President trump did not implement, promote, u. S. Anticorruption policies. In fact, be president sought to pressure the government of ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations, lacking legitimate predication that the u. S. Government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy and around the world, in so doing, the president undermined u. S. Policy supporting anticorruption reform and the rule of law in ukraine at undermined u. S. National security. The evidence also show that President Trump copper mice the National Security of the United States . Yes. Fact seven says, by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a foreign partner government engaged in a military conflict instigated by russia, President Trump, mike National Security to advance his political interests. Did the evidence prove that President Trump engaged in a scheme to cover up his conduct and obstruct congressional investigations . Yes. From the outset. Act nine says, using the power of the office of the president in exercising his authority over the executive branch, President Trump ordered a campaign to conceal his conduct to the public and frustrate and up obstruct the impeachment inquiry. Finally, the scholars from our hearing last week testified that the president conduct toward ukraine and patterns of inviting interference was a continuing risk to our free and Fair Elections. Does the evidence prove that President Trump was a threat to our elections . Mr. Goldman yes it did. Rep. Nadler finding of fact eight says, faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly urgent purged toed Foreign Governments investigate his flickr opponent. It presents a clear and present danger that the president will continue to use the power of his office for his political gain. Counsel fory additional questioning. Thank you. As an express investigator, would you agree that it is relevant to look at evidence bearing on the president s state of mind that my desk that might help to slain presence actions . [indiscernible] use your microphone please. Is that a relevant thing to consider . Its relative to consider . Would you agree joe biden was a leading democratic contender to face President Trump in 2020 . I disagree. It is your testimony that President Trump did not view joe biden to be a legitimate contender . Mr. Castor it is too early. As part of your inquiry, did you determine whether present trump tweeted about joe biden between january and july 25 . And how many times . Mr. Castor i did not look at twitter. Did you know President Trump tweeted about joe biden over 25 times between january and july 25 . Mr. Castor i did not look at those tweets. Did you look at how many times President Trump mentioned joe biden in a speech or valley reading up to the july call . Mr. Castor President Trump go to a lot of rallies, he does a lot of tweeting. It is difficult to draw conclusions from his tweets or statements at rallies. The judgment is not recognized. What is that the gentleman is not recognized. We will ignore the rules. Ask thew witnesses to questions, how many other rules will you disregard . Rep. Nadler the detriment will suspend. All the metairie inquiries are not in order. This is not appropriate to have a witness [indiscernible] it is just wrong. I made a point of order and you will not rule on it. Rep. Nadler i have not heard a point of order. If the judgment has a point of order, he will state the point of order. There is no rule for anybody being a witness [indiscernible] of order is he is inappropriate to be asking questions. Rep. Nadler that is not a point of order. He is in fear in accordance to the rules. Here in accordance of the rules. How much money do you have to give rep. Nadler the detriment will not catch aspersions. Via gentleman it will not cast aspersions. Mr. Burke has the time. A point of order. Rep. Nadler the judgment will state a point of order. This gentleman is presenting his opinions as a witness. He is supposed to present a material fact [indiscernible] not to appear for his opinions. Is that right or not . Rep. Nadler that is not a point of order. It is mr. Burkes time. Ruled, the gentleman has the time. Point of order. Rep. Nadler the judgment will state a point of order. Via gentleman will state a point of order. By rules. Ate there is nothing in the rule permitting this, we go by president. It is unprecedented for someone to sit, who you described as a witness, to return to the bench rep. Nadler the gentleman has that is not a point of order. , the gentlemant has been designated by me to do this questioning, pursuant to part of the wills of the house. It is in accordance with the rules of the house. The gentlemans time it will resume. Mr. Burke. Trump are aware president announced his candidacy for reelection in 2020 and announced the month before the july 25 call on june 21 . Mr. Castor ok. Did you look at the injured investigation as part of looking at President Trumps intent on the job i25 call . Obviously he is running for reelection. What does the date he announced his intent to run for reelection you knew joe biden had announced his intent in april . Mr. Castor it has been related to me. I do not know when joe biden indicated he is going to run. Ifyou would agree that ukraine announced a corruption investigation of joe biden, that would hurt his credibility as a candidate, would you agree . Mr. Castor nobody would you agree . Disagreer i slightly with the premise of your question. [indiscernible] rep. Nadler the gentleman is not recognized. At the gentleman has the floor. I object to the question. Rep. Nadler the question is in order. The judgment will continue. Gent the gentleman will continue. About eightlking ambiguous lines in a call transcript. Forpresident was not asking a personal favor, he was speaking on behalf of the people American People. He said, i would like you to find out what happens with the whole situation in ukraine. I guess crowd strike, you have one of your wealthy people im not asking you to talk to read that. Lets look at slide three. The reference to joe biden. On the july 25 call on page four, isnt it a fact that President Trump and his call with president ellen ski said that he heard joe biden had stopped the prosecution of his son . Is that correct . It says the other thing, there is a lot of talk about joe bidens son, joe biden stopped the prosecution. Point of order, he is entitled to answer the question fully. There is a video of the former Vice President , i think that is what the president is referring to. The council on foreign relations. President wase audacious and how he described, he went over i am asking what it says on the transcript. Is that what it says . Mr. Castor its as the other thing, there is talk about bidens son. And joe biden stopped the prosecution. Say,so goes on to President Trump asked president zelensky, if you can look into it, correct . Those are the words . Mr. Castor that is what it says. Askingident trump was ukrainian president zelensky to have the ukrainian officials look into Vice President joe biden. Correct . Mr. Castor i do not think the record supports that. It does not say can you look into it . Mr. Castor i do not think it supports that. I think it is ambiguous. Mr. Goldman, you are and explores prosecutor. Asking President Trump president zelensky to investigate his political rival, joe biden . Mr. Goldman i do not think there is any other way to read the words on the page other than to conclude that. Mr. Castor, you made a point let me ask, as an end as an experts investigator, when someone has done something wonderful, that they state their intentions to do something wrong and corrupt . Your experience as an investigator . In general. Mr. Castor you are saying a schemer would talk about his scheme . Would he admit he was doing something wrong to something to someone not in the scheme . Mr. Castor no. You made a big point that donald trump on the call did not tell president zelensky that he wanted the investigation announced to help his 2020 election. Mr. Castor he did not talk about 2020. It President Trump was acting wrongfully, it was unlikely he was going to confess to president zelensky that he was asking for the investigation explicitly to help his 2020 election . , youoldman my experience almost never have a defendant or someone engaging in misconduct who would ever explicitly say, in this case residents a lenski, i am going to bribe you now, or i am going to ask for a bribe, or i am now going to extort you. That is not the way these things work. Thank you. Mr. Castor, you said about hunter biden, hunter biden had been on the board of burisma going back to 2014, correct . Mr. Castor yes. Present some desk president President Trump supported ukraine in 2019 2017 and 2018. Isnt it correct President Trump did not raise anything about hunter biden and his father in 2017 or 2018 . He only did it the year before his election in 2020 when both he and joe biden were leading candidates, isnt that true . Mr. Castor i think what happened is the president saw this video of the former Vice President at a coalescing his might. Please answer my question. He did not raise these questions in 2017 or 2018 . Mr. Castor that is not something that we have looked at. This video is pretty let me ask this. You talk about colonel vindman, a decorated purple heart recipient and worked in the Trump Administration, correct . Mr. Castor yes sir. He had a reaction to the call. He was listening to it. Lets look at his reaction. He said, i immediately went to the lead legal counsel, it is improper for the president to demand a Foreign Government investigate a u. S. Citizen and political opponent. That was his testimony correct . Yes . Mr. Castor yeah. This, you said the Intelligence Committee are jordi up port majority report , it present as if things are clear but it is not clear. Is that what you said . Mr. Castor that is absolutely correct. You work personally on the minority report. Correct . Yes. Was it important to be accurate in the reporting minority report . Was it important to be there to witnesses about what they said . Was important to be fair to the American People and accurately report what people said . Mr. Castor of course. Let me ask about Jennifer Williams. She was a special advisor to Vice President pence on europe and russia affairs. She worked for Vice President pence. You said in your Opening Statement that these accusations that President Trump was trying to do something for political purposes, that was made by people who had predetermined motors for impeachment. Is that correct . Mr. Castor some of them. Ive also indicated some of the witnesses in the inquiry i think have revised their views after the call transcript came out and the whistleblower complaint was released. Are you calling vice aesident pence is advisor is liar . Are you saying she was predetermined to mp . Mr. Castor the question about Jennifer Williams to never mentioned anything her supervisor, never mentioned anything to anybody in the Vice President s office in route to warsaw when the Vice President would meet with president a lenski. It as anot raise potential issue that might catch the Vice President off guard. The concern she articulated during the deposition and with theas incongruent facts and what she did during times relevant. What you wrote in the report about miss williams. We could put up sly six please. Slide six please. You made the same point you tried to make to discount her testimony, you said she testified that although she found the call unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor. Nobody in america to about Jennifer Williams concerns until she walked into the door for her deposition. Although she found the call unusual, that is not what she said about the call. She did not say it was just unusual. Mr. Castor she said it was unusual. That is not all she said about it. Mr. Castor she was here for nine hours so she said a lot about the call. [indiscernible] rep. Nadler the gentleman will suspend, the gentleman has the time. Testimony, williams although she found the call to be unusual, she did not raise concerns to her supervisor. Isnt it a fact that ms. Williams said more than that . I have a point of order. Rep. Nadler the judgment will states point of order. The judgment complained that he cannot see what the questioner is relying on at would like to see it. Rep. Nadler that is not a point of order and it was read to him. Only half of it was bad to him. Bit so members a are able to fully see what is being put in support of what you are trying to do. We cannot do that without being able to see or read it. Lets slow down so that we can see or hear what he is referring to. You are not letting that happen. That goes to the privileges of the members that you are asking [indiscernible] rep. Nadler the gentleman will suspend. I can see now, i appreciate the accommodation. The monitor was turned, now we can see. Rep. Nadler the gentleman will resume. Says miss williams says she found it to be unusual and nothing more. Lets look at slide seven. Mr. Castor it does not say and nothing more. Is a did fact that what miss williams says struck her as unusual and inappropriate . Isnt that correct . That is what she said in her testimony. In your report, you left out the inappropriate party. Mr. Castor she thought it was unusual, she did not raise concerns. Where you as fair to the American People in describing what miss williams said as you were in describing Everything Else in your report . Mr. Castor i do not have an issue with the way we described miss williams testimony. Lets look at what else miss williams said. Lets put up slide eight. This is from her public testimony. She said, i thought the references to specific individuals and investigations such as former Vice President struck me as political in nature. Given that the former Vice President is a political opponent of the president. You left that out of your staff report. Ms. Williams did you leave that out of the report . Mr. Castor if you are telling me i did, i dont know as i sit here right now. I am telling you you did. Mr. Castor ok. Do you have an explanation, you said miss blames set the call was unusual when in fact she said it was unusual and inappropriate and of a political there because it raised Vice President , who she recognized was a political opponent of the president . Mr. Castor her use of the call deaf or that is not my question. Why did you misquote miss williams . Mr. Castor we did not misquote her. From the standard you apply to your factfinding in your report, you believe it was proper to say that ms. Williams found the call to be unusual but in fact she found the call unusual and inappropriate and of a political nature given that the former Vice President is a political opponent of the president . Is that your testimony . Mr. Castor we described what miss williams said. Chairman, [indiscernible] you can ask or answer, he cannot do both. Rep. Nadler the gentleman is not recognized. [indiscernible] yes battering the witness. He is nattering the witness. Conjugal on my point of order that he is badgering the witness . Rep. Nadler it does not call for a ruling andy time belongs to the gentleman. The chairman is not an order. Rep. Nadler that is not a point of order. Will you rule on my original point of order . Rep. Nadler the original point of order ring thehairman is badge witness. Your ruse are not compliant with everyone elses rules. Rep. Nadler crossexamination is not badgering the witness. The gentleman has the time. Point of order. Resolution 660, we are supposed to follow the rules of evidence. What are the rules . What are the objections . Rep. Nadler that is not a point of order. There are no rules. Rep. Nadler the judgment will continue. Where are the rules . Rep. Nadler the gentleman will continue. You invoke to morrison. He was someone on the call. Invoked tim morrison. He was on the call. Mr. Morrison said that the goldman,was, by mr. You heard the call, you recognize President Trump was not discussing the talking points at the nsc had prepared based on u. S. Policy and was instead of talking about the investigations that fiona hill had warned you about. You reported it immediately to the nsc legal advisor. Events . The correct mr. Morrison said, that is correct. Goldman, before your presentation, we show the testimony of ms. Hill where she referred to what the president was trying to do as running a domestic political errand. Is that what you intended to ask Esther Morrison . Mr. Goldman yes. It was about the investigations President Trump ultimately did discuss and asked president zelensky to do. These are the same investigations that were discussed and the only two investigations at issue throughout the entirety of the scheme. What our evidence found was any time there was a reference to investigations, it reference to the joe biden investigation and 2016 investigation. When heor v