Would be lifted. Without hesitation, senator johnson says, President Trump immediately denies the arrangement existed and he started cursing. And he said, no way. President trump said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that . And senator johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reaction here was adamant, vehement, and angry. Senator johnson goes on to say as of october 31st, said youre going to like my decision in the has very important context on what the president s state of mind was, at least as he fully expecteou released after the 55 day pause. Right . Yes, absolutely. I want to thank you all for 75 minutes today. Been talking for approximately my wife thanks you as well. She likes when i do the talking when shes not around. Time permitting, four or five distinct areas. Theres a lot of facts the American People have not heard and theres a lot of contradictions in certain peoples testimony. Is that fair to say, mr. Castor . And id like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador volcker, ambassador sondland, and secretary perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people. Is that correct . Yes. And the democrats report would like u these three individuals were engaged in some sort of kabal or some sort of nefarious venture, but thats not true, is it . No. 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 . Thats right, and with the highest integrity. Thats right. I think everyone testified that ambassador volcker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service. Across the board, all the witnesses, including ambassador yovanovitch talked about integrity that ambassador volker brings to the table. But theres a lot of people with firsthand knowledge that we didnt talk to, is that correct . Yes. Now, i want to talk about the president s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid. Is that correct . He is deeply skeptical of sending u. S. Taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt because its good as kissing it goodbye. And is that something new he believes or is that something he ran on . Thats something hes ran on. Implemented policies as soon as he became president. Haile, the third ranking official told us about the overall review of all foreign aid programs and described it almost as euro based evaluation. Right. And you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark sandy, who is a career official at omb. Is that right . Correct. And he had some information about the reason for the pause. Is that true . I ink that he had conversation with an individual named rob blair and mr. Blair provided some insight into the reasons for the pause. Sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us a firsthand account inside of omb that the reason for the pause related to the president s concern about european burden sharing in the region. And, in fact, in his sations, the president s conversations with senator johnson, he mentioned his concerns about burden sharing. And i believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chancellor of germany, and in fact, the whole first part of the july 24th transcript, he was talking about burden sharing and wanting the europeans to do more. Senator johnson was, and President Trump, they were pretty candid and they believed that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Now, theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid about feeling pressure from President Trump. And isnt it true that he stated over and over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump . Is that true . Yeah. He said it consistently. He said it in the United Nations september 25th. He said it, you know, in three more news availabilities over the course of the period, including last week. I want to change subjects and talk about something that professor turley raised last week, and that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And youre an experienced congressional investigator. Professor turley, hes no trump supporter. Thats right. He is a democrat. Thats right. But professor turley cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned. Is that correct . Correct. Have with an impeachment is partisan rancor because nobody will accept the result on the other side. Our Democrat Friends have all the sudden become originalist and citing the founders and their intent routinely as part of this impeachment process. I think that goes, whether this constitutes book bribery. Theres case law in bribery and im no Supreme Court lawyer or scholar or advocate, but, you know, theres new case law with the mcdonald case about what constitutes an official act and that certainly hasnt been, you know, addressed in this space and i think professor turley mentioned it. Right, and i think professor turley said that a meeting certainly does not constitute an official fact. I think its the mcdonald case that goes to that. Professor turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquiry is unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed frequently. I think we saw that in Lieutenant Colonel vindmans deposition. There was some. We were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Right. Very basic things, like who, what, when, where. And instead and id say too, this rapid. Were in day 76, and its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly. Especially when the stakes are this high, because any congressional investigation of any consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two interest and how theyre going to respond to them. We learned with the gudlak dowdy probe back in 2017 and in december, finally got a witness and it was the following spring in the probe after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war, we reached a deal with doj where we went down to doj and they gave us access to documents and access to north of 800,000 pages but they made us come down there. They made us go into a skiff. And these documents werent classified. And, you know, it wasnt until may and june of that year that we started this process when the investigation had been ongoing anatsappnting, obviously, we all wish there was an easy button. But congressional investigation. I think it took six months before the first document was even produced and like you said, you had to go down there and review it in camera and then going back even further to fast and furious. The investigation of the death of a Border Patrol agent. We issued subpoenas. Sent them subpoenas, i think, in february of 2011. And we had a hearing in june with experts about proceeding the contempt. What does it take to go to contempt . That was the first time in june that we got any production and the production was largely publicly available information. And we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the justice deme working with whistleblowers who were providing us documents, and chairman ice at the time in tob that was to the Justice Department. And so the investigation had been ongoing most of the year. We were talking to whistleblowers. We were doing interviews and we were doing our best to get documents out of the Justice Department through that channel, but these things take time. Not 76 days. And if you truly want to uncover every fact, as you should in an impeachment, you agree . You have to go to court sometimes. And enforce your subpoenas and here, my understanding is we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information. Will you please provide us with thats great, but you have to back it up with something. Isnt that correct . Theres a number of ways to enforce your request. The fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is you rarely get what youre asking for, unless and until the alternative is less palatable for the respondent. So, you know, you issue a subpoena and youre trying to get documents. One technique you can use is try to talk to the document custodian or somebody in the affairs function about what documents exist. Chairman used to have these document production status hearings where you bring in fishes fish fishes officials to get the y serving the interest. You can saber rattle about holding somebody in contempt. Oftentimes, witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward, when you attach a contempt proceeding or a prospective contempt proceeding to their name, a lot of times, that changes the outme with couple of steps across the way. You could schedule a contempt proceeding. After you schedule the contempt proceeding, you could hold the door open for documents or interviews and then push it off. You could go through at the committee level. And these are all sort of Milestone Events which historically are unpalatable or less palatable for the st tand once you get the ball rolling, you know, the probe, we didnt get a witness and it was Andrew Mccabe in for, it was a couple of months but once we get Deputy Director mccabe in, a couple of weeks later, we got director comey, chief of staff. A couple of weeks later, the witnesses start. Once you get the ball rolling, again, not always 100 of the terms. Somtimes deal with agency imes lin camera, but once you get the ball rolling, usually, it leads to positive results and historically, has allowed the congress to do its work. And were any of those things done here . No. In fact, they decided, were not going to subpoena certain people that are important. Is that fair to say . And were not going to go to court and enforce them. So these people, these folks caught in the interbranch struggle. And thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One of the concerning things. Dr. Cufferman who has been described by dr. Fiona hill and a number of witnesses as a solid citizen, a good witness, he filed a lawsuit in the face of the subpoena and a judge was assigned to a judge leon. The issue cufferman raised was slightly different than don cufferman filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. He wasnt asking the court to come testify. On the contrary, he was seeking the courts guidance to facilitate his cooperation. And ultimately, the committee withdrew the subpoena. Which raises questions about whether the committees really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead, the committees chosen, the Intelligence Committee, has and his system. I think they rely 600 times in their report. I tell you what i did on this yesterday, i opened the democrat report. I did a control f. And sondlands name shows up, i think, 611 times. And in fairness, its going to be double counted because in a sentence and a footnote, thats two. But in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondlands relied on big time. And i think dr. Hill testified that she, at some point, confronted him about his actions. The record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and doesnt, you know, he didnt share the same view. And theres a lot of instances of that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing, another witness recalls another. Is that correct . Sondland as a witness, hes a bit of an enigma. Lets just say it that way. He was pretty certain in his deposition that the Security Assistance wasnt linked to anything. And then he submitted an addendum. I call that the pretzel sentence. And even in the addendum or supplement or whatever its called, you know, its talk of him and her, anyway. Sondland ends with, i presumed. So it wasnt really firsthand information. Right. We dont have a lot of firsthand information here. Is that correct . On certain facts, we dont. We have firsthand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. A lot of firsthand information, although all cic july 10th meeting. There are, you know, episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account. But the investigation hasnt been able to reveal, you know, firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. And i think weve already talked about this, the ambassador sondland would presume things, assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand. Is that correct . It started with his role with the ukraine. A lot of people at the state department wondered why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged in issues relating to the ukraine. And there are answers for that. Ukraine is an aspirant to join the eu. Theres a lot of reasons and mr. Turner explored this really well at the opening hearing. But we asked ambassador sondland. He said he did a tv interview on the 26th of july where he said president s given me a lot of assignments and the president assigned me ukraine, so forth. But then when we asked him in a deposition, he conceded he was in fact spinning. The president never assigned him to ukraine. He was exaggerating. I think at the public hearings, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isnt a note taker. He, in fact, he said, i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Id say it this way. Ambassador taylor walked us through his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk. A notebook in his coat pocket of the suit and brought it with us and he showed us. So consequently when ambassador these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland, on the other hand, was very clear that, on the first hand, he did not have access to state department records. While he said that at the public hearing, simultaneously, the state department issued a tweet, i think, or a statement at least saying that wasnt true. Nobody is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails. Still a state department employee. He can go, you know, he does have access to records but he stated he didnt. And he stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes. And he conceded he doesnt have recollections of a lot of these issues and, you know, we sort of made a list of them and i think at the hearing, i called it the trifecta of unreliability. Yeah. And youre t i think other witnesses took co . Yeah. Tim morrison, talked about instances where ambassador land the warsaw meeting september 21st and fiona hill talked about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, youre correct. Ambassador reker. Yes, he said he was a problem. Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said he might be an intelligence risk, is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendencn telephone calls. Which obviously, can be monitored by the bad guys. Was spinning certain things and he admitted that. He admitted he exaggerated. Also, when it comes to his communications with the president , we try to get him to list all the communications to the president. I think he gave us six and then when he was back, he walked us through each communication w and by the way, it was about christmas party, when the president of finland was here and then congresswoman spier asked him the same question in the open hearing and he said he talked to the president. So the record is mixed. I think my time is up. Bou thank you both, yield back. Gentleman, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . I move to recess pursuant to clause 108. Gentlemen, move to recess for how long . 30 minutes, sir. 30 minutes. Privileged motion. It was not debatable. All in favor, say aye. Aye. No. No, not agreed to. Role call requested. The clerk calls the role m. No. Miss jackson lee . No. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Johnson of georgia . So more of the procedural delays and issues brought up. The idea of a 30 minute recess. Demos republicans ready to take one. Jeff bennett. Those who dont watch these sort of things, why is a recess such hey just wanted a break in the proceedings. Republicans did, to offer a reset. Sometimes what happens during those breaks is you have lawmakers come out and they talk to us reporters to offer their theory of the case so far. And to offer their take on the proceedings. Whats interesting is that you heard the republican counsel in this case try to establish Gordon Sondland as being an unreliable witness. You heard Steven Castor saying hes something of an enigma. The reason that matters is because hes really the only fact witness that had direct interaction with President Trump surrounding this entire ukraine controversy so, you saw republicans try to take the extra step to undercut his credibility and also openly lamented how it is that democrats havent interviewed more key players in all of this mike pompeo. Thats because Trumps Administration prevented the key players have providing testimony. That potentially could be articles of impeachment in itself. Thats right. That would speak to obstruction of congress. You heard daniel goldman, the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee tick through that. That the president s attempts and chairman nadler speaking now. Kick it back. We should n w hes doing an event at the white house and well get some of his early comments on that Inspector General report today looking at the 2016 russia investigation. So well be standing by for that. In the meantime, back to the the hearing. President trumps requested to ukraine earlier this year. Yes, when Vice President biden pressured the ukrainian president to remove the corrupt prosecutor general, he was doing consensus as part of u. S. Policy, the entire European Union supported that. The imf supported that. The imf which also gave the loans he was referring to and so he did that as part of the entire international communitys consensus. And when President Trump is asking for this investigation of joe biden, all of the witnesses that had nothing to do with and Vice President bidens request had no personal political benefit whereas President Trumps request did . Yes, in fact, 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 Burisma Company which was on the board of. Mr. Goldman, can you explain exactly what happened with the phone records obtained by the Intelligence Committee . Yes, thank you. I would like to set the record straight on that. This is a very basic and usual people involved in a scheme or suspected to be involved in a sc seek their records. And just to be very clear, this is meta data. It is only call to, call from and length. It is not the content of the calls or the text messages. So theres no content. Theres no risk of invading any communications with lawyers or journalists or attorney client. None of that exists and there are no risks to that. So what we did is for the people, several of the people we had investigated and subpoenaed and who were alleged to be part of the scheme, we got call records so that we could corroborate some of their testimony or figure out maybe theres Additional Communications that we were unaware of. What we then did is we took the call records and matched it up with important events that occurred during this scheme and we start to see if there are patterns because call records can be quite powerful circumstantial evie. This case, it just so happened that people who were involved in the President Trumps scheme were communicating with the president s lawyer who was also involved in the scheme, a journalist, staff member of congress and another member of congress. We did not seek in any way, shape or form to do an investigation on anyone, a member of congress or staff member of congress. It just happened to be that they were in communication with people involved in the president s scheme. Everything you did was basically Standard Operating Procedure for a well run investigation . Every investigation in ten years i did, probably we got call records. Thank you, mr. Goldman, did white House Counsel make his was that view . We never heard from the white House Counsel, other than the letter which basically just said we will not at all cooperate with this inveat