Now, turning attention to the ron johnson letter if i may. Yes. On august 31st, Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to ukraine on September 5th with senator murphy. And he wanted johnson wanted the aid released, he calls the president , he actually sought permission to be the bearer of good news. Right. The president said, im not ready to lift the aid. And they had this Senator Johnson. He writes a ten page letter, very detailed. And he gives some remarkable deta detail. And id like to read it, its on page 6. I add this is Senator Johnson speaking, i asked him whether there was some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation Senator Johnson says, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed. And he started cursing. And he said no way, President Trump said no way, i would never do that. Who told you that . And Senator Johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reaction here was adamant, vehement and angry. Senator johnson goes on to say that as of august 31st, the president told him, but youre going to like my decision in the end. So i think thats very important context on what the president s State Of Mind was at least as of august 31st. Right, he fully expected, do you agree, that aid would eventually be released, after the 55 day pause, right . Yes. Absolutely. I want to thank yall for your presentations. Before caster, i believe youve
been talking for approximately 75 minutes today. And i want to thank you for that. My wife thanks you as well. She likes it when i do the talking when shes not around. Time permitting today, id like to cover four or five areas, distinct areas theres a lot of facts that the American People have not heard. And theres a lot of contradictions in certain peoples testimony, is that fair to say, mr. Caster . Id like to talk about some of the people in this story that have firsthand knowledge of the facts. We have ambassador volker, ambassador sondland and second perry. You had the opportunity to talk to two of those three people, is that correct . Yes. And the democrats report
would like us to believe that these three individuals were engaged in some sort of kabal or some sort of nefarious venture. But thats not true, is it . No. In fact, these three people were at all relevant times and even today acting in the best interest of the American People, is that true . Thats right. And with the highest integrity. Thats right. I think everyone testified that ambassador volker is one of the most experienced diplomats in our foreign service. Across the board, all the witnesses, including ambassador ionavi ionavich. Theres a loot of firsthand knowledge with people we didnt talk about, correct . Yes. Now i want to talk about the president s skepticism of foreign aid. The president is very skeptical of foreign aid, is that correct . He is deeply skeptical of sending u. S. Taxpayer dollars into an environment that is corrupt, because its as good as kissing it goodbye. Is that something new that he believes or is that something he ran on . This is something that he has run on. Something that he has implemented policies, as soon as he became president. The third ranking state Department Official told us about the over all review of all foreign aid programs, and he described it as almost a zero based evaluation. And you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark sandy who is a Career Official at omb, is that right . Correct. And he had some information about the reason for the pause, is that true . I think that he had a
conversation with an individual named problem blair. And mr. Blair provided insight into the reason for the pause . Sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us a firsthand account inside of omb, the reason for the pause related to the president s concern about european Burden Sharing. Right. In the region. And he and in fact in his conversations, the president s conversations with Senator Johnson, he mentions his concern about Burden Sharing. And i believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chance lower of germany, and in fact the whole first part of the July 24th Transcript hes talking about Burden Sharing and
wanting the our pie an europea more. Yeah, Senator Johnson and President Trump were pretty cand candid, they believe that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. Right. Now id like theres been a lot of allegations that president zelensky is not being candid aboutfeeling pressure from President Trump. Isnt it true he stated over an over publicly that he felt no pressure from President Trump . Is that true . Yeah, he said it consistently, he said it at the United Nations september 25th, in three more News Availabilities over the course of the period including last
week. I want to change subjection and talk about something that Professor Turley raised last week, that is the partisan nature of this investigation. And youre an experienced congressional investigator. And Professor Turley, hes no trump supporter. He is a democrat. Thats right. Professor turley cautioned that a partisan inquiry is not what the founders envisioned, is that correct in. Correct. Thats the worst thing you can have with an impeachment is partisan rancher, because no ones going to accept the result on the other side. And our Democrat Friends have all of a sudden become originalists and citing the founders in their intent routinely as part of this impeachment process. I think that goes with
whether this constitutes bribery. You know, theres case law on bribery, and im no Supreme Court scholar or lawyer or advocate, but theres new case law with the Mcdonald Case what constitutes an official act, and that hasnt been addressed in this space, and i think Professor Turley mentioned that. Right, and i think Professor Turley said a meeting does not constitute an official act. I think its the Mcdonald Case. And Professor Turley pointed that out for us last week. Yes. Since this inquirys unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely, i think we
saw that in Lieutenant Colonel vindmans deposition. There were some we were barred from asking him questions about who he communicated his concerns to. Right. Very basic things like who, what, when, where . And instead. I would say too. This rapid. Were in day 76, and its almost impossible to do a sophisticated congressional investigation that quickly. Especially when the stakes are this high. Because any congressional investigation of any consequence, it does take a little bit of time for the two sides to stake out their interests and how were going to respond to them. The first letter i think went in October Of 2017 and in december,
we finally got a witness. And it was the following spring, after a lot of pushing and pulling and a lot of tug of war, we reached a deal with doj where we went down to doj and they gave us access to documents and to north of 800,000 pages, but they made us come down there, they made us go into a skiff and these documents werent classified, and it Wasnt Until May or june of that year that we started this process, when the investigation had been on going. And that is disappointing. Obviously we all wish there was an easy button, but congressional investigations of consequence take time. Right. And it took six months before the first document was even produced. You had to go down there and
review it in camera, and going back even further to fast and furious. Yes. The vision of the death of a Border Patrol agent. Fast and furious, we issued subpoenas. Mr. Issa sent subpoenas in February Of 2011 and we had a hearing in june with experts about proceeding to contempt. What does it take to go to contempt. That was the first time in june when we got any production. The production was largely publicly available information. And we went we spent most of the year trying to get information out of the Justice Department. At the time we were also working with Whistle Blowers who were providing us documents and chairman issa at the time in october issued another subpoena that was to the justice
department. And so the investigation had been ongoing most of the year, we were talking to whistleblowers, doing interviews, doing our best to get documents out of the Justice Department through that channel, but these things take time. Right. Certainly not 76 days. And if you truly want to uncover every fact as you should in an impeachment, do you agree . You have to go to court sometimes and enforce your subpoenas. And here my understanding is, we have a lot of requests for information, voluntary information, will you please provide us with documents on xyz . And i think thats great. But you have to back it up with something. Theres a number of ways to enforce your request. The fundamental rule of any congressional investigation is, you rarely get what youre asking for, unless and until the alternative is less palletable for the respondent. You issue a subpoena and youre trying to get documents. One technique you can use is try to talk to a Document Customer owed ya custodian. They used to have document status hearings, where you would try to get the lay of the land theyre supposed to be directly responsible serving interests. You can saber rattle, about holding somebody in contempt often times witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate and come forward when you attach a Contempt Proceeding or a perspective Contempt Proceeding to their name, a lot of times that changes the outcome and with a Contempt Proceeding, you have a couple different steps
along the way, you could raise the prospect, schedule a Contempt Proceeding, after you schedule a congress tempt proceeding, you could hold the door open for documents or interviews, push it off, go through at the committee level, and these are all sort of milestone events. Which historically are unpalatable or less palletable for the administration that sometimes starts to move the needle and with these types of disputes, once you get the ball rolling. We didnt get a witness, it was Andrew Mccabe in for it was a couple months, but once we got Deputy Director mccabe in, a couple weeks later, we got director comeys chief of staff. A couple weeks later, once you get the ball rolling. And again, you dont always like 100 of the terms, sometimes you have to deal with agency council. Sometimes have you to look in camera, once you get the ball rolling, usually it leads to positive results and historically has allowed the congress to do its work. And were any of these things done here . No. In fact they decided, were not going to subpoena certain people that are important, is that fair to say . And were not going to go to court and enforce them. These people have these folks that are caught in an interbranch struggle. Thats an unfortunate position for any employee. One of the interesting things, dr. Cupper man who has been described by dr. Fiona hill and a number of witnesses who is a solid citizen. He filed a lawsuit in the face of a subpoena, and a judge was assigned to it, judge leon. And the issues that cupper man
raised were slightly different than don mcgann. Cupperman is a National Security official. Cupper man, you know, filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. Cupper man wasnt asking the court to tell him not to come testify. To the contrary, he was seeking The Courts Guide Answer to facilitate his cooperation. And ultimately the committee with drew the subpoena. Yet which raises questions on whether the committee is interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. Right. Instead the Intelligence Committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. I think they rely 600 times in their i tell you what i did, i on this point, i yesterday, i
opened the democrat report and i did a controlf. Yes. And sondlands name shows up 611 times. And in fairness, its going to be double counted because if its in a sentence and then its in a footnote, thats two, but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondlands relied on big time. Yes. And i think dr. Hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and the record is mixed on this front. Dr. Hill talks about raising concerns of sondland and sondland in his deposition didnt share the same view. Theres a lot of instances of
that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing, and other witnesses recall another, is that correct . Sondland is a witness, is a and hes a bit of an enigma. Lets say it that way. He was pretty certain in his deposition that the Security Assistance wasnt linked to anything. And then he submitted a an addendum. I call that the press ilsenten ilsentence. Even in that addendum or supplement or whatever its called, you know, talk to him and her and anyway, sondland ends with, i presumed. There wasnt really any firsthand information. We dont have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct . On certain facts we dont. We have firsthand information
on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. Although all conflicting on the july 10th meeting. There are you know, episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we havent been able to at least get everyones account. But the investigation hasnt been able to reveal, you know, firsthand evidence relating to the president other than the call transcript. And i think weve already talked about this, ambassador sondland would presume things, assume things and form opinions based on what other people told him, and he would use those as firsthand, is that correct . You know, it started with his role with the ukraine portfolio, a lot of people at the state
department were wondering why the ambassador to the eu was so engaged in issues relating to ukraine. And there are answers for that. Ukraine is an asperant to join the eu. And there are a lot of other reasons. Mr. Turner explored this really well at the open hearing. We asked ambassador sondland, he said did he did a tv interview, where he said the president s given me a lot of assignments. The president s assigned me to the ukraine and so forth. When we asked him in his deposition, he conceded that he was in fact spinning, that the president never assigned him to ukraine, that he was just he was you know, he was exaggerating. I think at the public hearings, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isnt a note
taker, he in fact he said, i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. Lets say it this way, ambassador taylor walked us through his Standard Operating Procedure for taking notes. He told us about having a notebook on his desk and a notes book in his coat pocket. He brought it with us and showed us. Consequently, when ambassador taylor recounts to us what happened, its backed up by these contemporaneous notes. Ambassador sondland on the other hand was very clear that he said he did not have access to his State Department records. While he said that at the public hearing simultaneously, the State Department issued a tweet, i think, or a statement saying
that isnt true. No one is keeping ambassador sondland from his emails, hes a State Department employee, he can go he does have access to his records, he stated he didnt. And he stated he doesnt have any notes because he doesnt take notes. And he conceded that he doesnt have recollections of on a lot of these issues, and we sort of made a list of them, and i think at the hearing i called it thetry te trifecta of unreliabi. And youre not the only person that has concerns about ambassador sondlands testimony, conduct. I think other witnesses took issue with his conduct, is that correct . Yeah, tim morrison talked about instances where ambassador sondland was showing up uninvited. Morrison didnt understand why sondland was trying to get into the warsaw meetings september 1st. And dr. Hill, fiona hill told us about issues of that sort and a number of witnesses, youre correct. Yeah, i believe ambassador reeker said he was a problem, yeah. Dr. Hill raised concerns about his behavior and said he might be an intelligence risk, is that correct . She did. She had issues with his tendency to pull out his mobil device and make telephone calls, which obviously can be monitored. Yes. By the bad guys. We talked about how he was spinning, that you know, certain things, and he admitted that, how he was spinning, and he admitted, he exaggerated. He also when it comes to his
communications with the president ,