why did he say the president's favor was a demand he said because the power disparity between the United States as the greatest power in the in the world and Ukraine crane 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 presidents Alinsky could not rian reality? Say No am I correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because Ukraine has been then at war with Russia since Russia invaded five years ago and over. Thirteen thousand of the Ukraine. People have died is that correct yes and not only does the. US provide ten percent of their military budget but the United States is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support Ukraine rain. Europe actually gives four or five European Union gives. I think four times as much money as the United States overall to Ukraine so president trump knew that the Ukrainian president back was against the wall and presidents alinsky needed. US validation and support. Is that right now. According to the US ambassador order to the Ukraine and we have ambassador. Taylor's testimony up there. It wasn't until after ambassador. Sunland told the Ukrainians that there would be a quote. Stalemate stalemate end quote on the that's Alinsky agreed to announce the investigations that president trump was demanding. Correct that's right. Yes okay. And furthermore the committee heard testimony that the Ukrainians felt they had quote no choice but to but to comply with President. Trump's demands correct. That's right yes. Even after the aid was released in fact when asked in front of President trump in September hambur whether he felt pressured presidents Alinsky said quote. I'm sorry but I don't want to be involved to democratic open elections elections of the USA and quote is that that sounds right. If you're reading the quote yes okay now. The president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct conduct by pointing to statements from the Ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give in to president. Trump's demand did your investigative committees consider those statements statements by presidents Alinsky. We did and we found that. The statements of what is effectively a an extortion victim are not particularly securely relevant to the actual truth of the matter because presidents. Alinsky cannot in reality for the same reasons that he's he interpreted the request to be a demand and 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 in the United States. What one could almost say it's similar to a hostage testifying under duress? It is certainly a direct would be a good word so 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 still needed aid from the United States. Correct that's right and David. Holmes testified very I think persuasively about the importance of the White House meeting end of the relationship to Ukraine even after the aid was lifted including pointing. Today when President Putin and presidents Alinsky met to discuss the war in the East I saw the evidence is clear. The president trump knew. He had the power to force Ukraine's hand and took advantage of that desperation and abuse the powers of his office by using using our tax payer dollars basically to get what he wanted right. Yes and what's really important here and I think it has to be clarified. Is that the president. The evidence showed wrote that the president directly said to ambassador Sunland that there was a quid pro quo with the security assistance. And there's been some debate debate and discussion about that but that is one thing that the evidence shows based on the Morrison testimony the Taylor testimony the Sunland 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 gentleman from Virginia Mister. Klenge Mr Cassar did the Democrats impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions. Yes it did. How many times were you able to find a service based on hearsay we? We went through and counted over fifty instances of Geeky facs. Can you give us some of the examples of hearsay being relied on by Jordi to make their case. You know one one of the a lot of the information for example that Ambassador Taylor was communicating He very diligently recorded notes about what some the various officials told him. But it was about you know is one in two steps removed from the actual fact. And that's that's the problem with say it's a whisper down the lane situation and if some of the people that are doing the whisper predisposed not like president trump. Then then then what what. They're whispering down. The Lane becomes even more distorted. Did you also find instances where the Democrats report US witnesses speculations and presumptions and and the biggest one of course and this is sort of become the big daddy of the hearing his is a Hanlin presuming that that the the aid was tied to the investigations because as he engaged in a back and forth Mr Turner nobody on the planet. Nobody on the planet told him that was the case. 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. Well for example. Colonel Women testified that when he was listening to the call had prepared talking points and 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 is safe to say. There's another other reason. The President Skeptical of relying on some of these individuals to carry out his foreign policy goals like rooting out corruption in Ukraine. I think I think the president is is skeptical of of of the interagency bureaucracy. That may be why he instead relied on secretary. Perry Ambassador Volker Ambassador Sunlen correct and by the all three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of The US government. Would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in Ukraine to exempt or remove say a political supporter certainly would be. Would it be inappropriate to remove a political critical opponent correct. Yeah would it be inappropriate to remove the son of political opponent from any investigation evolving Ukrainian capsule this all goes to the heart of Bias Gentleman Yields Back Miss. Courtesy of Mr. My Republican colleagues has suggested there is no direct. Evidence is that true you know. There's there's a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay. Indeed they just not true now. I you don't want to relive a law school evidence class instead at like to go over some examples with you. Please me direct or indirect evidence ambassador Sunland Mysterio Volker both testified that on May twenty third two thousand nineteen president trump told him to quote talk to Rudy Rudy about Ukraine. Is that direct evidence. Yes technically not technically but yes thank you. And then we have the Memorandum of the Twenty Th July twenty fifth call between President Trump in presidents Alinsky. Is that direct evidence that is so there is direct evidence the president trump as presence Alinsky to look into these investigations and directed both prison Selena and US officials to talk to his personal turney about this. This Gatien's correct. Yes and if I could just jump in here on the twenty th July twenty fifth 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. Twenty fifth call. There is absolutely absolutely a quid. Pro Quo when presidents Alinsky 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 and I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and we'll work on the investigation that is quid pro quo. That presidents Alinsky was informed of 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 but 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 particular. We're focusing on indirect. Evidence is well. Let's let's give more examples. We also heard testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July twenty. Five call is their testimony. Money direct evidence of what happened during that call. Yes although I would say the call record is better evidence than there the day after that call David. Holmes testified defy that in July twenty six. He overheard the president. Ask Ambassador Sunland whether presence Alinsky was going to do the investigation. Is that direct evidence. It is direct evidence and after the July twenty five call record was released. The president got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential potential political opponents family. The Biden's is that direct evidence. Yes it is his own words now that seems to be like. That's a lot of direct evidence. Mr Goldman wizar- sir. Other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these well. There's a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because does 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. Say That would be in court co-conspirator statement and that would be admissible. So let's not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence that I understand but but it is very important because anything. Mr Giuliani says. Anything Ambassador Sunland says anything any of these people say is not hearsay and would be permitted did under the federal rules of evidence. Of course we follow the federal rules of evidence. Here which even more lenient. But that's an important point well. Is there anything wrong. Mr Goldman with drawing inferences this from circumstances courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence since shows so when ambassador sunlen draws inferences from the fact that there's 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 across the country. Mr Naggus. Thank you Mr Chairman and As we approach the ninth hour of this hearing I wanNA thank both Mr Goldman and Mr Castro for 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 Russia interfered in our two thousand sixteen election so Mr Goldman after two years of investigation special counsel concluded that Russia interfered in our elections in quotes sweeping. Systemic fashion. Is that right yes Mr Casters. At right yes and Mr Goldman Mike. Correct that zero intelligence. The agencies have publicly stated that Ukraine attacked our elections in two thousand sixteen. Is that right. That's right I don't even think that the minority is alleging that the Ukrainian government government systematically in any meaningful way interfered. I think this is just based on a couple of news. ARTICLES MR CASS correct. The president had a good faith belief. There were some significant Ukrainian official. I hear you and you've said that previously I guess I'm asking you to the Ukrainian government. There are no intelligence agencies in the United States that have publicly stated that Ukraine is attacked our elections right. That's you're not testifying. 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 River was quote. Not only a conspiracy theory. It is completely debunked President Trump's homeland security adviser. That said those words that you see on the screen on my right right. Is that right. Mr Goldman yes. I saw that interview Mr Castro. He saw that interview. I'm aware of it 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 our elections. Is that right Mr Goldman. That is absolutely correct Mr Caster. It's correct but thank you no. Witnesses testified in support reclaim reclaim my time. NOSSA 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 two thousand sixteen elections. That's because Russia wants to deflect blame for its own evolvement. That is correct. We had evidence of that. And I think that it's very important to emphasize what is is evidence. And what is pure media reports or speculation because there is no evidence in our investigation. That Ukraine interfered heard in the two thousand sixteen 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 for Mr Holmes as 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 WANNA start getting into intelligence matters that the Ukraine government did not in fear in our election in two thousand sixteen. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated in propagated by the Russian security services. Themselves you recall that testimony Mr Goldman. I do 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 his Doctor Hill said their military assistance was put on hold so given your testimony and given your swell well Mr Castro it strikes me that there are in fact four uncontested fax I. Russia attacked are two thousand sixteen elections. Several intelligence agencies have independently confirmed that. This is true. Second Ukraine did not attack are two thousand sixteen elections. There's no absolutely no evidence that this baseless as lois consist of this baseless conspiracy theory third. There's evidence that Russia perpetrated the allegation that Russia that Ukraine interfered and our two thousand sixteen elections and finally that Russia benefits 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 Belgium's community agrees with these four conclusions. the intelligence community definitely agrees with one and two Dr Hill testified Two three As well as there's a public statement from Mr Putin and yes certainly. The witnesses emphasized for that Russia benefits from this and we saw in in in my opening statement. President Putin's comment that it's good now. That Ukraine is 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. Miss Macbeth is recognized. Thank you MR chairman. Mr Goldman I wanNA follow up on. Just one part of president. Trump's conduct that. Ah Excuse me. I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The investigative committees found evidence that president trump intimidated threatened threatened and tampered with perspective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry correct and Mr Goldman. It is a federal crime time to intimidate or to seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress. Is that right yes. There's 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 that is correct and 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 V device for valor. He was attacked for doing his duty. To tell the truth to the American compete correct. He did his duty by testifying. Yes president trump also attacked other trump administration officials who who testified before the intelligence committee including Lieutenant Colonel Alexander s been men who is the director for Ukraine in on the National Security Council and Jennifer Williams the Special Adviser on Europe and Russia with the office of the vice president. Am I right. That is right. Yes Mr Goldman. I think another troubling example of this is the president's treatment of ambassador. Yamana Vich when when you question Ambassador Yamana which you asked her about the president's remarks that she would and I quote go through some things she told you that that remark sounded like a threat. Is that right Yes in July twenty fifth call. That's when president trump. I'm sad that Mr Stanton thank you Mr Chairman. We've heard today from some suggesting that this process how 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. Yes and all the documents and were they allowed to ask questions of every witness. The minority was given equal time to the majority for every single interview deposition. We're hearing that we did. And the minority were allowed to call their own witnesses to the life hearings. Is that correct. They were also yes and they they did they and they got three witnesses. They were also allowed to call their own 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 surgical and why did the investigative committees decide to conduct initial depositions behind closed doors 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 Sunlen who first of all the day before his deposition -sition. 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 and I think frankly part of the reason why Ambassador Volker and ambassador Sunland it's public hearing testimony was so different from their deposition. Testimony is because the the initial depositions were enclosed session before we then released all all the transcripts to the public and this is an unprecedented because in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries there were either closed or depositions or grand jury proceedings at the beginning of the inquiries 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 was used by a number of committees for the past decade or so and for clarity president trump has receive all procedural protections afforded to other presidents facing impeachment. Is that correct. That is right in the judiciary committee. He's had all of the options are our inquiry. Was Not the Judiciary Committee's investigation that is where the president's ability to present evidence silence 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 houses impeachment inquiry correct. Yes and as president declined the invitation. That's my understanding vice twice thus far yes in fact the president on only refuse 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 inquiries subpoenaed to the White House. Yes not a single one. Not a single doc and the president also directed all of his agencies to refuse to repeat to produce documents. Is that right. That is also true. Based on the president's order federal agencies have ignored more than seventy specific requests or demands for records from the committees is that correct. Yes and if I could just add this would quickly. This would ordinarily be document case if you were prosecuting. This case you'll be basing racing basing it on the documents so the fact that those documents are being withheld is quite significant. And it's it's quite remarkable that we built the record. We have on the witnesses. The the president's order to obstruct Congress didn't just extend documents at the president's direction. Witnesses also refuse to testify. Is that right. 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 bright between testimony and documents. That's correct and is it also true that when witnesses chose to follow the laws and testify. The president denied those witnesses access to the documents and they needed to properly prepare for their testimony for some of them. That's correct Dina's recognized Mister Gold. Goldman is it fair to say that president trump trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek to completely obstructed impeachment inquiry undertaken by this House that is corrected is unprecedented and in fact pursuant to President Trump's order twelve executive branch officials refuse to testify as part of the house impeachment inquiry ten of whom defied congressional subpoenas Venus. Am I right. Given the president's sweeping directive not to cooperate with Congress did the investigative committees believed that there was any chance that other administration officials would come forward if subpoenaed no it became clear that the president was trying to block everything and block. Everyone and eventually early. They came up with an alternative reason to To write in a Pinion to prevent people from coming which is quite a An aggressive of view that 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 have gone to court. Did you decide side not to go to court. We thought about it a lot because obviously there are additional witnesses and we want this to be as thorough investigation but as you can see from Deutsche Bank case or the mcgann 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. That exact case the mcgann case because we're all intimately aware of it on April twenty second. This judiciary committee served a subpoena for testimony. Two White House counsel Don mcgann and after mcgann refused to testify on May twenty first. The committee filed a lawsuit on August the seventh 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 APP congressional investigations. Because as the judge wrote and I put up on the screen quote presidents are not kings as you know mcgann has appealed and a hearing is set for January 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 heels court ruling for many months to come. It's quite possible that it could be several more months and then there may be. The Supreme Court exactly began may appeal appeal to the Supreme Court and conceivably. That could take another many months year. More depends on whether it's this term or gets pushed over to the next term given this. This delay illustrated by the mcgann example. Specifically would you agree that if we go to court to Enforce enforce the investigative committee subpoenas. We could face another months or years long. Delay to hear testimony absolutely and there's an ongoing threat because the president is trying to cheat to win the next election. It's not a 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 it ended is obstructing an investigation into himself and the urgency is not just about our elections but also our national security. Am I right. That is a critical component to it. and Mr Armstrong. Mr Casper is been a long day in a long couple months. You've been in the middle of this and I know previously. You wanted to say something so thank you have resisted my my willingness to be athletic here in the afternoon but I want to say a few things. First of all the the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee submitted a number of subpoenas and we never got a vote and it was a motion to table at disposed of them ranking member. Nunez sent a letter on November eighth asking for witnesses remember Collins sent a letter on December sixth asking for witnesses. Some of these witnesses would've touched at heart of the issue that our members are concerned about. And that is you know we're Ukrainians trying to interfere with our elections. I mean this is a fact that is his mentor. IUS Of investigation the Ukrainians ought to investigate it and to the extent happened here in the US we ought to be investigating it and so to the extent. You know that hasn't happened. Republicans have attempted to do that during this process. So like to say that and I have a couple of other things storm strong. A ambassador consider Sandland is relied on and he went from a witness that was not very favorable to very favorable at his hearing and one of the one of the remarkable statements at his hearing was that everyone was in the loop types this email to pump compared to the secretary and the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone was in the lube are not conclusive -clusive at all talks about the statement. That was going back and forth during the early part of August first of all Volcker said all along that he didn't think the statement was a good idea. Volcker and your mack toyed around with the statement and ultimately both both sides decided added that it wasn't it wasn't a plan so they they didn't do it And so the fact. That silent is emailing the secretary talking about this statement And so forth. It's just this doesn't show that everyone's in the loop ambassador Hale testified US 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 whole secretariat that alters his email l. and so it's not emailing the secretary of State is not quite as simple as I think. Embassador Sunlen I made. It seem here so I just wanted to address that We talked a couple of times about the reliability of George cans notes One of embassador volkers assistance Catherine Kroft testified in news rather startling piece of testimony. You you. She was asked whether Kant's notes would be reliable sort of a typical question. Everyone expecting answer to be yes except she said No. I don't think cans notes would be reliable So I think that's important to put on the record that there is evidence that you you know. Perhaps Mr Kent felt some emotions about about some of these issues and his notes at least according to one State Department official might in fact be reliable the CNN interview that there's been discussion about okay. The there is discussion Russian about possibly doing a statement which was canned there was. Maybe there was discussion of a CNN interview but we did not really get to the bottom of that that that was sort of this fact that was out there in Basseterre Taylor testified that he was worried. It would happen but we didn't. We didn't really talk to anyone that that could tell us precisely what was going to occur in the CNN interview and whether Presidents Alinsky was actually going to do it. If you look back at the statement that your Mac and vulgar. We're talking about your Mac wasn't comfortable doing it and so when it comes to the CNN interview. It's possible your Mac. What are the president's Alinsky not to say what people thought he was going to say so anyway? I'm sorry Mr Armstrong Powell is rank you Mr the chairman Mr Goldman. It's been confirmed that president trump's campaign actively sought Russia's interference in twenty six sixteen elections. Correct a special counsel Mueller said that President Trump did invite them and solicit them to Hillary Clinton's e mails ultimately the trump campaign. I think it was welcomed. Knew about the interference welcome did and utilized it right and in two thousand sixteen trump said Russia if you're listening within five hours. Russian intelligence has targeted the emails of trump's opponent and let me just point out the president doesn't mention corruption. Does he Mr Goldman. No he doesn't as I said it was it. It became quite clear in all of his comments. And all of the other witnesses that any mention of corruption or anti-corruption was really meant and the evidence showed this was really a a euphemism for the investigations correct and trump is not only asking president trump. Excuse me as 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 hi now. He's inviting three countries to help him and his reelection campaign and Mr Goldman any reason to believe he wouldn't ask any other governments for example Consuegra. Correct I mean at this point. He is shown not only a willingness to do it multiple times but I think more importantly really 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 than you. There is no reason why you won't do it again. If you've already done it exactly I mean. We saw Giuliani and Ukraine. Just three days ago and last night I wanNA 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 final between president trump and my daughter. So I'm very worried about that 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 going threats that continuing risk that the president poses yes For the same reasons that we just discussed and I think the June an of television interview with George Stephanopoulos this year where the president indicated that he would once again welcome. Foreign interference is another data. Point to understand Dan where it is and I would just say to Mr Russian Taller who was questioning. 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 on his own platform? Escobar's recognized so Mr Goldman. I'd like your help in responding to some of the claims that my Republican colleagues have made today the president and his allies. Say say that there was no quid. Pro Quo in other words. They claim that the president wasn't withholding the aid exchange for the manufacturer 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. There's common sense against that 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 it's online on September seventh said the same thing thank you. President trump knew he had leverage over President Zielinski and in fact David David. Holmes testified. That ambassador Sunlen told President trump that president Zilenski will quote. Do anything you ask him. Is that correct correct. That is what I what embassador Sunland said the or. Actually that's what president trump ambassador Sunland said to president trump apologies. You testified earlier. Hear that evidence shows that the Ukrainians in fact did know that the aid was being withheld. My colleagues continue to say they're witness continue to say 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 that correct. 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 and then they they realized at that point that the investigations were dependent on the aid. But they're in addition. There is a lot of evidence that they knew before it became public on August. Twenty eight 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 colleagues. Also make much about the fact that the was finally released but isn't it true that it wasn't released until the president got caught. It wasn't released until the president it got caught and all of the money didn't actually get to Ukraine in this in that fiscal year. And you all in Congress had to pass another law to allow for the money to get to Ukraine. Thank you earlier today. Mister Kessler attempted to explain away the president's request for foreign interference in our election by it claiming that the president had three concerns that number one. The president was concerned about Ukraine corruption. That number two. He was concerned -cerned about burden-sharing with Europe and number three he brought up the debunked conspiracy theory about the about Ukraine election interference. which by the way that last point we know is a Russian talking point? Mr Goldman did the investigative committees consider those three explanations nations. And if so what does the evidence show about. Whether President Trump's request was actually motivated by those concerns. It's a very good question. There are two things things to that. Were discussed here today. One is evidence and one is assertions and opinions based on the evidence. There is no evidence to support any of those three 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 automating factor. There's no evidence that his concern about other European countries. Giving enough money motivated him. And they're certainly not a reasonable belief given all of the evidence that he believed that Ukraine interfered in our two thousand sixteen elections the law. Fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. If you haven't yet please get on facebook and twitter until your friends and followers about the law fair podcast and give us a rating and review. Wherever you listen to us you can also purchase l'affaire Affair Swag at W._W._w.? Dot The law fair store DOT COM. This episode was edited by Me Elena Kagan and until next time. Thanks for listening.

Coming up next