Sure presidents Olinsky to investigate former v.p. Biden witnesses who testified in the inquiry have denied having awareness of criminal activity or even an impeachable offense on the key question of the president's state of mind there is no clear evidence that President Trump acted with malicious intent overall at best the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay presumptions and speculation there are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record facts that could be interpreted in different ways to paraphrase To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof that's not me saying that that is Professor Turley So let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable of ski scheme this is President Trump's phone call with Selenski for which the National Security Council and the White House situation room staff prepared a call summary according to testimony from Tim Morris and at the n.s.c. This summary was accurate and complete and as the staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vinland testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves I'll make a few points that seem to have gone under noticed the call summary reflects absolutely no pressure or conditionality resident Selenski vocalize no concerns with the subject matters discussed and there is no indication of bribery. Or sion or other illegal conduct. On the call the call summary shows President Trump and President Selenski engaged in pleasantries and cordiality calls some reveals laughter Simply put the call is not the sinister mob shakedown that some Democrats have described President Trump raises concerns about European allies paying their fair share in security assistance to Ukraine a concern that President Trump would continue to raise both publicly and privately there is no discussion on the call I repeat no discussion on the call about the upcoming 2020 a lecture or security sectors assistance to Ukraine beyond the call summary the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the 2 participants on the call President Alinsky has said he felt no pressure on the call on September 25th that the United Nations he said we had I think a good phone call it was normal nobody pushing on October 6th president Lansky said I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed 4 days later on October 10th residents of Lenski said again there's nothing wrong with a call no blackmail this is not corruption it was just a call and just recently in Time magazine President Lansky said never talk to the president from his ition of a quid pro quo because President Selenski would be the target of any alleged who'd pro quo scheme his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight he is in fact the supposed victim here other senior Ukrainian government officials confirmed President Selenski statements. Foreign Minister pre-strike Ghose said on September 21st I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure all Xander Danny look who was then secretary of Ukraine's national security and defense council. Basher Bill Taylor on the night of the call that the Ukrainian government was not the stirred by anything on the call. President Trump of course has also said that he did not pressure President Selenski on September 25th President Trump said there was no pressure when asked if he wanted President Selenski to do more to investigate the former v.p. President Trump responded No I want to do whatever he can what every He can do in terms of corruption because corruption is massive That's what he should do several witnesses attested to the president's concerns about Ukrainian corruption the initial readouts of the July 25th call from both the Ukrainian government and the State Department raised no concerns all those 10 a colonel of Inman noted concerns those concerns were not shared by National Security Council leadership they were not shared by General Keith Kellogg who listened on the call to General Kellogg said in a statement I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call I had and have no concerns Lieutenant Colonel women superior to Morrison testified that he was concerned the call would leak and be misused in Washington's political process but he did not believe that anything discussed on the call was illegal or improper much has also been made about President Trump's reference on the July 25th call to Hunter Biden's position on the board of Barisan. A corrupt Ukrainian energy company and the actions of certain Ukrainian officials in the run up to the 2016 election Democrats dismiss these comparisons conspiracy theories to suggest that the president has no legitimate reason other than his own political interests to raise these issues with President Selenski the evidence however shows that there are legitimate questions about both issues with respect to Barisan. Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that the company had a reputation for corruption the company was founded by me Collazo cesky served as Ukraine's minister of ecology and natural resources when so cesky served in that role his company Barisan received will expiration licenses without public options resume a brought 100 Biden on to its board of direction or of directors according to The New York Times as part of a broader effort by Barisan to bring in well connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations back not just by Don't mess to Ukrainian forces by officials in the Obama administration George Kent testified about these efforts under Biden reportedly receive between 50000 and $83000.00 a month as compensation for his position on Barisan his board at the time that Hunter Biden joined the board his father the former v.p. Was the Obama administration's point person for Ukraine Ivan has no specific corporate governance expertise and we don't believe he speaks Ukrainian or Russian We don't believe he moved there so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what. The Washington Post wrote at the time of Biden's appointment to Barisan his board it looked nepotistic at best and the Washington Post said The Washington Post nefarious at worst according to The Wall Street Journal anti corruption activists in Ukraine also raise concerns that the former v.p. Son received money from asking and worried that that would mean so cesky would be protected and not prosecuted witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted Hunter Biden's role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest lieutenant colonel of Inman testified that Hunter Biden did not appear qualified to serve on Barisan his board witnesses testified that Hunter Biden's role on the board was a legitimate concern to raise in fact George can explain that in 2015 he raised the concern to the office of former Vice President Biden at Hunter Biden's role on Barisan his board presented a potential conflict of interest however Hunter Bunz role did not change and former Vice President Biden continued to lead u.s. Policy in Ukraine on this record there is a legitimate basis for President Trump who have concern about Hunter Biden's role on board the prospect that some senior Ukrainian officials worked against President Trump in the run up to the 2016 election draws an even more visceral reaction from most Democrats let me say very very clearly that election interference is not binary I'm not saying that it was Ukraine and not Russia I'm saying that both countries and work to influence an election. A systemic ordinated Russian interference effort does not mean that some Ukrainian officials some Ukrainian officials did not work to oppose President Trump's candidacy did not make statements against President Trump during the election ambassador Volcker testified in his public hearing that it is possible for more than one country to seek influence in u.s. Elections Dr Hill testified likewise at her public hearing contemporaneous news articles in 2016 noted how President Trump's candidacy led key vhs wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before intervene however indirectly in a u.s. Election in August 26th seen the Ukrainian ambassador to the Us published an op ed in The Hill criticizing candidature on other senior Ukrainian officials called Candidate trump a clown and other words they allege that he challenge the very values of the free world one prominent Ukrainian parliamentarian explained that the majority of Ukraine's political figures were on Hillary Clinton's side a January 27000 Politico article lays out in more detail efforts by the Ukrainian government officials to oppose president trumps candidacy the article notes how you crane work to sabotage the Trump campaign by publicly questioning his fitness for office the article details how woman name Alexandra Chalupa a Ukrainian American contractor paid by the d.n.c. And working with the d.n.c. And the Clinton campaign traded information and leads about the Trump campaign with the staff at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington. Explained how the Ukrainian Bisi worked directly with reporters to point them in the right direction. Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry testified that the allegation of Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election was appropriate to examine ambassador Volcker testified that he thought it was fine investigate allegations about 2016 influence Ambassador Taylor said for example that the allegations surprised and disappointed him on this record I do not believe that one could conclude that President Trump had no legitimate basis to raise a concern about efforts by Ukrainians to influence the 2016 election let me now turn to the 1st assertion that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Selenski as a way of pressuring him to investigate the former v.p. Here it is important to note Ukraine's long profound history of endemic corruption several witnesses in the inquiry have testified about these problems ambassador Marie Yvonne of each for example said Ukraine's corruption is not just prevalent but frankly is the system witnesses testified to having firsthand knowledge that President Trump is deeply skeptical of Ukraine due to its corruption back years and that this skepticism contributed to President Trump's initial hazard. To meet with President Saleh ambassador Volcker 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 Ok 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 approach president Trump's candidacy in the 2016 election. Some of these Ukrainian politicians initially remanding government when presidents Alinsky took over witnesses testified that these Ukrainian efforts in 2016 color helped President Trump the you do crane it's also important to note that President Alinsky was a relatively unknown quantity for u.s. Policy makers ambassador Evanovich called him an untried politician Dr Hill testified that there were concerns within the National Security Council about Selenski relationship with Igor Kohl Moyse a controversial of guard and Ukraine although President Selenski ran on a reform platform president Selenski appointed lawyer Mr Bowden as his chief of staff oath embassador Volcker and Senator Ron Johnson noted that this appointment raised concerns these facts are important in assessing the president's state of mind in understanding whether President Selenski was truly committed to fighting corruption in Ukraine the evidence shows the President Trump invited President Selenski to meet at the White House on 3 separate occasions all without any conditions the 1st was on April 21st during the initial congratulatory phone call the 2nd was via letter on May 29th this letter followed Oval Office meeting on May 23rd with the u.s. Delegation to the inauguration during this meeting President Trump again express his skepticism about Ukraine ambassador Volker recalled the president saying these are terrible people and a corrupt country and Bassett or someone similar testified that Ukraine in the president's view tried to take them down in the 2016 election Senator Ron Johnson confirmed this testimony in his submission to the impeachment inquiry only the 3rd time the President Trump invited Selenski to meet again without any preconditions was during the July 25th phone call. Although some time passed between May 21000 when the president formally invited Selenski to meet and September 25th when the president's met the evidence does not show that the Ukrainian government felt this pressure due to this delay to the contrary ambassador Volcker testified that the Ukrainian regime felt pretty good about its relationship with the Trump administration in this period during those 4 months in your Ukrainian government officials had at least 9 meetings or phone calls with President Trump vice president pants secretary Pompei o national security advisor Bolton and u.s. Ambassadors the evidence does not support a conclusion that President Trump condition to meeting with President Selenski on investigating former Vice President Biden Mr your mac president unless he's close advisor said that explicitly in an August 21000 New York Times story which was published before the beginning of the impeachment inquiry in this article your mike said that he and Mayor Giuliani did not discuss a link between a presidential meeting and investigations witness testimony confirms your max statement Ambassador Volcker testified there was no linkage between a potential meeting and investigations although ambassador someone 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 Simon testified that he believed the meeting was conditioned on a public anti-corruption statement not on investigations themselves a distinction that during his deposition he was keen to know Ambassador silence and then nothing about the request raised any red flags in his public testimony ambassador sawmilling clarified. That he had no firsthand knowledge of any linkage coming from the president and never discussed any preconditions with the president he merely presume and there were a precondition I'd also like to address the July 10th meeting in Ambassador Bolton as office with 2 senior Ukrainian officials allow me to submit that here too there is conflicting evidence about the facts both Dr Hill and lieutenant colonel of them and testified that Ambassador saw and raised investigations during this meeting causing Ambassador Bolton to broccoli and the meeting Dr Hill testified she confronted him bastard. Over his discussion about investigations of acid or silence testimony about this meeting however is scattered in his closed door deposition he testified that no national security staff member ever once expressed concerns to him that he was acting improperly and he denied that he raised investigations during this meeting. When he came here to testify in public he had knowledge for the 1st time that he raised investigations but he denied that the meeting ended abruptly he maintained that Dr Hill never raised concerns to him and that any discussion of investigations did not mention anything specific such as Biden or 2016 let me lastly address the allegation that President Trump directed vice president pence not to attend President Selenski inauguration as another way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate ormer Vice President Biden Jennifer Williams a senior advisor in the office of the vice president testified that a colleague she said it was the chief of staff assistant hold her the chief of staff assistant. A President Trump a directed vice president Penn's not to attend the inauguration However Williams had no firsthand knowledge of any such direction or the reasons given for any such direction if indeed such a direction was given it's not clear from the evidence why it was done because the vice president's office was juggling other potential trips during that time and the Ukrainian parliament scheduled scheduled election on an extremely short timeframe it was just 4 days notice Williams explained that there was a window it was a window of dates May 30th through June 1st during which the vice president could attend the inauguration and that was communicated and that if it wasn't one of those days it would be difficult or impossible to attend the inauguration separately the office of the vice president was also planning an unrelated trip to Canada to promote the u.s. During the same window the u.s. M.c.a. Was and still is a significant priority for the administration has President pence as 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 both President Trump and vice president hence cannot both be out of the country at the same time Williams explained that these factors created a narrow window for the vice president's participation in the inauguration Dr Hill testified that she had no knowledge that the vice president was directed not to attend on May 16th the outgoing Ukrainian parliament scheduled the inauguration for May 20th only 4 days later May 20th was not one of the 3 dates that Vice President Pence's office had provided for his availability. Williams testified that this early date surprised the vice president's office because we weren't expecting the Ukrainians to look at that time from George Tenet the State Department said that this short notice from the Ukrainians forced the State Department to scramble to find a u.s. Official to lead the delegation finally settling on Secretary of Energy Rick Perry on May 20th the date of President's Lindsey's inauguration vice president Pence was in Jacksonville Florida for an event promoting u.s. M.c.a. Really on September 25th President Trump and President Selenski met during the United Nations General Assembly the 2 met without Ukraine ever taking action on investigation and according to Ambassador Taylor there was no discussion of investigations during this meeting I will now turn to the 2nd assertion that president withheld taxpayer funded security assistance to Ukraine as a way of pressuring Selenski to conduct these investigations here to context this critically important President Trump has been skeptical of foreign assistance in general and believes quite strongly that our European allies should share more of the burden for regional defense that's an assertion he made on the campaign trail something he's raised consistently since it's also important to note the u.s. Security assistance is conditioned to countries around the world and that u.s. Aid including aid to Ukraine has been temporarily paused in the past for various reasons and even for no reason at all about it or Volcker testified the 55 day pause on security assistance did not strike him as uncommon and that the pause was not significant Dr Hill and State Department official Catherine Croft both testified that security assistance to Ukraine specifically had been temporarily paused in the past. Massacre David Hale the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs the 3rd. Most senior person at the State Department testified that the National Security Council launched a review of u.s. Foreign assistance across the world to make sure acts paradox 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 n.s.c. In July there had been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance she said there had been more scrutiny on security assistance as a result and other important data point is president trumps willingness to take a stronger stance in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and compared to the previous administration several witnesses testified the president trumps 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 these points year because there are relevant pieces of information that bear on how the House should view the evidence in question although the security assistance was paused in July the evidence is virtually silent on the definitive reason for the pause in fact the only direct evidence of the reason for the pause comes from o.m.b. Official Mark Zandi who testified that he learned in September that the pause was related to the president's concern about other countries contributing more to Ukraine he explained o.m.b. Received requests for information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine which o.m.b. Provided in the 1st week of September 8 of course was released September 11th. Several witnesses have testified that security assistance was not linked to Ukraine investigations investor Volcker's testimony is particularly relevant on this point because he was a key intermediary with Ukrainian government and someone who they trusted and sought for advice and Bassett or Volcker testified that he was aware of no quid pro quo and the Ukrainians never raised such concerns to him when Ambassador Taylor raised the possibility of a quid pro quo ambassador Volcker Volcker said he replied there's no linkage here during his deposition chairmanship tried to pin him down on this point but Ambassador Volcker was clear there was no connection in his public testimony ambassador Volcker reiterated there was no linkage similarly George can at the State Department said he did not associate aid to investigations and he relayed how investor Taylor told him to Morrison and Ambassador Simon also believed the 2 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 preconditions on security assistance or that the security assistance was tied to investigations and Bessemer Sa and then later provided a written statement supplementing his deposition in which he explained for the 1st time that in the absence of any clear explanation he presumed it link between security assistance and an anti-corruption statement. Were linked ambassador somewhat also tested in his written supplement that he likely voice this concern to Mr your mac a close advisor of presidents Alinsky on September 1st in Warsaw Mr your mark however in a subsequent news account published on the member 22nd disputed ambassadors on this account and said he doesn't remember any reference to the military. In his public testimony ambassador Simon reiterated that is testimony was based on a presumption acknowledging to Congressman Turner that no one on the planet told him that security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on investigations Ambassador Taylor is the other relevant actor here he testified it is that position that he had a clear understanding that Ukraine would not receive security assistance until President Selenski committed to the investigations However in his public testimony Ambassador John Taylor acknowledged it 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 2 separate private conversations with 2 different u.s. Officials and days apart it would be no reason for the president to be anything less than candid during these private conversations on August 31st President Trump spoke by phone with Senator Johnson who was traveling to Ukraine in the coming days and sought the president's permission to tell President to Lansky that the security assistance would be forthcoming President Trump responded that he was not ready to do that id and Ukrainian corruption and burden sharing among European allies when Senator Johnson raised the potential linkage between security assistance and investigation President Trump vehemently denied any connection saying no way I would never do that who told you that in closing the call President Trump told Senator Johnson that we're reviewing it now referring to the security assistance and guess what you will probably like my final decision he told that the Senator Johnson on August 31st this statement strongly suggests the president was already leaning toward lifting the aid. Separately on September 9th President Trump spoke by phone with Ambassador Sama and Ambassador someone asked the president what do you want from Ukraine President response President Trump responded I want nothing I want no quid pro quo I want Selenski to do the right thing in addition senior Ukrainian government officials denied any awareness of a linkage between u.s. Security assistance and investigations these denials are persuasive because if there was in fact an orchestrated scheme to pressure Ukraine by withholding security assistance one would think the pause on security assistance would have been clearly communicated to the Ukrainians foreign minister priest Iko told the media in November following news of Ambassador Saddam's written supplemental testimony that Saddam never links security assistance to investigations like I said I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance although there is some testimony that Ukrainian officials from the embassy in Washington made informal inquiries to the State Department and Defense Department about these issues with security assistance in July and August the evidence does not show President Selenski or senior advisors in Kiev were aware of the pause until it was publicly reported by Politico on Aug 28th of subsequent news article explained the conflicting testimony that embassy officials in Washington had made informal inquiries about issues with the aide while senior officials that he gave the night awareness of the pause the article explained that then Ukrainian ambassador trolly who was appointed by President the Lindsays predecessor went rogue and did not inform President Selenski that there was any issue with the aide according to the news account president Selenski and his senior team only learned of the pause when it was reported on August 28th as ambassador Volcker testified because senior Ukrainian officials were unaware of the pause there was no leverage implied. The actions of senior Ukrainian government officials while the security assistance paused reinforces a conclusion that they did not know the aide was on hold in the $55.00 days during which the security assistance was paused president he had 5 discussions with us senior officials on the 25th he spoke with President Trump on the phone 26 he met with Ambassador Volker that's our Taylor ambassadors on one key on August 27th he met with Ambassador Bolton September 1st he met with Vice President parents in Warsaw and on September 5th he met with Senator Ron Johnson Senator Chris Murphy in Kiev in one of these meetings the president Selenski raise any concern about linkage between security assistance and investigations in particular the September 5th meeting with Senator Johnson is editor Murphy is notable because they're not part of the Trump administration and presidents Linsky could be candid with them what did occur during those 55 days were historic effort by Ukraine's parliament called the Rada to implement anti-corruption reform. President Pence had pressed President Lenski about these reforms during their September 1st meeting in their depositions Ambassador Taylor lot of presidents Lindsey's rapid reforms and National Security Council official Marson testified that during a meeting Kieve they noted that everyone in the Ukrainians out of the table was exhausted because they had been up all night working on these reforms on September 11th President Trump discussed the matter with Vice President pence Senator Portman Portman and acting chief of staff moving according to Tim Martin's testimony they discussed whether Ukraine's progress on anti-corruption reform was enough to justify releasing this a curious distance Morrison testified that Vice President Pence was obviously armed with the conversation he had with presidents and Lansky and they convinced the president the age should be dispersed immediately. The president then 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 was skeptical of foreign assistance in general and that he believes strongly our allies should share the burden for regional defense we know the White House was reviewing foreign assistance in general to ensure it furthered u.s. Interests and that o.m.b. Researched and provided information about which foreign countries were contributing money to Ukraine President Trump told Senator Johnson on August 31st we're reviewing it now and you'll probably like my final decision he told Ambassador Seidlin on September 9th I want Selenski to do what he ran on President who ran an anti-corruption platform was an untried politician with ties to a potential controversial all of our vice president pence reiterated President Selenski. That on September 1st the need for reform was paramount after President Selenski paused I'm sorry after President Lansky passed historic anti-corruption reforms the pause on security assistance was lifted and the presidents met 2 weeks later the Ukrainian government never took any action on investigations at issue in the impeachment inquiry much has been made about a so-called shadow or irregular foreign policy apparatus the President Trump is alleged to have working straighted as a mechanism to force Ukraine to initiate investigations the allegation is President Trump conspired to recall ambassador youve on of it's from Ukraine so his agents could pursue a scheme to pressure Ukraine to conduct these investigations but there are logical flaws with these arguments 1st every ambassador interviewed in the beach or any inquiry acknowledged the president has an absolute right to recall ambassadors for any reason or no reason to parrot the President Trump lost confidence in a battery of out of it and it's simply not an abuse of power for him to recall or. Beyond that the trumpet ministration replaced the bass or evolve it with Ambassador Bill Taylor who became one of the 1st State Department officials to voice concerns discussed during the course of our inquiry here act Besser Taylor played a prominent role in some of the hearings last month President Trump truly sought to remove ambassador Ivanova just part of a nefarious plan he certainly would not have replaced her with someone of the likes of Ambassador Bill Taylor 2nd the 3 u.s. Officials who comprise the so-called shadow foreign policy apparatus ambassador Volker Stalin and Secretary Perry can hardly be called irregular and certainly not outlandish all were senior u.s. Officials with official interest in Ukraine policy 3 kept the State Department and the n.s.c. Informed of their activities Finally there is evidence that marriage will Ianni did not speak on behalf of the president according to a news story on November 22nd Mr Yarm act as the bastard Volcker to connect him with Mayor Giuliani because the Selenski team was surprised by them they by the mayor's negative comments about Ukraine they wanted to change his mind both Ambassador Volcker in his deposition and yarmulke in an August New York Times article denied that Mayor Giuliani was speaking on behalf of President Trump as his agent instead as ambassador Volcker explained the Ukrainian government's all Giuliani as a conduit through which they could change the president's mind 2nd allegation at issue of course is whether the president obstructed Congress but by not agreeing to all the demands for documents and testimony as somebody with experience with congressional investigations and strongly I strongly believe in Congress's Article want to thorough. But this impeachment inquiry has departed drastically from past bipartisan precedents for presidential impeachment as well as the fundamental tenets of fair and effective congressional oversight. 1st process matters the bipartisan road you know had precedence guaranteed fundamental fairness and due process to the president it allowed substantive minority participation and participation from the president's counsel in the fact finding process neither aspect was president here Democrats denied us witnesses Democrats voted down subpoenas we sought the issue for both documents and testimony and all no Democrats never brought to a committee vote any of the subpoenas that were issued there were all tabled Democrats directed witnesses not to answer questions and these sorts of actions diligent in the inquiry do not give the witnesses or the president confidence that the inquiry is fair 2nd the president or any potential witness to this impeachment inquiry should be allowed to raise defenses without it being used as an adverse inference against him courts have held that the Constitution mandates and accommodations process between the branches for this reason congressional oversight is a time intensive endeavor certainly takes longer than 7 these 6 days a year however initial letters from the Democrats instructed potential witnesses that if they did not cooperate in full it shall constitute evidence of obstruction Democrats wanted all their demands honored immediately and were unwilling to consider the executive branch's privileges or defenses Finally there is no basis for obstruction one witness who said he spoke to President Trump about his appearance as a witness ambassador someone testified the president told him to cooperate and tell the truth the president has declassified and released the call summary of July 25th and April 21st calls with President Selenski White House wrote The Speaker Pelosi to say that it was willing to cooperate further if the house returned to a well established bipartisan constitutional based impeachment process as we know these protections were never afforded in closing I'd like to briefly address the Democrats narrative as articulated in their report. The Democrat narrative virtually ignores any evidence that's not helpful for their case it ignores for instance that Ambassador silent testimony that he presented. That there was a quid pro quo and it ignores the many public statements made by Ukrainian officials the report presents a story as if the evidence is clear when in reality it's anything but Democrats have gone to great lengths to gather information to build their case and they've even obtained and released phone records relating to the communications of the president's personal attorney a reporter and a member of Congress there are additional phone records that have not yet been released and our members remain concerned about the prospect of more phone records being released there have been a lot of hype hype or hyperbole a lot of hysteria over the last 3 months about this inquiry and underlying facts I believe a lot of this can be traced back to the United as whistleblower complaint I believe the whistleblower reframed a lot of the facts at issue and caused witnesses in the inquiry to recast their views and it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to interview the whistleblower finally some of likened the impeachment inquiry to a special prosecutor's investigation one except that comparison one should also it's expect that like Ken Starr and Robert Muller The chairman should testify and our our members all the committees believe very strongly that chairmanship should should testify and answer questions with that Mr Chairman time as yours gentlemen. You know his time is expired we will now proceed to the 1st round of questions one of order suing to Lucy's going to go to. We've been told that counsel for Democrats was a witness and that's why he didn't have to comport with the rules of decorum and now he's sitting up here and it was stated point I've been a judge and I know that you don't get to be your witness and a judge in the same is Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert he should not be is not a point of order. Pursuant to House Resolution 660 and its accompanying judiciary committee procedures there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman I mean Jordi counsel followed by 45 minutes by the ranking member or minority counsel only the chair and ranking member in their respective counsels may question witnesses during this period following that unless I specify additional equal time for extended questioning we will proceed under the 5 minute rule that every member will have the chance to ask questions I never recognize myself but the 1st round of questions Republican the Republicans expert witness last week offensive Turley wrote 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 party you just have to prove it happened close quote that was Mr Turley's comment that was the golden did the investment did the investigative committees conclude the evidence proved that the president uses public office for personal gain Yes Mr Chairman and in fact finding of fact 5 said President Trump is that you 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 also prove that President Trump withheld military aid exchange for an announcement of an investigation of his political opponent Yes it did in fact finding of fact 5 be said quote President Trump acting through his age is a subordinate condition to release of the vital military says he has suspended Ukraine and the president Ukraine's public announcement of the investigations that president. And then the evidence demonstrate that President undermined the national security interests of the United States yes many in several ways and finding of fact 6 said in directing in orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests President Trump did not implement promote or advance u.s. Anti-corruption policies in fact the president sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the us government otherwise discourages and opposes As a matter of policy in that country and around and around the world in so doing the president undermined u.s. Policy supporting anti-corruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine and undermined u.s. National security and did the evidence also show the president compromised the national security of the United States yes in fact finding of fact 7 said by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged I'm going military conflict illegally instigated by Russian President Trump compromise national security to advance his personal political interests. Did the evidence prove that President Trump engaged in a scheme to cover up his conduct and obstructing rational investigators Yes right from the outset and in fact finding of fact 9 says using the power of the office of the president in exercising his authority over the executive branch president ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his kind look for the public and frustrate obstruct the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry finally constitutional scholars from a hearing last week that's the vibe that the president's conduct toward Ukraine and pattern of inviting foreign election interference was a continuing risk to our free and fair elections the evidence prove that President Trump was a threat to our elections yes a demonstration in fact finding of fact 8 says faced with the revelation of his actions president trouble publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign investments foreign governments including you created China to investigate his political party has continued to solicitation of foreign interference of the Us election presents a clear and present danger that the president will continue to use the power of his office for his 1st political gain for his personal political gain close quote I would add in the next election there you go to my counsel Mr Burke for additional questioning Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Castro's experience this is the counsel for the majority on the House Judiciary Committee this rescue question to Daniel Goldman who is the counsel for the majority help on the House Intelligence Committee actions. You might please sir my only question to you is is that a relevant thing to consider right like the call you had Senator Johnson. It's relevant to consider Sir would you agree that Joe Biden was a leading Democratic contender to face President Trump in 2020 I wouldn't agree with that you disagree with that so sir it's your testimony if you were led President Trump did not view President Biden to be a legitimate contender I don't know what president believes or didn't believe it is too early so as party your inquiry did you determine whether President Trump tweeted at all about vice former vice president Joe Biden between January and July 25th and how many times I didn't I don't look at Twitter I try to stay off Twitter lately that you know President Trump tweet. Tweeted about former Vice President Joe Biden over 25 times between January and July 25th 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 at a rally leading up to the July 25th call President goes do a lot around he does a lot of tweeting I think it's pretty difficult to. Draw too many conclusions from his tweets or his statements or rallies Mr Chair also as your government partner. Gentlemen is not recognized with. Mr Chairman what is going on it is not recognized the gentleman Mr Burke has the time. We're going to you know one of the rules I always this is to ask questions then I don't mean one how many of the rules are you just going to disregard. Oh I'm intrigued inquiries are not in order this time I'll be out of order or in your borders is not appropriate to have a witness have avoided you know question or appoint somebody who was a witness when he was gentleman will suspend is just wrong gentlemen we are going to court gentlemen Well I made a point of order and you won't rule on it I have not heard a point of order the gentleman is chairman point I mean there is a point of order your point of order yes Mr Chairman there is no rule nor precedent for anybody being a witness and then get it and I want. And so I have ruled we were the point of order is he's inappropriate to be up here asking questions this is Congressman Louie Gohmert a Republican who was calling for Point of order here arguing with the chair of the committee child now there because Gerald that letter is counsel was also witnessed earlier literally just marching orders Burke has time Jim important to. Work a member of the committees that Burke has the time and if you're going to have a legitimate point of order. The time you have to recognize a point of order to avoid a general state of Point of order this gentleman is presenting his opinions as a witness he's supposed to present the material you know listen to the point or not to appear for his opinions is that right or not. Gentlemen there is not a point of order it is Mr Burke's time pursuing to it was not exactly a testimony when too many. I have ruled the gentleman has the time to is your rule 6 point of order Mr Chairman you're listening to point as well as you this now you know I do want to exact state general state of Point of order it has been yes the point of order is this. We operate by rules when there's nothing specifically the rule permitting this we go to a president it is unprecedented for a person to scum insert who you've described as a witness to then return to the bench and you know what I mean is that is a point of order gentlemen that stated. Is not a point of order but I will point out there is not a good nice little point of order I will point out that the gentleman has been designated by me to do this questioning pursuant to Rule $666.00 House Resolution $660.00 which is part of the rules of that was. It is in accordance with the rules of the House and the gentlemen's time movie is the Burke thank you Mr Chairman Mr Castor you are aware that President Trump announced his candidacy for re-election in 2020 announced that the month before the July 25th call on June 21st Ok did you find that you look at that in your investigation as part of looking at present times in 10 and what he intended on the July 25th call. Dady announced his I mean he's obviously running for reelection what is what is the data announced his intent to run for reelection and Sir you knew that President Biden already announces intent to run April of that year to correct it's been related to me it wasn't I don't know when Vice President Biden indicated he was going to run as I sit here today so you would agree with me that at the Ukraine and announced the corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden that would hurt his credibility as a candidate would you agree with that basic principle sir. Nobody. Yes or No Sir would you agree with that principle Well I slightly disagree with the with the predicate with with the premise of your question because I have a 100 Biden question that requests opinion gentlemen is not nice the gentleman has the floor I object to the question gentlemen who on whether the questions in order not request question is in order the gentleman will continue why General continue with his time let's get back to the fact that we're talking about 8 ambiguous lines in a in a call transcript. You know the president was not asking for a personal favorite He was speaking on behalf of the American people he said and I'll read it I'd like you to find out what happened with the whole situation in Ukraine is a 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 want to talk about the transcript I want to tell I want to talk about some of the use of the data lines let's look at Slide 3 if we May the reference to by. So you see on the July 25th call on page 4 Is it the fact that President Trump in his call with President Alinsky said that he heard that former Vice President Joe Biden had stopped the prosecution of the Son Is that correct sir yes or no it's the other thing there's a lot of talk about Biden's son Beau Biden stop the prosecution a lot that is correct he said he stopped the prosecution point of order he's entitled to answer a question for you to determine the gentleman he seen that night as if you know there's a video of the former v.p. I think that's what the president's referring to is he was at the Council on Foreign Relations and it was a little bit of. A you know the former v.p. Was a little bit. And you know how he described he went over to the I'm only asking you what it says on the transcript is that what it says or it says The other thing there's a lot of talk about Biden's son and that Biden stop the prosecution it says that correct that's what it says here yes and then it also says it goes on to say. President asked President Zelinsky if you can look into it correct is that the that the words if you can look into it correct that's what it says and then he says the president tried by right President Trump was asking Ukrainian presidents Olinsky to have the Ukrainian officials look into Vice President Joe Biden correct is that correct yes or no I don't I don't think the record supports that it doesn't say when you look into it President Trump is not asking and I don't I don't think it supports that I think it's ambiguous I'm sure Goldman your inexperience federal prosecutor I know that firsthand is this president trouble asking. President Alinsky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden I don't think there's any other way to read the words on the page than to conclude that this is live special coverage of the impeachment hearings from n.p.r. News caster you made the point let me ask you question as an experienced investigator is it your experience that when someone has done something wrong for corrupt and they're dealing with somebody who's not in the scheme that they state their intentions to do something wrong Foreign Corrupt is that your experience as an investigator I mean are you going to call transfer just asking you in 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 Foreign Corrupt to someone not in the scheme and you made a big point sir in your presentation that on that call President Trump did not go further and tell President Selenski that he wanted the investigation announced to help his 2020 a lie down he definitely did not talk about 22 on Mr Goldman would you agree that if Mr President Trump was acting corruptly wrongfully abusing his power it was on likely he was going to confess to President Alinsky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help is 20 twentieth's lection prospects in my experience as 10 years as a prosecutor you almost never have this is special coverage of the impeachment hearings from n.p.r. News Mary Burke majority counseling and committee. For the majority caster for in order to Lenski I'm going to bribe you now where I'm going to ask for a bribe or I am now going to explore and you that's not the way these things work they going to go Mr Castor going to get back to you you said that he said to set about 100 Biden talked about a 100 Biden and been on the board of response going back to 2014 correct yes President Trump supported Ukraine they'd come with aid and otherwise in both 282-017-2018 correct President Trump has done a lot for Ukraine Yes and sorry but isn't it correct that President Trump did not raise anything about Hunter Biden and his father Vice President Joe Biden in 2017 or 2080 he only did it the year before his lection in 2020 when both he and Vice President Joe Biden were leading candidates is that true sir I think what happened is the president saw this video of the former v.p. And I think it. Coalesced in his mind or please answer my question he didn't raise any of these issues in 2017 or 20 I don't know that he did that he.