I wanted to confirm a Point Of Order is the rules of decorum. I dont believe the gentleman from florida meant to violate them and i give him the benefit of the doubt. More than once he referred to a new york lawyer. If he could explain what he meant i withdraw my Point Of Order. Thats not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order regarding the schedule. In this case, there is. Will you answer my question . The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable Point Of Order regarding the future schedule. Will you recognize that . No. Mrs. Mcbath is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on one part of President Trumps conduct. I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The Investigative Committees found evidence President Trumpintimidated, threatened and tampered with prospective and actual witnesses in the Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness before congress, is that right . Yes. Theres a little bit more to it but thats the gist. Am i correct President Trump publicly attacked witnesses before, after and even during their testimony . That is correct. Id like to quickly go through some examples. On twitter the president tried to smear ambassador bill taylor, a former military officer who graduated at the top of his class at westpoint, served as an Infantry Commander in vietnam and earned a bronze star and medal for a d device for valor. He was attack for doing his duty by telling the truth . He did his duty by testifying, yes. President trump also attacked other Administration Officials who testified before the Intelligence Committee including Lieutenant Colonel alexander s. Vindman, the director for ukraine on the National Security council and jennifer williams, the special advisor of europe and russia with the office of the Vice President , am i right . The hearat is right, yes. Another troubling part of this is the president s treatment of ambassador yovanovitch. When you questioned ambassador yovanovitch, you asked her about the president s remark that she would, and i quote, go through some things. She told you that that remark sounded like a threat, is that right . Yes. In the july 25th call, thats
when President Trump said that. Ambassador yovanovitch is a Career Professional who served in republican and democratic administrations. She was once caught in live crossfire during a coup attempt, and heres how she described that experience in her very own words. I later served in moscow. In 1993, during the attempted coup in russia, i was caught in crossfire between president ial and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries. Me without a helmet or body armor to get into a vehicle to go to the embassy. We went because the ambassador asked us to come. We went because it was our duty. It was our duty. Even under such duress, this is a Public Servant who did her duty. As she testified before you and the Intelligence Committee, the president tweeted yet another attack against her, is that correct . During the testimony, yes. At a rally, the president further attacked ambassador taylor and Deputy Assistant secretary of the state, george kent, Foreign Affairs official with decades of bipartisan service. I have to say i am so deeply saddened our president has attacked our brave Public Servants. These attacks are an abuse of his power and they betray our national interests. My republican colleagues until now have agreed with me that this behavior is not okay. That in america we protect witnesses and people who tell the truth. We want people to come forward. We protect witnesses in our community. I myself am no stranger to these kinds of attacks. They are not okay. I want to read a partial statement by Lieutenant Colonel vindman, in his open statement to the Intelligence Committee, mr. Vindman said, i quote, i want to say the Character Attacks on these distinguished, honorable Public Servants is reprehensible. I ran for congress because i care urgently about healthcare, gun violence prevention and our veterans. Those are the urgent policies for me and many of my colleagues. But these witnesses, these Public Servants stood up and courageously told the truth, and i must be courageous and stand up for them as well. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back the balance of her time. A few minutes ago, it was asked
to admit a political article into the record. Mr. Stanton. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We heard from some suggesting how this process has somehow been unfair. Mr. Goldman, lets clear up that record. The members of the Minority Committee had access to the records, is that correct . Yes. All the documents. Were they allowed to ask questions of all the witnesses . The minority was given equal time to the majority for every single witness and majority we did. The minority were able to call their own hearings . They did. They got three witnesses and allowed to call their own witnesses for the depositions. They chose not to do that. The only witness they chose was chairman schiff, who is not a fact witness. Why did the Investigative Committees decide to conduct initial depositions Behind Closed Doors . The best investigative
practice doing a factfinding information is to keep the information closed. The reason is exactly what i described earlier with ambassador sondland, first of all, the day before his deposition he spoke with Secretary Perry about his testimony. That is the type of tailoring that can happen when people are engaged in misconduct and they try to line up their stories. If you keep the information closed they cant line up their stories. I think frankly part of the reason why ambassador volker and Sondlands Public Hearing Testimony was so different from their Deposition Testimony because the initial depositions were in closed session before we then released all the transcripts to the public. This is unprecedented because in the nixon and Clinton Impeachment hearings there were not closed depositions before the hearings. Yes. It was passed by republican
congress and used in benghazi and a number of hearings for a decade or so. For the record, President Trump has received all protections for the impeachment committee. Thats right. Our inquiry was not the Judiciary Committees investigation. That is where the president s ability to present evidence. If the president wanted to present evidence in the Intelligence Committee he could have provided documents or witnesses we asked for him but he obstructed rather than cooperated. The president has been invited to participate in the houses Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. He declined the invitation . Thats my understanding. Twice . Yes. And he has not only refused to participate but tried to stop congress from obtaining evidence. Isnt it true he tried to stop any evidence or response to the inquiries, subpoena to the white house . Yes. Not single document. And refused agencies to produce documents . That is also true. Based on the president s order, federal agencies have ignored more than 70 specific requests for records from the Investigative Committees, is that correct . If i could just add quickly, please. This would ordinarily be a document case. If you were prosecuting this case youd be basing it on the documents. The fact the documents are being withheld is quite significant and remarkable we built the record we have on the witnesses. Not just the documents, at the president s direction, witnesses also refused to testify, is that right . Thats correct. In total, more than a dozen members of the administration declined lawful testimony and documents you see on the slide . Testimony and documents, is that correct. Isnt it true when they
testified they were given the documents they needed to prepare for their testimony . For some of them, thats correct. But i also must acknowledge this process has been challenging. In many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my Phone Records, state Department Emails and many many other State Department documents. And i was told i could not work with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. These documents are not classified, and in fairness, and in fairness, should have been made available. The State Department has collected all the materials in response to the september 27 subpoena that may contain facts relevant. To my testimony. I have no such documents or materials with me today. The president was not denied the right to participate, quite the opposite. The president has chosen not to participate and he has chosen to obstruct the Impeachment Investigation to insure no one chooses to testify against him and to keep the American People from learning the truth. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, please. What purpose is the gentleman asking . Can i Say Something for five seconds . No. Ne gentle lady, miss dean is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldman, some have argued we should wait, were moving too fast, we should try to get more evidence. Lets examine why these arguments are without merit. President nixon stated during the Senate Investigation said all members of the white house staff will appear voluntarily. When requested by the committee, they will testify under oath and answer fully all proper questions, end quote. During the investigation of
president clinton, ken starr interviewed white house staff. President clinton provided responses to 81 interroygtorys. Unlike the president , President Trump has stone walled the investigation at every turn. As far back as april, the president expressed his intent to stonewall. Were fighting all the subpoenas. More recently, on october the 8th, white house counsel, Pat Cipollone offered this sentiment in a letter that all official Branch Officials not testify in this Impeachment Inquiry. Are you aware have that letter, mr. Goldman . Yes, i am. Is it fair to say President Trump is the only president in the history of our country to seek to completely obstruct an Impeachment Inquiry undertaken by this house . That is correct, it is unprecedented. In fact, pursuant toPresident Trumps order, 12 executive Branch Officials refused to testify as part of the house inquiry and 10 who defied Congressional Subpoenas, am i right . Yes. Given the president s sweeping directive not to cooperate with congress did the committee believe there was any chance other Administration Officials would come forward if subpoenaed . No. It became clear the president was trying to block everything and block everyone and eventually they came up with an alternative reason to write an opinion to prevent people from coming, which is quite an aggressive view that they took. It was quite clear they were trying to block every single witness. Some say the Investigative Committee should have gone to court. Did you decide not to go to court . We thought about it a lot because obviously there are additional witnesses and we want this to be a thorough investigation. You can see from the Deutsche Bank case and the other case, it takes months and months to go to the appeals court. Thats what the president wants, to delay this as long as possible. Lets talk about that case, mcgahn case, on december 22nd, th this judiciary served a subpoena to testify and he refused. And on the 7th, it was compelled. It was another 3 1 2 months before judge jackson found the constitution does not allow the president to Kneecap Investigations because as the judge wrote, i put up on this screen, quote president s are not kings. As you know, mcgahn has now appealed and a hearing set for January 3rd Of Next year. As we sit here today, eight months since we issued that
subpoena, do you feel it is likely there will be months to come . It is quite likely and then the Supreme Court. Exactly. Mcgahn may appeal 20 to the Supreme Court and could take another month or years or more . Could be next term or pushed to the next term. And would you agree if we go to court to enforce the Investigative Committee subpoenas we could face another month or years long delay to hear testimony . Absolutely. Theres an ongoing threat because the president is trying to cheat to win the next election. Its not something that happened in the past, its continuing in the future. We cannot delay and wait for the courts to resolve this when the reason we have to go to the courts is because the president is obstructing an investigation into himself. The urgency is not just our investigations, the National Security . That is a critical component
to it. Let me end with this. What is plain is we cannot wait. Wait means never. We must not let this president disregard, defy and delay justice. This president has shown he repeatedly abuses the power entrusted by the people. Every moment we wait is another time to chip at the constitution, so carefully crafted by our founders. I yield back. I yield to the gentle lady. Thank you, mr. Chairman and mr. Goldman and mr. Kappa. Id like to ask unanimous consent in my Questioning Statement of emergency defense policy. Without objection. And the call dated without objection, mr. Armstrong. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Castor. Its been a long day and a
long couple months and youve been in the middle of this and i know you wanted to Say Something. Thank you. I resisted my willingness to be the athletic here in the afternoon. I want to say a few things. First of all, the republicans on the Intelligence Committee submitted a number of subpoenas. We never got a vote. There was a motion to table, disposed of them publish Ranking Member nunes sent a letter on december 8th, asking for witnesses and representative collins sent a letter asking for members and it would have touched at the heart of the issue our members were concerned about. That is, were ukrainians trying to interfere in our investigations. They investigated it and to the extent it happened in the u. S. , we ought to investigate it. To the extent that hasnt happened, republicans have
attempted to do that during this process. Id like to say that. I have a couple other things, mr. Armstrong, if i may. Ambassador sondland is relied on. He went from a witness who was not very favorable to very favorable at his hearing. One of the remarkable statements at his hearing was everyone was in the loop. He types up this email to pompeo, to the secretary, and the emails that he used to demonstrate that everyone was in the loop are not conclusive at all. Talks about this statement that was going back and forth during the early part of august. First of all, volker said all along he didnt think the statement was a good idea. Volker and Yarmach Toyed around with the statement and both sides decided it wasnt a good plan. They didnt do it. The fact that sondland is emailing the secretary, talking about this statement and so forth, this doesnt show everyone is in the loop. Ambassador hale testified, people at the State Department, they dont just email the secretary. The secretary gets email but its not like this. Theres a whole secretariat that filters his email and its not emailing the Secretary Of State is not quite as simple as i think ambassador sondland made it seem here. I wanted to address that. We talked a couple times about the reliability of george kents notes. One of ambassador volkers
assistants, kathryn croft, testified, a rather startling piece of testimony, she was asked whether the notes would be reliable, a typical question and everyone e