They were not going to issue that statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma and the 2016 elections there was no white house meeting. It soon became clear to them that the Security Assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. Well, following the 25th call, the July 25th Call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. Giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. Wasnt that right . Yes. And the report say they were closely and then also there were phone calls with the white house around the same time they were working closely do you know what that statement was supposed to say, according to mr. Giuliani and the u. S. Officials. The key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the Biden Investigation and the 2016
ukraine interference. Was there concern about doing the investigations or what . Just make a statement about it . Sondland testified that all he heard mr. Giuliani sore anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations. And so did the Committee Find that without that Public Statement there could be no white house meeting . Yes. So i was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point and i would like to play another example. Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously, with regard to the requests white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Everyone was in the loop. Mr. Goldman, did the Investigative Committee find that mr. Giuliani played a role in the white house visit being conditioned on investigations . The evidence showed that mr. Giuliani not only played a role but that he was essentially the
president s agent. He was acting on behalf of the president expressing the president s wishes, desires so what evidence did the Committee Find that corroborated the, quote, everyone was in the loop. Well, ambassador sondland produced for his public testimony and i think it is very important in light of the testimony from mr. Castor a minute ago with mr. Buck, as to how many times that mr. Sondland did not remember in his deposition. Because we agree it was egregious. But the advantage of doing closed depositions is that mr. Sondland could not match up his testimony. So as other witnesses came in, then he realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff so he did admit to an email that included Secretary Pompeo i do want to make a point before my time goes out. We have to think about what is going on today. So president zelensky is meeting with putin today. And because of President Trumps
actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with the leader of the nation that invaded his country. If our Military Assistance had been provided as congress ordered it, and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. If you want the support what we have to realize is the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world, if you want the support of the United States, be prepared to help with President Trump saez reelection. President trump sas abuse of pr has injured our nation. Gentle lady yields back thank the chairman. The 299 page report references the Inspector GeneralMichael Atkinson on pages 26, 33, 138, 140 and 143. Mr. Goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019 transcribed interview of the Inspector General michael
atkinson, correct . Yes, on pages 53 to 73 of the transcribed interview the Inspector Generals testimony confirms the following that the whistleblower made statements to the Inspector General under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That the whistleblower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. The whistleblower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector Generals investigative team. Because of the whistleblowers statements in writing and verbally to the Inspector General that were neither true, correct, or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that sworn testimony reveals that the Inspector General was not able to answer any questions, none, from me about the whistleblowers contact or communication with Chairman Schiffs staff of which mr. Goldman is a member. Mr. Castor, do you remember
anywhere in this 299page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistleblower started this inquiry they did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true or correct in writing and then did so again verbally . I dont remember that. After the Inspector General testified on october 4th and after media reports revealing that the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff did not disclose prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistleblower contacted the Inspector General to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct and accurate. Mr. Castor, is that communication from the whistleblower from the whistleblower to the Inspector General to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299page report . No. On october 2nd, Chairman Schiffs spokesperson patrick
bowlen acknowledged publicly that the out lines of the accusations against the president had been disclosed to the house intelligence staff and shared with Chairman Schiff. Mr. Castor, is that disclosure and mr. Bowlens admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report . I dont remember seeing it. Its not. I think all members of congress should be held accountable during this Impeachment Process. And to that end, if i have made any false statements about the whistleblower or the Inspector Generals testimony today, then i should be held accountable. The way to do that would be to release the Inspector Generals testimony or even just pages 53 to 73. I would add that there is nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistleblowers identity. Nor would it reveal any information that in any way relates to much less jeopardizes National Security. Look, maybe there is a believable explanation for why the whistleblower made statements that werent true or accurate about his or her contact with Chairman Schiff in writing and then again verbally. Maybe there is a good explanation for why the Words Congress or Congressional Committee was confusing or not clear to the whistleblower. Maybe there is a good explanation for why the whistleblower also misled the Inspector General in writing on august 12th by stating, i reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees directly when the whistleblower had, in fact, already contacted Chairman Schiffs committee two weeks before he or she wrote that. Maybe there is a believable reason why Chairman Schiff was not truthful about his staffs communications with the whistleblower. Maybe there is a good reason that explains all of these statements in writing and verbally that just werent true and correct. Maybe there is. But there is no good reason for voting to impeach and remove from office an american
president without allowing a single question to be asked of a single witness to get an explanation for why the Inspector General was not told the truth about contacts between the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff. The bottom line is we should all be held accountable and next november every member of the house will be asked this question, did you vote to impeach the president without allowing any investigation into why the whistleblower that started it all did so by making statements in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true. Democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered but the voters will. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Richmond. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldman, i want to start off with facts that you uncovered during the investigation and i want to pick up where mr. Beauch and bass left off. They walked through how the
president used the white house pressure on ukraine to do his personal bidding. I want to talk about how the president did the same thing with almost 400 million in taxpayer dollars to pressure ukraine to do his personal bidding. So i would like to start with turning back to the July 25th Call. It is a fact that in the president s own words and the transcript submitted by him reveals that after ukraine asked for military aid, trump says, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Right after president zelensky thanks President Trump for the Military Assistance, then President Trump asked for a favor and of course by this point President Trump had already placed the hold on the Security Assistance. Now my republican colleagues have suggested that the ukrainians did not even know about the military aid being withheld, is that true . No. There was significant evidence
that even as early as july 25th, at the time of the call, that ukrainian officials suspected that the aid was being withheld and there was a New York Times article last week that was included in the report but from the Deputy Foreign minister who said that ukraine president zelenskys office received a diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of july 25th saying that the aid had been held. Correct. And what ill also show you on the screen is that it was on july 25th also, the same day of the call, that the State Department mailed the Department Of Defense noting that the Ukrainian Embassy was asking about the withheld military aid. Yes. That is what i was referring to. Id like to lets go back. There was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that mr. Sandy from omb said the reasoner for this Security Assistance hold was related to the president s
concerns about burden sharing with europe. Is that consistent with the evidence that yall uncovered. It is a good question. Because mr. Sandy did say that. But mr. Sandy said that he only heard that in Early September. That that reason was never provided to him or anybody else before Early September for the first two months of the hold. And of course it was given at that point as this the gig was up so to speak. So that was after everything came out to light . It was he wasnt sure of the timing but he was ultimately told that the reason for the hold after it was lifted was for that reason. But thats, you know, i think an after the fact excuse based on our evidence because no other witnesses were ever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held. Mr. Chairman, i would like to enter into the record evidence uncovered by the committee from the house budget and Appropriations Committee that
documents Omb Placing A hold on the ukrainian Security Assistance on july 25th. Without objection. So lets review. On july 18th, omb announced all relevant agencies that the military aid would be withheld from ukraine. On a call with ukraine on july 25th, President Trump says, do us a favor though, and asked ukraine to investigate his political rival. Also on july 25th, in the hours following that call, both the ukrainians and The Americans took actions specifically related to that military aid. The ukrainians began asking about the status of the military aid. And omb took its First Official action to withhold that aid. Mr. Goldman, im placing in front of you an email from Bast Sondland to members of the White House Administration in which ambassador sondland said i would ask zelensky to look him in the
eye and tell him that once ukraines new justice folks are in place zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the United States hopefully that will break the log jam. Did the Investigative Committees uncover any evidence of of what ambassador sondland meant when he suggested that president zelensky would have to move forward publicly on, quote, issues of importance to the president , to receive military aid. Ambassador sondland said those were the two investigations that President Trump mentioned on the July 25th Call which Secretary Pompeo, who received that email, listened into. So the president was concerned about the two investigations and that was the predicate for releasing military aid to our ally . At the time of that email, yes. Thank you and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. A little earlier mr. Armstrong had asked unanimous consent
request to insert into the record the i. G. Report released today about fisa and i said we would take it under advisement. We have reviewed it and without objection it will be entered into the record. Miss roby. Im actually stunned by the process or lack there of taking place in this institution. I know friends that are thoughtful deliberative members of Congress Even they we disagree vehemently on policy but these proceedings being led by the majority like i said, it is stunning. I request not for t i cannot the majority would approach this in such a way that Will Forever Cast Doubt On why and how they chose to affect history with the impeachment of a president of the United States. And now to what has taken place here today, this is just bizarre. As a member of congress serving on the house judiciary
committee, im asking questions to staff as witnesses before us in an impeachment evidentiary hearing. I mean, no disrespect to staff, we have the most dedicated hardworking staff and without these individuals we most certainly couldnt do our jobs effectively but we have not and we will not hear from any fact witnesses. Whether you identify as a republican, a democrat, or an independent, whether you agree or disagree with the president , whether you like or dislike a president , the American People should be should feel cheated by the way this is all taking place. This process is more than incomplete. And the American People deserve better. Today history is being made. And i too believe it is a dangerous precedent for the future of our republic. It is worth a deeper explanation of the issue of a Minority Hearing. The minority members of this
committee have frequently asked the chairman for a minority day hearing. And all members on this side have signed on to a letter to the chairman asking for a minority day hearing. Id like to quote house rule 11 clause two, whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or a matter, the minority members of the Committee Shall be entitled upon the request to the chair by majority of them before the completion of the hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. The wording here is the minority should be entitled, not if the chairman deems the minority worthy but shall be entitled. Mr. Castor, with all of your experience in investigations here in the congress, is it your belief based on that experience
that ignoring the minority stated rights for a hearing under the rules of the house severely undermines the future of this institution . Yes. Id like to quote what we heard from the democratic staff mr. Burk in his opening comments. It is the hope that in these discussions we can put aside political rancor, disagreements and have a fair discussion. That is far from what is happened here today. Or the days leading up to this. The American People deserve better than this. And i yield the remainder of my time to mr. Collins. Thank you. Mr. Cast