Ambitions. Our selfrespect. Our love of freedom and the rule of law. Our fierce constitutional patriotism. Now, it looked like President Trump might get might get away with his ukraine shakedown. After all, most americans didnt know anything about it. And the few who learned of it would be too afraid, too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth. Fr President Trump could rest easy. But if donald trump misjudged the american character, the framers of our constitution did not. I count 17 honorable Public Servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president. Is that right, mr. Goldman . Yes, there were 17. And i count a dozen Career State Department and National Security officials who served republican and democratic president s alike, over decades, who came to testify. In fact, four of President Trumps own National Security councils staffers, hill,
vindman, morrison, and mcguyer, came forward to report trumps scheme to nsc lawyers as soon as they learned it, didnt they, mr. Goldman . Morrison and vindman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned of it. Yes. They went to thele lawyers. And that moved mey a lot becau my father was a staffer on the National Security council under president kennedy. And he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience. And he devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power. When power becomes a Clear And Present Danger to democracy and to the people. So i want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth. Mr. Goldman, who is dr. Fiona hill . Dr. Fiona hill was the senior director for the europe and russia directorate at the National Security council until july of this year. And she was President Trumps Senior Advisor on s russia . Correct. Her family had fled both nazi
germany and soviet russia. I think her family actually came from england. It was Marie Yovanovitch who had that was ambassador yovanovitch. Dr. Hill voiced her concerns, the nscs lawyers, on july 10 and july 11th long before anyone on this committee knew about it. Why was she why did she go to report what she had learned . What motivated her . She was concerned that ambassador sondland and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction. Whereby the ukrainians would open up these investigations for President Trumps political interests. In return for getting the white house meeting that President Trump had offered. And i want to talk about Deputy Assistant secretary george kent, who served as a Career Foreign Service officer for more than 27 years under five different president s. Democrats and republicans alike. And he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president s conduct. Mr. Goldman, what were the events that led mr. Kent to draft these notes to his file . There were several. There was a conversation at the end of june. Where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. There was one on august 16th, i recall, that he talked about. But you bring up a very important point. Which is all of these state Department WitnessesIn Particular and, frankly, almost all the witnesses other than ambassador sondland, took unbelievabled, meticulous notes. I would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. And it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence thats based on contemporaneous notes. So do we have mr. Kents notes in this process . We have no state department records, including these memos
to file. I the notes. Ambassador taylors firstperson cable. Emails. Theres so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation. Why do we not have them . The state department refused to provide them, notwithstanding our subpoena under the president s direction. You know, in authoritarian societies like putins russia, people are terrified about tto about the crimes of their political leaders. Even thoughli President Trump h tried to intimidate or silence them and he is trying to make our country more like russia and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heroes who stood up for the truth in our constitution. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Thank you, plrmr. Chairman. My first two questions are for the American People. America, are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham . And, america, would you Like Congress to get back a to work d actually get something done . Because i sure would. Mr. Castor, the rest of the questions are for you. And i would like yes or no answers, if possible. Mr. Castor, my first question is important. Did any of the democrats fact witnesses establish that the president had committed bribery, extortion, or a high crime or misdemeanor . Good heavens, no. Mr. Castor, the Deputy Assistant to the president of the National Security, mr. Morrison, listened in on the phone call. He testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper. Is that correct . Yeah. He was worried about leaks. Several democrat witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons,
including concerns that the country is corrupt and Taxpayer Dollars may be misspent. Ambassador volker testified that this hold on Security Assistance to ukraine was not significant. Is that correct . Ni yes. A number of witnesses also said the same thing. For former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, testified thattc in ukraine, ani quote, corruption is not just prevalent but, frankly, is the system. Is that correct . Yes. He all the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt. Mr. Castor, Ukraine EnergyCompany Burisma holdings had a reputation in ukraine as a corrupt company. Is that correct . Big time. According to New York Times, hunter biden was part of a broad effort by burisma to bring in wellconnected democratsec during a period whe the company was facing investigations. Is that correct . Yeah. The new yorker also had a
pretty extensive report on that, as well. Obamas Deputy Assistant secretary of state, george kent, testified that he raised concerns directly to Vice President bidens office about hunter bibidens services on burismas erboard. Is that correct . Yes or no . Yes. Mr. Castor, in the July 25th Call, President Trump referenced joe biden bragging about how he stopped the prosecution. We all saw that video earlier today. Where joe biden bragged about how he told ukraine, if the prosecutor is not fired, youre not getting the money. Mr. Castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma . It is. Me in a similar scheme, obama Assistant Attorney General said,
and i quote, awarding prestigious Employment Opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence Government Officials is corruption, plain and simple. Mr. Castor, here is another key question. Given that, one, burisma had a reputation of being a corrupt company. Two, obamas own state department was concerned about hunter biden serving on burismas board at the same time thatd Vice President biden was acting as the point person to ukraine. And, three, obamas Assistant Attorney General said in a similar scheme that that corruption that there was corruption plain and simple. Do you think, then, it is understandable, reasonable, and acceptable for President Trump to ask the Ukrainian President to look into the hunter
biden Burisma Potential Corruption Scheme . Yes. Mr. Castor, there are four undisputable facts that will never change. That prove there is no impeachable offense. T there was no quid pro quo on the July 25th Call. Ukraine leadership did not know the aid wasid held up at the ti of the july 25th telephone call. Ukraine received the white house meeting, phone call, and aid. Even though four ukraine didnt initiate any investigations. Do you agree . Ukraine received a meeting with Vice President pence in warsaw. And a meeting, not at the white house but in new york at the united nations. Mr. Castor, did mr. Turley testify in the past hearing that this Impeachment Inquiry has not passed chairman nadler es threeprong test . He did. Thank you. Ie yield back. Thank you. The gentlewoman from washington
is recognized. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, lets focus on the republican claim that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption. Rathered than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain. And let me be clear. We actually do not have to read the president s mind on this. As your report notes on page ten, and as we will see on television, he told us himself exactly what his intent was. What exactly did you hope zelensky would dou about the bidens after your phone call . Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. So the first and best witness about the president S Corrupt Intent was donald trump. There is also plenty of corroborating evidence. So letspl just review some of e basic facts that weve already established. First, President Trump does not even mention the word corruption
during either of his calls with president zelensky. And he disregards all of the Talking Points that were prepared for him on corruption by the National Security council. Second, investigations of the bidens and a debunked Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official u. S. Policy. And, third, congress authorized military aid to ukraine. Ukraine passed all the checks that the United States established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fightte corruption. And there was unanimous consensus among the state department, department of defense, and National Security council that the president Shouldri Release The Military A that ukraine critically needed to fight russian aggression. So, mr. Goldman, between the time that President Trump put a hold onid military aid to ukrai and then released the aid. The president never conducted an actual review or corruption assessment onw ukraine, did he . That is correct. No witness testified that there was any review or any investigation of any sort related to the ukraine aid. And isnt it also true that the Defense Department actually determined not to conduct a review on ukraine after the president froze the military aid . Because ukraine had already met all of the Corruption Benchmarks in may of 2019. Yes, and everyone involved in ukraine policy believed that they were on thepo right path. And president zelensky, In Particular. And in addition to ukraine having satisfied all the relevant Corruption Assessments prior to u. S. Military aid being withheld, there is significant Witness Testimony that both the state department and the Ukrainian Embassy actually advised that a white house meeting with president zelensky would help further an anticorruption agenda, correct . Both the anticorruption agenda and the aggression fighting the aggression from russia. And, in fact, president
trumps budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in ukraine. Now, mr. Castor argues that President Trump withheld military aid to ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general. But in both 2017 and 2018, didnt President Trump release military aid for ukraine without any complaints about corruption . Thats ptcorrect. So, mr. Goldman, the president was perfectly fine giving military aid to ukraine in 2017 and 2018. But somehow not in 2019. So what changed . Joe biden started running for president. Vice President Biden started running. So the and i would add the Mueller Report came out, which did not even though it did not charge the president , it implicated the president in his campaign in welcoming the assistance from russia and utilizing it. And the sequence of events and all the corroborating evidence makes it Crystal Clear that President Trump didnt care about corruption at all. In fact, as he told us himself on national television, he
simply cared about his own politicallymotivated investigations into his political rival. And you saw the clip. Where ambassador sondland picked up thewh phone, called presiden trump. And then mr. Holmes asked him what the president thoughtol abt ukraine. Andbo quickly, what was mr. Sondlands answer . Mr. Sondland said the president does notan give a ble about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. Meaning the Biden Investigation that mr. Giuliani was pushing. And by the way, just to add. That is a directevidence conversation between President Trump andde ambassador sondlandn that day. And there are many that we have not talked about on the minority side. So we know what President Trump was interested in based on his words, his actions, and Witness Testimony. Thetn president of the United States wanted ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal, political benefit. To interfere in our election and he was willing to use u. S. Military aid, which is Taxpayer Dollars. And an essential white house meeting as his leverage. That is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power. I yield back. Us the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. Thanked you, madam chairwoma. You know, in the navy, we had a saying. Bluff. Which is bottom line up front. Let me give everybody the bottom line. We are here because democrats are terrified that President Trump is going to win reelection. Thats really what this all comes down to. Let me get into specifics. We are here dealing with impeachment because Democrats Dont Wanter to talk about the d hot trump economy. They dont want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. We are dealing with impeachment because democrats dont want to talk about how the president has worked to protect American Companies from chinese aggression. How hes trade deals to
benefit american workers. How hes eliminated eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy and that help job creators. Congressional democrats dont want to be reminded the American People, that the democrat agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes. Giving Illegal Immigrants taxpayerra funded healthcare. And taking private Health Insurance away from the American People. Thats really why were here. This whole process is just a distraction. And an attempt to hide the farleft radical agenda. So lets talk about the facts. Schiffs report claims the administration froze military for ukraine without explanation. Yet, the facts are that President Trump gave more military aid to ukraine than president obama. Ve president obama gave Ukraine Well Wishes and blankets. President trump gave the ukrainians javelin missiles. Thats a difference and those are the facts. Lets go over some more facts. House democrats want to claim its a conspiracy that ukrainian officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. Yet, ukrainian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election are welldocumented by politico. By Financial Times and the hill. There was an attempt to influence our elections and thats troubling and thats why President Trump brought it to the attention of president zelensky. Again, those are the facts. T at the end of the day, those facts dont seem to matter to my democrat colleagues. Se House Democrats dont care that president zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. Its not important the call transcript was the best evidence we have. It is the best evidence we have. Its the actual primary document. And that transcript shows there was no quid pro quo. No bribery. I got to remember were calling it bribery after an old latin phrase didnt poll well or test well in a democrat focus group. Myoc democrat colleagues seem t really care about focus groups and polling. Unfortunately, again, they dont care about the facts. Because the fact is the democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began. Representative said in january i dont even think we were sworn in yet. She said in january, impeach the mother. Representative green said, in may, and i quote, im concerned if we dont impeach this president , he will get reelected. These proceedings. This entire process is nothing more e than a political hit job. Unlike my democrat colleagues, i actually do care about the facts,he which is why im troubd that our committee did not hear from a single fact witness this entire time. We should be here hearing from hunter biden. We should be hearing from schiffs staff. We know that schiffs staff coordinated with the whistleblower. And, again, we need to hear from the whistleblower. Last week, i offered a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to testify in executive session. Meaning that he or she could testify behind closed doors. My democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion. Mr. Castor, can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistleblowers complaint . Well, the first thing about thetl complaint that troubles u is that its clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand. The information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted. And it its from a person who is it f seems to be making an a case. Like an advocate about what happened on the call. The whistleblower references a number of individuals inside the white house and at the state department that he or she has
spoken hato, to form the basis the complaint. We have not been able to piece together all those people. And talking to all those people is important. And theres a lot of them im running out ofhe time here. But, you know, theres a reference to lutsenko in the whistleblower complaint. Where witnesses have told us its likelyse shokin. Vindman and morrisons testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers. Very different reasons. Ey the gentlemans time has expired. I dont believe he was on the call. Mr. Goldman, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, i saw significant firsthand evidence that President Trump conditioned our military aid on ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and the bidens. And betrayed our National Security interest in the process. For example, ambassador sondland told us that once the ukrainians found out about the aid being
withheld, it was made, and i quote, abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid, and i wquote, they were going to he to make these statements. Mr. Goldman, beginning on and around the 25th of july call through september, would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed, ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the white house visit, that they wereit going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations . Not only were they made aware. But they were made aware either by President Trumps proxy, rudy giuliani. Or from President Trump himself, through ambassador sondland, who spoke to president zelensky and Andriy Yermak and told them what President Trump had confirmed to him. That the aid was conditioned on the investigations. And by the end of august, president zelensky did, in fact, commit to making that statement on cnn. Is that correct . Thats right. Finally, president zelensky relented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic u. S. Political process. And ultimately, recognizing that he had no choice to break this stalemate, as ambassador sondland told him. That he ultimately agreed to go on television before the before President Trump got caught and released the aid. Id like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you,cr which displays, againa Washington Post article from september 5th. The headline says, trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections. And the article reports that President Trump is, and ie quo, attempting to force zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u. S. President ial election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate, joe biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting ukraines help with his president ial campaign. He is using United States military aid the country
desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. So am i correct, mr. Goldman, that by september 25th, allegations that President Trump was using military aid to pressure ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported . Im sorry, by what date . September 5th. Yes. Well, widely reported. Certainly, the aid being withheld was was widely reported. And by September 9ths , our Investigative Committees formally announced a congressional investigation into the president of these issues into the president about these issues. And, mr. Goldman, what day did President Trump release the military aid . Two days after the investigations were announced. Andns two days after the i gg, inspector general, told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld. So then, am i correct, that as the timeline on the screen in front of you shows, it wasnt until after the whistleblower
complaint, after the Washington Post report, and after congress launched the investigations that President Trump finally released the aid . Thats right. And and i would just add one thing briefly to the congressmans point. That it is true that President Trump has given more Military Assistance than president obama. And so one would wonder if he does support Militaryou Assistae so much, why then is he holding it up for more than two months . And matter of fact, Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified that people at the nsc, in fact, discussed that congresss investigation, quote, might have the effect of releasing the hold on ukraines military aid because we would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid. Is that correct, mr. Goldman . That was the testimony. Yes. In other words, the aid was released after the president got caught. And what makes me angry is that this president , President Trump,
thinks he can get away with it. But he got caught. And he tried to cover it up. But we wont let him do that. And we thank god, mr. Goldman, for the true, courageous, Public Servants who came forward in spite of intimidation and obstruction from the white house. You see. Everybody counts. But everybody is accountable. Up to, and including, the president of the United States. Thank you. And i yield back. Thank you. The chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. Im sorry, california. Thank you, madam chair. Mr. Goldman, my colleagues keep talking about they fact that t president , apparently, said and
i quote, no Quid Pro Quo On September 7th in a call with ambassador sondland. Mr. Goldman, did you receive testimony about the September 7th call . Yes. We received testimony from three witnesses about it. And it gets a little complicated. But that that that was a consistent refrain through all of the witnesses is that the president did say no quid pro quo. Lets try to clarify it a little bit. Ambassador sondland described that call to mr. Morrison that same day, correct . Thats right. And mr. Morrison then reported it to Ambassador Taylor. Correct . Thats correct. Yes. And both mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor took notes of those discussions. They did. Were those notes produced to the committee . They were not produced to us but the witnesses said they relied on their notes to provide their testimony. That set of notes was blocked consistent with the president s direction . Correct. And in his recitation to mr. Morrison, ambassador sondland said that President Trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo. Thats right. Ambassador sondland also said that, too. Yes. And, mr. Goldman, what did the committee make of this fact . Ma well, it was quite odd tha 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 going to say whens even more important is that what he said immediately after that, which is effectively conduct that amounts to a quid pro quo. He said theres no quid pro quo. But you have to go to the microphone and make this announcement. Well, lets talk about that. What did the committee make of the fact that according to Ambassador Taylor and mr. Morrison, right after President Trump said no quid pro quo, President Trump then told ambassador sondland that Ukrainian President s zelensky would have to go to the microphone and announce the
investigations of biden and the 2016 election interference. And that president zelensky should want to do that himself. Thats right. We had a number of different accounts of this. And i i think this is theyre up On The Boards here. Right. I seehe that. Ambassador taylor saide that. Or mr. Morrison said something similar. Their understandingsn of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo, factually, from the conduct. Q from they, actions. Weve talked a lot today about the words and that Zelensky Said no pressure. And trump said no pressure. And no quid pro quo. But as an investigator, as a prosecutor, you need, to look the actions to understand what those words mean. And thats why this call In Particularhy is so important. So lets go further. Asle weve discussed multiple individuals reacted with concern to President Trumps call with ambassador sondland. Do you recall mr. Morrisons reaction . Mr. Mr. Morrison said that
he was shocked, i think, and that he sinking feeling . Sinking feeling, correct. And then he went and talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador bolton. Correct. And, mr. Goldman, Ambassador Taylor also testified that he concluded that the Military Aid Wasd conditioned on zelensky announcing the investigations. And he testified that this was a illogical, crazy, and wrong. Is that right . That is what Ambassador Taylor testified to, yes. Now, my colleagues have also pointed out that on September 9th, text message from sondland reflecting the president has been Crystal Clear that there is no quid pro quo. Mr. Goldman, am i correct that ambassador sondland has now testified that prior to sending his text, he, himself, came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations . Yes. Ambassador sondlands subsequent public testimony revealed at
least two things that were precisely false. That were not true in that text message. Including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that there absolutely assuredly was as it related to the White Houseas meeting. And this September 7th call and the September 9th text occurred after the press reports. That is, after the press reports. That President Trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rival, is that correct . Yes. And it also, this text occurred after ambassador sondland relayed President Trumps message to president zelensky. Mr. Goldman, the Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility of the president s assertion that there was no quid pro quo . Weno received a lot of evidence. And all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo. Thank you. I yield. Mr. Chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. Or madam chairman. Can you please hold it until after i do my questions . Thank you. Its just itll be very brief. Its just unanimous consent. I recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Goldman, you talked about actions speaking louder than words. So i want toan focus on why it s an abuse of power for President Trump to use the American Government to pressure the ukraine president to benefit his reelection campaign. Lets look at what the president said in his July 25th Call to the president of ukraine. Lieutenant colonel vindman listened to the president s call. And testified that when President Trump asked ukraine for a favor, it wasnt a friendly request. It was really a demand. Im going to direct your attention to the slide about Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony. Why did he say the president s favor was a demand . Y he said because the power
disparity between the United States, as the greatest power in the in the world and ukraine, which is so dependent on theuk United States. Not just for the Military Assistance but for all of its support. Made such a request effectively a demand because president zelensky could not, in reality, say no. Am i correct that this vast power disparity exists, in part, because ukraine has been at war with russia since russia invaded five years ago . And over 13,000 of the ukraine people have0 died. Is that correct . Yes, and and not only does the u. S. Provide n 10 of their military budget. But the United States is a critical ally in Ral Lying Otly countries to support ukraine. European union i think gives four times as much money as the United States overall to ukraine. So President Trump knew that theo Ukrainian President s bac was against theia wall. And president s zelensky needed
u. S. Validation and support. Is that right . Yes. Now, according to the u. S. Ambassadorhe to the ukraine, an we have Ambassador Taylors testimony up there. It wasnt until after ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that there would be a, quote, stalemate, end quote, on the aid that zelensky agreed to announce the investigations that President Trump was demanding. Correct . Thats 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 Trumps demands. Correct . Thats right. Yes. Even after the aid was released. Okay. In fact, when asked in front of President Trump in september whether he felt pressured, president Zelensky Said, quote, im sorry, but i Dont Want To Beso involved to democratic ope elections, elections of the usa. End quote. Is that right . That that sounds right, if
youre reading the quote. Yes. Okay. Now, the president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the ukraine president that he was not under pressure touk give in President Trumps demand. Did your Investigative Committees consider those statements by president zelensky . We did. And we found that the statements of what is, effectively, an Extortion Victim are not particularlyrt relevant to the actual truth of the matter because president zelensky cannot, in reality, for the same reasons that hes he interpreted the request to be a demand he cant go out and say that he did feel pressure because thatfe would, potential, upset President Trump. And theyre so dependent on the relationship with President Trump and the United States. One could almost say its similar to a hostage testifying under duress. It is certainly a a duress would be a good word. So when the president made these statements, and up to and
including today, his country was still under attack by russia. Still hadnt gotten a meeting at the whiteot house. And still needed aid from the United States, correct . Thats right. And david holmes testified very, i think, persuasively about the importance of the white house meeting and of the relationship to Ukraine Evenan after the aid was lifted. Including pointing to today when President Putin and president zelensky met to discuss the war in the east. So the evidence is clear that President Trump knew he had the power to force ukraines hand and tooks advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our Taxpayer Dollars basically to get what he wanted, right . Yes, and whats really important here and i think it has to be clarified is that the president. The evidenceha showed that the president directly said to ambassador sondland that there quid pro quo with the Security Assistance. And theres been some debate and some discussion about that. But that is one thing that the
evidencehe shows. Based on the morrison testimony, the taylor testimony, the sondland testimony, and the texts. So thats very important to understand. That whatever we want to say Aboutve Hearsay or whatever. That is direct evidence. And that is precisely the kind of betrayal our founders sought to prevent. I yield back tos myself. And ill recognize the gentleman from virginia. Madam chair. You you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform consent after you had asked your questions. So id ask for uniform consent or excuse me, unanimous consent to introduce two letters. The gentleman will suspend. Who is seeking unanimous consent . For what are you seeking unanimous consent . Mr. Chairman, i have two lette letter. One december 5th, 2019. Without objection. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from virginia, mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, i have a brief
parliamently inquiry regardi parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Thank you you, mr. Chairman. Last week, i expressed concern regarding the deeply flawe Ands Partisan Process the democrat majority has been undertaking during this Impeachment Inquiry. Mr. Chairman, i am particularly reminded of your quote. There must never be a narrowlyvoted impeachment or impeachment substantially supported by one of our Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such any impeachment would lac legitimacy. Would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political constitutions. You made thatur Statement Back 1998. Now, im glad were Moving On To Presenting The Quote Unquote Evidence gathered in this report. Not to hear from direct fact witnesses but a 300page report thats built largely on hearsay, opinion, and speculation. And im especially outraged that the purported author of it, Chairman Schiff, is not here to answer our questions today. Now that we have the report and
can discuss the facts within or thefa lack thereof, there are fr facts that will never change. Both President Trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. Second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation. Three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the preside president s spoke. And fourth, ukraine didnt open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting n th President Trump. D i want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it andth relies on so much of it. Mr. Castor, did the democrats impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions . Yes, it did. How many y times were you ab to find assertions based on hearsay . We we went through and and counted over 50 instances of key facts. Can you give us some of the examples of the hearsay being
relied on by the majority to make their case . You know, one of the a lot of the information, for example, that Ambassador Taylor was communicating. You know, he he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him. But it was about, you know, one and two steps removed from the actual fact. And thats thats the problem with hearsay is that its a whispert down the lane situati. And if some of the people that are doing Theof Whispering Have A are predisposed to not like President Trump, then then what what theyre whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted. Did you also find l instance where the democrats report use witnesses speculations and presumptions . The biggest one of course, this has sort of become the big daddy of the echearing, is Sondland Presuming that the aid was tied to to the investigations. Because as he engaged in a back and forth with mr. Turner,
nobody on the planet, nobody on the planet, told him that that was the case. Mr. Castor, i want to move on to Foreign Policy. And the idea that somehow the president was abusing Foreign Policy. Repeatedly, witnesses came before thely Intelligence Committee and talked about how the president ow was operating outside the bounds of the process for usingds norms. The president us sets Foreign Policy, correct . Absolutely. Andco from where does he dere that power . The constitution. Article two, section two, in fact. Yeah. Can you give us examples of these members of the Foreign Policy establishment who took issue with the president s Foreignth Policy Direction and choices . Well, for example, Lieutenant Colonel vindman testified that when he was listening to the call, he had prepared Talking Points and a call package. He was visibly just completely deflated when he realized that
his call notes werent being referenced by thees president. And a lot of the interagency officials i think became very sad that the president ca didnt revere their policy making apparatus. Is it safe to say theres another reason the president s skeptical ofas relying on some these individuals to carry out his Foreign Policy goals, like rooting out corruption in ukraine . I think the president is is skeptical of the interagency bureaucracy. Is that maybe why he instead reliedhy on secretary perry, ambassador volker, ambassador sondland and others . Correct. And by the way,nd all three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of the u. S. 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 opponent . Thats correct. Yeah. Would it be t inappropriate
remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation involving ukraine . Absolutely. This all goes to the heart of bias. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Chairman, i i go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed. I would argue that the facts, in fact, are disputed. E and what you contend are facts are, in acfact, not. They are witnessct presumptions hearsay, and speculation. And the facts here are, in fact, that this is the shortest impeachment in u. S. History based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds. Mr. Chairman, this Impeachment Process is a farce and a stain on the committee and on the house of representatives. And i yield back. Om gentleman yields back. Ms. Garcia. S thank you, mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the president andea his supporters have claim that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay. And that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the president s conduct. Now, im a former judge. And you, mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true . No. Theres theres a lot of direct evidence. And a o lot of the evidence tha they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay. At indeed, it is not true. Now, iot dont want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, id like to go over someer examples with you. And, please, tell me if theyre direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador sondland and mr. Volker both testified that on may 23rd, 2019, President Trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy aboutlk ukraine. Is that direct evidence . Yes, technically. Well, not technically but yes. Thank you. And then we have the memorandum of the 20 July 25th Call between president 2 trump and president zelensky. Is that direct evidence . Um
yes, that is. So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations. And directed both president zelensky and u. S. En officials t talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct . Yes, and if i could just jump in here on the July 25th Call because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that theres no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th Call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically washington, d. C. And then he says, on the other hand, i also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and willur work the investigation. That is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call. Es so thats wrong. Its also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid
being withheld at the time of the call even though that doesnt even matter. But and then finally, there was no white house meeting ever provided. So the the third or fourth fact. So i ith do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as were focusing on what direct evidence is. Well, lets lets get some more examples. Weso also heard the testimony o three of the individuals who participated in the july 25 call. Is their testimony direct evidence of what happened during that call . Yes,ju although i would say e call record is better evidence than b their and the day after that call, david holmes testified july 26th he t overheard the president as ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was, quote, going to do the investigation. Is that direct evidence . That is direct evidence. And after the july 25 call record was released, the president got on the white house lawn and, again, declared that ukraine should investigate ala potential political opponents family, the bidens. Is that directth evidence . Yes, it is. His own words. Now that seems to me like thats a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these . Well, theres a a lot of evidence that i would call direct evidence because its not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme areve talking to eac other and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be, in court, a coconspirators statement and that would be admissible. Sold lets not get too far afie on talking about direct evidence. We dont wantki to relive. I understand but it is very important because anything mr. Giuliani says, anything ambassador sondlands, says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay. And would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we dont follow the federal rules of evidence here. But thats an important point. Right. Well,an is there anything wrong mr. , goldman, with Drawing Inferences from circumstances . Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in
every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidencede shows. So when ambassador sondland draws inferences from the fact that theres no explanation for the aid. The fact that the white house meeting has already been held up because of the investigations and determines that thats the reason why the Security Assistance is also t held up. That is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country. I agree with you. Im just disappointed that rather than to respond to the serious factual direct and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments aboutue the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. Its unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be heldid accountable. I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oath each of us have taken to protect our constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that no one,y not eve the president , is above the law. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Nagoose. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we approach the ninth hour of this hearing, i want to thank both mr. Goldman and mr. Castor for being here today and for your testimony. Theres been a lot of discussion about whether or not the facts in this matter are contested. I believe they are not contested. And so id 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 thats that russia interfered in our 2016 election. So, mr. Goldman, after two years of investigation, special counsel concluded that russia interfered in our elections in, quote, sweeping and systemic fashion. Is that right . An yes. Mr. Sh castor, is that right . Yes. And, mr. Goldman, am i correct that zero Intelligence Agencies have publicly stated that ukraine attacked our elections a in 2016 . Is that right . 2 thats right. I dontri even think that the minority is t alleging that the Ukrainian Government me systematically, in any
meaningful way, interfered. I thinkme this is just based on couple of news articles. Mr. Castor, correct . The president had a goodfaith belief there were some significant ukrainian officials. I hear you and youve said that previously. Im asking you and there are no Intelligence Agencies in the United States that have publicly stated that ukraine has attacked our lyelections, right . Youre not testifying thats the case. Im notin correct. And, in fact, President Trumps former Homeland Security advisor, tom bossert, said that the idea of ukraine hacking the dnc server was not only a conspiracyot theory. It is completely debunked. Thatste President Trumps Homeland Securitynt advisor tha said thoseme words that you seen the screen to my right. Is that right, mr. Goldman . Yes, i saw that interview. Mr. Castor, you saw that interview . Im aware c y of it. In fact, isnt it true that none of the witnesses that
appeared before your committee testified in support of the theory that ukraine somehow interfered in our elections, is that right, mr. Goldman . That is absolutely correct. Mr. Castor . Thats correct but no witness testified in support of that theory before your t committee. Mr. Goldman, isnt it also true that your committee, in fact, received testimony indicating that there is evidence that russia is, in part, perpetrating this false theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections because russia wants to deflect blame for its own involvement. That is correct. We had evidence of that. And i think that its very important to emphasize what is evidence and what is pure Media Reports or speculation. Because in the 2016 election. And in fact, id like to put some, in the 2016 election. And, in fact, id like to put some of the testimony that i believe you might be referencing, mr. Goldman, on the rereen in front of you. Bothfr from mr. Holmes, as wells dr. Fiona hill. And i will quotedr from her testimony. I am very confidentro based on l the analysis that is done that thet ukraine government did no interfere in our election in 2016. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Services themselves. Do you recall that testimony . Iec do. I also recall her testifying that there are officials from countries All Around The World who also made disparaging comments about President Trump. And as dr. Hill said, their Military Assistance was not put on hold. Given their testimony and yours, it strikes me that there are four uncontested facts. First, russia attacked our 2016 elections. Several Intelligence Agencies have independently confirmed that this is true. Second, ukraine did not attack
our 2016 elections. There is absolutely no evidence that this baseless of this baseless Conspiracy Theory. Third, there is evidence that russia perpetrated the allegation that ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. And finally, that russia benefits from the u. S. Investigating ukraine,ne which s made clear through public testimony before your committee. So mr. Goldman, is it fair to say that the Intelligence Community agrees with these four conclusions . The Intelligence Community definitelyhe agrees with one an two. Dr. Hill testified to three. As well as there is a Public Statement from mr. Putin, and yes, certainly the witnesses emphasize t four, that russia benefits from this, and we saw in my Opening StatementPresident Putins comment that its good now that ukraine is all the talk. 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 realtime . With that, i yield. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Stubing . Mr. Chairman, brief parliamentary inquiry about the schedule. Mr. Stubing has already been recognized. Heco has the time. Sir, are you going to recognize himto after for his parliamenta parliamentary inquiry . Ill make a statement about the schedule. Ive never seen a more partisan spectacle than what iowa witnessed here today. Democrats want the rule to apply when it fits them. Nine hours mr. Burk, a hired gun for the democrats got 30 minutes to spreadgo his partisan rhetor, and then 45 minutes to crossexamine witnesses. Thats 70 minutes more than most of the members of this committee who have been elected by their districts to serve the united
states congress. Mr. Burke is an unelected new york lawyer specifically brought in by l the democrats to give h opinion, as politically biased consultant who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal elections to the likes of act blue, Hillary Clinton, obama, and biden. Mr. Burke gave over 5,000 alone to Hillary Clinton for her president ial race. No wonder he has an ax to grind. Mr. Burke is a white Criminal Defense Lawyer who brags on getting Financial Brokers deferred prosecution for tax fraud and Fund Managers off for Insider Trading charges. And whatever he wanted to say without swearing an oath to his testimony that it would be truthful. So he can sit before this committee not as a fact witness and directly lie to the American People without any threat of criminal prosecution. An makes sense. He is a white collar Criminal Defense Lawyer. Im sure he didnt want to incriminate himself. This is the same mr. Burke who offered a series of reports as early as october 2017 as to
whether President Trump obstructed justice and colluded with russia. St he also included mayor Bill De Blasio in an investigation of mayor de blasios fundraising activities. For My Fellow Americans and floridians watching this charade this isth who is sitting at the top of thiso dais, a partisan w york lawyer with a written bias against President Trump who gave thousands to Hillary Clintons president ial sacampaign. And all of this spectacle, all of it, not a single fact witness has appeared in front of this committee. We have been denied a minority hearing day, which i asked for the last hearing. I all we have had testify are partisan lawyersha giving their opinions. So lets talk about the facts that we do have before us. We heard from mueller. No evidence in the Trump Campaign colluded with russia to influence the 2016 election. No obstruction of justice. After e denying the witnesses t call in Closed Door Secret Proceedings and denying republicans from calling witnesses in closed door proceedings, the facts are this. Did the president tell you about
any espreconditions for anythin . His answer. No for the aid to be refused . No no. White house meeting . No. Ambassador sondland also testified President Trump wanted nothing from ukraine. On tim morrison when questioned, and there was no quid pro quo . Answered correct. The aid was released, the four facts neverre changed. Both President Trump andr president zelensky say there was no pressure. The call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and investigation, no quid pro quo. Ukrainians were not aware the aid was withheld when the president spoke. Stille received aid and a meetg with President Trump. Id mr. Castor, has any Committee Heard from the whistleblower either in Closed Door Hearings or in openhe hearings . No. Did Chairman Schiff state that heha would call the whistleblower to testify . He did. Has that happened . It has not. Circumstances it going to occur . I hope so. Other countries aid also been held up . Yes. Mr. Goldman, on october 2nd,
the New York Times reported that the whistleblower, quote, approached a house intelligence aide with his concerns about mr. Trump. Thatut accurate . Im sorry . Saye . That again . On october 2nd, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower approached a house Intelligence Committee aide with hisa concern about m trump. Thatab accurate . I think the whistleblowers concerns about President Trump are from ws the threats no, thats not what im asking. Did the whistleblower approach a house intelligence let me ask it a different way. Have you had any communications with the whistleblower . Ca as i said earlier in respoe to questions from your colleagues, im knotts going to get into so youre gurefusing to answer whether youveef communicated wh the whistleblower. The whistleblower is not relevant to this report hi, see the whole basis of the beginning of this investigation. He is absolutely relevant. Thelu whistleblowers complaints for the reason mr. Castor said are not included, his allegations are not included in our report because the evidence has been outstripped and surpassed by the 17
witnesses that we have had come in to testify directly about the conduct that the whistleblower blew thet whistle about. As you sit here today, do you know the identity of the whistleblower . Sir, im not going to talk to you aboutg the whistleblower. Youre refusing to answer. No thats my time, not yourself. Your refusing to answer. Has any other staff in the Intelligence Community had and youre crefusing to answer that question. And unfortunately, the American People want to know those and unfortunately the time has expired. Congress has the right to maintain the anonymity of the whistleblower. The time of the the time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Chairman, have i unanimous consent. The gentleman will state his unanimous consentil request. Yes, i ask for the document dated january 11, 2017. If you give it to our staff,
well take a look at it. Should i make a motion to insert instead, mr. Chairman . Ma before i recognize before i recognize ms. Mcbath, i want to announce that with respect to scheduling, that this hearing will proceed until the votes are called. It may end before votes are called, which would be nice. If it does not end before votes are called, then we will recess for the votes and well reconvene here as soon as the votes on the floor are over. Its going to be a close call. Well see. It was further announced that im not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond todays hearing. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order. , who seeks recognition for Point Of Order . Iog do, mr. Chairman. Who iso, i . W to your right, mr. Chairma