were not going to issue that statement that rudy giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. >> following the july 25th call, >> it had to include that they would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the biden investigation into the ukraine interference. >> was their concern about doing the investigations or what? where they supposed to make a statement about it? >> ambassador sondland very clearly testified that all he ever heard mr. giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigation. >> without that public statement that there would be no white house meeting. >> yes. >> i was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point and i'd like to play another example. >> was they were a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. >> that the investigative committees find that he played a role in the white house visit being conditioned on investigations? >> the evidence showed 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 that the committee find that corroborated the quote everyone is in the loop. >> ambassador sondland produced from his public testimony and i think it's very important in light of the testimony a minute ago as to how many times mr. solomon did not remember in his deposition because we agree it was egregious. but the advantage of doing that close deposition is that mr. sondland could not match up his testimony so as other witnesses when then, he had to admit 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 he is meeting with vladimir putin today and because of his actions, zelensky is in a week in position to negotiate with the leader of the nation that invaded his country. our military assistance had been provided as congress ordered it in the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with vladimir putin from a position of strength. what we have to realize is the message this sends to our allies and two are standing in the world is that if you want the support of the united states, be prepared to help with president trump's reelection. president trump's abuse of power has injured our nation. >> thank you, chairman. the 299 page democratic majority report mention the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson on pages 26, 33, 138, 140, and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 42019 transcribed interview of the inspector general michael atkinson, correct? on pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, it confirms the following, the whistle-blower made statements to the inspector general under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. at the whistle-blower first made statements in writing under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. the whistle-blower then made statements under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the inspector general's investigative team. because of the whistle-blower's statements in writing and verbally to the inspector general that were neither true, correct, or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that testimony revealed the inspector general was not able to answer any questions, none about the whistle-blower's contact or communication with chairman schiff's staff of which mr. goldman is a member. do you remember anywhere in this 299 page report that makes reference to the fact that when the whistle-blower started this inquiry, he or she did so by making statements under penalty of perjury that were neither true nor correct in writing and then did so again verbally? >> i don't remember that. >> after the inspector general testified in october 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistle-blower and chairman schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistle-blower 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 whistle-blower to the inspector general to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299 page report? on october 2nd, chairman schiff's spokesman acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistle-blower's accusations against the president had been disclosed that has intelligent staff and shared with chairman schiff. is that disclosure and the admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report? >> i don't remember seeing it. >> if 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 whistle-blower or the inspector general's testimony today, than i should be held accountable. the way to do that would be to release the inspector general's testimony or even just pages 53 to 73. i would add that there was nothing in those pages that would in any way identify or place at risk the whistle-blower's identity, nor would it reveal any information that relates to much less jeopardizes national security. maybe there is a believable explanation for why the whistle-blower made statements that weren't true or accurate about his contact or her contact with chairman schiff in writing and again verbally, maybe there's a good explanation for why the words congress or congressional committee was confusing. maybe there's a good explanation for why the whistle-blower also misled the inspector general in writing on august 12th by stating i reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committee directly when the whistle-blower had in fact already contacted chairman schiff's committee two weeks before he or she wrote that. maybe there is a believable reason why chairman schiff was not initially truthful about his staff's communication with the whistle-blower. maybe there was a good reason that explains all of the statements in writing and verbally that just weren't 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 contact between the whistle-blower 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 whistle-blower 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. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. richmond. >> thank you. i want to start off with facts and that you all uncovered through the course of your investigation and i want to pick up where my colleagues left off. they walked us through how the president used the white house visit to apply pressure on ukraine do his personal bidding. i want to talk about how the president did the same thing with almost 400 million 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's a fact that in the president's own words in 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 things president trump for the military assistance, then asks for a favor and by this point, president trump had already placed a hold on the security assistance. >> my republican colleagues have suggested that the ukrainians did not know about the aid being held, is that true? >> there was significant evidence that even as early as july 25th at the time of this call that ukrainian officials had suspected that the aide was being withheld and there was a "new york times" article last week that wasn't included on the report but for the former deputy foreign minister who said that his office received a diplomatic cable from the embassy here the week of july 25th saying that the aide had been held. >> it was july 25th the same day of the call but the state department emailed noting that the ukrainian embassy was asking about the withheld military aid. let's go back. there was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that mr. sandy said that the reason for the security assistance hold was related to the president's concerns about burden sharing with europe. is not consistent with the evidence that you all uncovered? >> is a good question because he did say that but notably, he said he only heard that in early september. 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 the gig was up, so to speak. >> so that was after everything came out to light. >> he was ultimately told the reason for the hold after it was lifted was for that reason, but that's an after-the-fact excuse based on our evidence because no other witnesses who were ever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held. >> mr. chairman, i like to enter into the record evidence uncovered by the committee from the house budget and appropriations committee that documents the one be placing a hold on security assistance on july 25th. >> without objection. >> let's review. on july 18th, oh and be announced to all relevant agencies of the military aid would be withheld from ukraine. on a call on july 25th, president trump says it was a favor though and asks ukraine to investigate his political rival. also on july 25th and hours following that call, both the ukrainians and americans took action specifically related to that military aid. the ukrainians began asking about the status of their military aid and omb took its first official action to withhold that aid. i am placing on the screen in front of you an email from ambassador sondland to members of the white house administration in which ambassador sondland says i would ask to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine is new justice folks are in place, should be able to move forward publicly and issues of importance to the president and the united states hopefully that will break the logjam. and if the investigative committees uncover any evidence that what ambassador sondland meant when he suggested that president zelensky would have to move forward publicly on issues of importance to the president to receive military aid. >> said those were the two investigations president trump mention on the july 25th call which secretary pompeo over saw that email listened into. >> that was the predicate for releasing military aid to our ally. >> at the time of that email, yes. i think you, i yield back. >> a little earlier, mr. armstrong asked the unanimous consent request to give the wreck of the 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. >> i am stunned by the process or lack thereof that is taking place in this institution. i have many democratic friends that i know to be thoughtful, deliberative members of congress even though we may disagree vehemently on policy, but these proceedings being led by the majority is stunning. i cannot for the life of me figure out why 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, i am asking questions to staff and witnesses before us and if impeachment evidentiary hearings, no disrespect to staff, we have the most dedicated hardworking staff and without these individuals, we most certainly couldn't 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 the president, the american people 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 do believe it is a dangerous precedent for the future of our republic. it is worth a deeper explanation of the issue of 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 for the chairman asking for minority day hearing. i'd like to quote house rule 11, whenever a hearing is conducted by committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled upon the request to the chair by the majority for the completion of the hearing to call witnesses elected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or manner giving at least one day of hearing thereon. the wording here is that the minority shall be entitled, not if the chairman deems the minority worthy, but shall be entitled. mr. castor, with all of your experience at investigations here in the congress, is it your belief based on that experience that ignoring the minorities stated rights for hearing under the rules of this house severely undermines the future of this institution. >> yes. >> i would like to quote what we heard from the democratic staff in his opening comments, it is the hope that any discussion we can put aside political rancor, disagreement, and have a fair discussion. that is far from what has happened here today for the days leading up to this. the american people deserve better than this. i yield the remainder of my time to mr. collins. >> thank you. mr. castor, who is a good time to remind people that there are four things that really haven't changed. would you like to remind us of everything that's been discussed? >> there were four things that will never change and that is the transcript is complete and accurate, shows no quid pro quo, no conditionality number one, number two, no pressure and both zelensky and trump have said that repeatedly, president zelensky said united nations on september 25th, set it in news articles on october 6 and october 10th and december 1st, number three the ukrainians did not know about the pause in aid and number four, no investigations were announced, the aide was released in the white house afforded a meeting and president trump met with zelensky in new york. >> do you find it amazing that the majority, one of their key prongs of this whole thing is they are making the elected leader of ukraine out to be a liar? because if he says and has done so on many occasions, doesn't that strike he was a little strange especially in the circumstance? it is just sad that we are calling an elected leader who is actually working on corruption and other things calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the theory of a partisan impeachment. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. let's focus on the aid to ukraine. congress allocated on a bipartisan basis $391 million in military aid to the ukraine, is that correct >> dagen: does the record established at the military aid to ukraine is in the national security interest of the united states? >> absolutely. >> the investigation concluded president trump compromise national security by withholding vital military assistant and to the medic support, is that true? >> yes. >> president trump and his defenders claim that he withheld military aid out of alleged concern. donald trump first spoke to the president of ukraine on april 21st call, correct? president trump never used the word corruption on that april 21st call, true? >> that is true, and the read out from the white house after the call did say that president trump talked about corruption. >> in a may 23rd louder, concluded that ukraine met the anticorruption benchmarks required to receive military aid from the united states, true? >> if i could just take a second to talk about that because it's very important and this goes back to what mr. collins was talking about with vice president biden. there is absolutely conditionality on aid routinely in all sorts of different ways, but it is done through official policy and these anticorruption benchmarks you are referencing here was a condition of ukraine getting the aide but in may, the department of defense in conjunction with the other agencies certify that ukraine was making the necessary progress on anticorruption efforts to merit the aide. >> at the aide was not released, correct? >> it was subsequently held supposed to be released, dod announced the release and then president trump held the aide that explanation. >> based on evidence and testimony that you have reviewed, is there any reason to believe that the president cared about corruption in ukraine? >> the evidence really supports the fact that president trump views corruption in ukraine to be synonymous with the two investigations that he wants. >> what the president did care about was a political favor from the ukrainian government and that is why he withheld the military aid, true? >> he told ambassador sondland himself that that is the only thing that he cares about. >> several witnesses testified as to the real motivation connected to the withheld military aid including ambassador bill taylor. here is what he said in his testimony. >> to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with the political campaign makes no sense. was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. was a logical, it could not be explained, it was crazy. >> a logical, explainable, craz crazy. so according to testimony, the only explanation for the withheld aid that made sense is that the president was seeking help with the political campaign, correct? >> that is the only logical explanation is multiple witnesses said. >> ambassador sondland is a trump appointee who gave a million dollars to the presidents inauguration and he testified he came to believe the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations, correct? >> that was subsequently confirmed with president trump himself. >> lieutenant colonel vindman is a decorated iraq war veteran and member of the white house national security council and he testified that it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent, correct? >> that was pretty much unanimous view of all 17 witnesses that came in to testify before the intelligence committee. >> the evidence shows president trump withheld military aid from ukraine as part of a scheme to extract a political favor and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 elections, true? >> yes, and the scheme part is very important because the minority wants to focus on these very narrow facts that ignore the vast majority of the evidence. so the fact that you use scheme is critical to the whole case here. >> the president abused his power, the president must be held accountable, no one is above the law. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. gates. >> the last public opinion poll i saw showed congress had an approval rating of 9%. and his own people dragged him in the streets and killed him. this impeachment process demonstrates the worst in us and it is depriving us the opportunity to raise our gaze and meet the needs of the american people. unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country, many people would think it's being done for political reasons. nancy pelosi, may 2018. here we are in the most partisan presidential impeachment in american history. when we open the inquiry, no republicans voted with the democrats and you had democrats voting with us and the only bipartisan vote to shut down this impeachment. that brings us to your role, are you here as a partisan advocate for the democrat position or are you here as a nonpartisan investigator of the facts? >> i am here to present the report that we did on our investigation which was totally and completely reliance on the actual evidence that we uncovered, the witness testimony, and the documents. you might argue a partisan? >> i am not a partisan. >> how long have you worked for the house? back since 2005. >> same question. >> for the house, since earlier this year. >> do you make political donations? >> i don't remember any. >> same question, do you make political donations? >> i do, sir. >> you've given tens of thousands of dollars to democrats. >> i think it's important to support candidates for office. >> have you given over 100,000? >> you don't care about it. >> i don't know the number. >> do you know how much money mr. burke has given democrats? is it surprising that it's more than 100,000? a mech i'm here to talk about this report. >> more than 100,000, do you think if you'd given more money, you might've been able to ask questions and answer them like mr. burke did? i guess it's something you are still pondering. mr. castor, have you ever tweeted anything at the president? mr. goldman, same question. >> i have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before i came to this job when i was working in the media, yes. >> this is one of those tweets, right? you said nothing in the dossier is proven false but in fact the dossier said there was a russian consulate in miami when there isn't. the dossier said that michael cohen had a meeting in prague when he didn't. the dossier said her his wife s russian when she is ukrainian so were i guess you got a tweet mentioning presenting yourself not as a partisan hired by the democrats to pursue the president, do you regret this suite? >> i would be happy to put this investigation up with any of the nonpartisan investigators. my ten years as a federal prosecutor. i hope you read the evidence and i think you can. >> you either regret it or you don't regret it. mr. chairman, earlier in this hearing, you said in your opening statement that there is nothing more urgent than impeachment right now, this is the most urgent thing we could possibly do. and we know if you are a senior right now and you can't afford your prescription drugs, that's more urgent than this. you are a manufacturer wanting to dominate the western hemisphere, that is more urgent. you are a farmer who wants to open markets so your family can survive and thrive, that is a lot more urgent than this partisan process. you are a desperate family member watching someone succumb to addiction solving the opioid problem probably is more urgent than this partisan impeachment. you are a member of the next generation dealing with the challenges of extinction and climate change, a budget that is out of control, driving up the credit card of young people in this country and what they will have to pay back as a consequence of our poor decisions, likely more urgent. but house democrats have failed all of these things. matter of fact, the only thing under the christmas tree used for most americans would be a lump of coal but they are against cole too. the only thing under the christmas tree for americans would be impeachment. i have heard over and over democrats say this is all about the president's personal interest in that he abandon the national interest and it begs an analysis of how the country is doing. 266,000 jobs created, 80,000 over the average, half a million more manufacturing jobs in the trump presidency, 700,000 construction jobs, we are doing better than ever before. why won't you help us move along to critical issues that are far more important than a partisan impeachment? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> let me begin by dispelling the claim that mr. gates just made. this has been one of the most productive congress is in modern history, we passed nearly 400 pieces of modern legislation that respond to the urgent priorities of the american people, raising wages for the american worker, responding to gun violence, providing equal pay for equal work, responding to the climate crisis, 275 of those are fully bipartisan and sitting on the senate majority leaders desk awaiting action. so we will continue to deliver. but we were also elected to hold this president accountable and we took an oath of office that said to protect and defend the constitution and that's what we are engaged in today. i want to return mr. goldman to the military aide. did the investigating committees receive evidence about why the united states military aide was necessary? what was it advancing? a lot of americans don't know a lot about ukraine for about the geopolitical significance but why does it matter? >> the witnesses were quite clear about this and they say it mattered for multiple reasons. the first is russia invaded ukraine to take over part of their country and that this was the first military incursion in europe since world war ii. this is russia who is an adversary actually trying to encroach on another democracy. just from a broad democratic viewpoint, it was essential not only to ukraine's national security but to america's national security to make sure that democracy remains worldwide. >> had prior to that call, congress had approved the aide, correct? >> congress had approved the aide and the withheld the aide. a mech head and even publicly announced its intention to deliver the aide, correct? the trump administration had already certified that they had taken substantial steps to combat corruption, correct? that normally leads to the release of aide. in the investigative committees question witnesses from the defense department, state department, omb, white house and national security council about the president's decision to withhold aid, correct? i would like to play a clip of some of that evidence. >> from what you witnessed, did anybody in the national security community support withholding the assistance? >> no. >> i never heard anyone advocate for holding the aide. >> the entire agency support of the continuation of the security assistance, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> i and others sat in astonishment, ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of u.s. support. >> am i correct that the witnesses that appeared before your committee confirmed there was no credible explanation for withholding the military aide and that it was in fact against our national security interest to do so? >> he had said that he heard from rob blair, the assistant that their reason was because of other countries donations or contributions to ukraine, but that was only in september and of course, there were no further commitments from any other country. >> a graduate of west point and a decorated combat veteran who served in vietnam, ukraine then and now is at active war with the russians, russia stalled part of their country and crimen crimea and weakening ukraine would only benefit russia, here's what ambassador taylor said. >> after a meeting with president zelensky, ambassador volker and i travel to the front line in northern donbass to receive a briefing from the forces on the line of contact. arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters, the commander thanked us for the security assistance. but i was aware that his assistance was on hold which made me uncomfortable. ambassador volker and i could see the hostile russian led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact, russian led forces continue to kill ukrainians in the war one or two a a week. more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the u.s. assistance. >> against the consensus, the president use congressionally appropriated funds to advance his own political interest at the expense of our national security, this acts as a threat to the integrity of our elections, president trump must not get away with this. no one in this country, no one is above the law and without a yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, mr. johnson. >> this has been a truly historical and outrageous violation of due process, a series of violations of due process. a staff member or as a witness a method of chairman gave strangely conflicting answers that important question. when i objected under house rule 17 that he was repeatedly and brazenly steamrolling over house to quorum rules and using language that impute the motives of the president of the united states and suggested he is disloyal to his country, chairman nadler insisted those words could not be taken down and stricken from the record saying the rules don't apply because mr. burke is appearing as a staff. but later, he stated they opposite and declared that he was preparing to present the democrat members report as a representative which would of course mean the member rules should apply. then mr. burke was allowed to switch places and turn from witness to question her, that is extraordinarily bizarre of course but entirely consistent with this whole impeachment circus. as everybody knows, intel chairman adam schiff was allowed in the opening activist circuits for judge, jury, prosecutor, witness, coach, and case strategy chief all-in-one. so much for due were due process. after they haphazardly drawn special parameters, house resolution 660, mr. burke was then allowed to join the elected members of congress on this dais and ask 45 minutes of questions of his fellow witness mr. castor. when he was argumentative, assumed critical facts not in evidence and committed countless other violations of regular house rules on the federal rules of civil procedure, i objected but was then ruled out of order by chairman nadler who informed all of us that while house resolution 660 specifically provides for objections, it lists none of them and the democrats have ignored every request of ours to obtain a list of what rules and objections would be enforced. again, so much for due process and fairness. a month ago, the republican members of this committee formally requested all documents related to the impeachment investigation but they withheld everything until saturday afternoon. that's right, less than 48 hours before this hearing, they dumped approximately 8,000 pages of documentation on us while we were back home in our districts. they intentionally made it literally impossible for us to reveal all material in any meaningful way mere hours before this people hearing. what's worse is the documents they decided to dump on us are not all of the underlying records we need to review but rather only a partial redacted and biased subset of information that they think will advance their false narrative and has been mentioned here being allowed no minority day hearing which is required by house rules. i would love to cross examine mr. burke himself but chairman nadler's special and still mysterious rules won't allow it. i would love to ask him under oath about his own biases because he hammered over and over today the importance of fairness and objectivity and accuracy and insisted that everything here as to be unbiased but if he was under oath here, he would be forced to admit that records show he is personally donated approximately $99,000 to democrat candidates over the years including sizable donations to hillary clinton for president and also donated to pass trump opponents including elizabeth warren, cory booker, and kirsten gillibrand. in our system, a finder of fact is supposed to be fair and impartial, and empire. the problem with all of this in the proper everybody at home can see with their own eyes is at the umpires in this high-stakes game are parading around the field and the majority teams jerseys. the report of evidence released by republican committee staff on december 2nd carefully documents it in the hearings that led us to this point today, chairman schiff directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer republican questions. he rejected witness and denied republican subpoenas for testimony and documents violating the democrats own rules to vote down those subpoenas with no notice to republicans. chairman schiff also publicly fabricated evidence about president trump's july 25th phone call and misled the american public about his interactions with the anonymous whistle-blower to selectively seek information to paint misleading public narratives. the anonymous whistle-blower reportedly acknowledged having a professional relationship with vice president biden and his motives are essential but we can't question it. this is not due process or the rule of law and this is not how to impeach an american president and was is not how we are supposed to run a country. can't be. 17 out of 24 of our colleagues over there already voted to proceed with impeachment before we started all of this. they already made up their minds. they were prejudice before he walked in the american people were not. fairness matters and truth matters and they can see this as a sham, i yield back. >> mr. goldman, would you welcome the problem of having 8,000 documents given to you from the white house? >> it would be a wonderful problem to have. >> how many have they given you. >> they got the aid emma he would agree the presidential concern was european contributions, nothing changed from when that concern was expressed when they got paid. you agree. >> europe didn't kick in a bunch of new money. in the present had a fraud settlement, the person just recently with their own charity had a settlement related to fraud. a set of the anticorruption president of ours. take a wild guess, how many times has president trump met with vladimir putin or talk to him? it is 16. how many times has president trump met at the white house with president zelensky? >> zero. >> who has president trump meeting with at the white house tomorrow, do you know? >> i do not. >> russian foreign minister. mr. goldman, withholding aid from ukraine obviously hurts ukraine, it hurts the united states, does it help any country >> the witness said that would help russia. >> did you also hear testimony that these acts by the president while being wrong and an abuse of power also harmed u.s. national security? >> yes. >> did you hear anything about how it would harm our credibility and i would turn to a conversation ambassador volker had on september 14 of this year with a senior ukrainian official where ambassador volker is impressing upon that official that president zelensky should not investigate his own political opponents. what was thrown back in the face of ambassador volker? >> after ambassador volker suggested to mr. yermak again that they should not investigat investigate, he sent back to him you are encouraging us to investigate biden's and clinton's. >> during watergate, the famous phrase from senator howard baker was asked what did the president know and when did he know it? there's a reason that no one here has repeated those questions during these hearings. we know what the president did and we know when he knew it. mr. goldman, who sent rudy giuliani to ukraine to smear joe biden? >> president trump. >> who fire the anticorruption ambassador in ukraine yovanovitch? >> president trump. >> who told ambassador sondland to work with rudy giuliani on ukraine? who told vice president pence to not go to president zelensky's inauguration? >> president trump. >> who ordered his own chief of staff mick mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for ukraine? >> president trump president trump. >> who refuse to meet with president zelensky in the oval office? buy president trump. >> who ignored on july 25 his own national security councils anticorruption talking points? >> president trump president trump. >> who asked president zelensky for a favor? >> president trump. >> who personally asked president zelensky to investigate his political rival joe biden? >> president trump. >> who stood on the white house lawn and confirmed that he wanted ukraine to investigate vice president biden? mike president trump. >> who stood on that same lawn and said that china should also investigate vice president bide biden? >> president trump. >> us to anything we do not know in this investigation, who has blocked us from knowing it? >> president trump on the white house. >> as it relates to president trump, is he an incidental player or a central player in this scheme? >> he is the central player in the scheme. >> there's a reason no one has said what did the president know and when did he know it? from the evidence you have presented, mr. goldman, and the intelligence committee findings, we know one thing and one thing is clear. as it related to this scheme, the president of the united states donald j. trump knew everything. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. castor, what is direct evidence? >> when a witness personally observed a fact and testifies to it. >> out-of-court statements to the truth of the matter, it is something you learned in law school. >> and adopted by most states, hearsay is inadmissible in us a testimony falls under defining. >> plus a residual exception. >> when every witness testified including mr. sondland, right? that is a "yes." >> yes. >> much of the democrats report is based on the sondland testimony, is that correct? how many times did mr. sondland mentioned in the intel committee's report? >> data search and the name sondland shows up 611 times. >> just to refresh your mind, sondland himself told the world that basically nobody else on the planet told him that donald trump was trying to tie aid to investigations. in fact, he also said everything he'd been testifying to you with simply his presumptions, is that right? >> that is correct. when you consider what of presumption is, it is not direct or circumstantial, in fact does not allow speculation? is not reliable. so can you name any democrat witness who has asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 and that we heard from? >> we had some direct evidence on certain things and direct evidence of a may 23rd meeting and sondland gave some direct evidence. a lot of what we have attained has been circumstantial. >> how about with regard to knowledge of the quid pro quo allegation? >> we have not gone to the bottom of that from a direct evidence standpoint. >> how about political motives and asking for investigations? >> the facts surrounding that are ambiguous. >> when we talk about speculation, we typically use words like gossip, rumor, innuendo, is that right? and isn't it true the only direct evidence we have is that they received aid without giving anything in return, president zelensky has repeatedly stated no pressure, no problem with a phone call in relationship to president trump and that the president had a legitimate concern about ukraine corruption? >> he did and the burden sharing of european allies. >> so much has been made about the alleged desire for announcement of an investigation but there is no direct evidence that supports the allegation that president trump wanted the announcement of an investigation. >> like i said, there were eight lines in the call transcript, eight lines. >> everything else is hearsay, innuendo, rumor, gossip. so when we get into this event today in the process, we start talking about the process, were you surprised to see mr. burke get out of his chair and moved to the seat and sit next down to the chairman and start asking questions? >> i don't know if i was surprised by that. >> i was and it looks like mr. burke has been reappeared and that's one of the most outrageous things about this process and has been outrageous from start to finish. we have seen prejudice and bias against the president from start to finish. we have the lion's share two-thirds of the members of the democrats have already voted to impeach at least once and that's before anything with regard to this july 25th telephone conversation never took place. and we are left with a constant view of that as on november 9th, 2016, representative greene from texas wanted to begin impeachment proceedings at that point, is that correct? january 20th, 2017, "washington post" headline, let the impeachment began, is that correct? ten days later, the attorney for the whistle-blower tweeted out "let the impeachment begin, let the coup began, and victory to the lawyers, is that right? >> yes, i've seen that. >> we've had people who on this committee came out today and said they went on tv and said we wanted to start impeachment earlier, but the speaker held us back. did you see that? >> i haven't seen that. >> you wouldn't be surprised about that though, would you? no one should be surprised about that because this is a sham hearing three years that they've been trying to remove this president and this is the culmination of a predetermined outcome. that's where we are today. and so with that, we bring it back to the same points, no pressure, no conditionality and all of the au and meetings and calls were received by ukraine. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman nadler. let's just cut through all the republican to make things very simple, no one could get away with it. no official can co-opt a foreign government official and ask an investigation of a political opponent. no one sitting on this judiciary committee can call up a foreign government official and ask for help and a reelection campaign. we did that and got caught, we would likely be indicted. let's focus on the present abuse of power in this case because it's actually worse than examples i just gave. i know that i first swore an oath to the constitution when i joined the united states air force and active-duty and the three core values i learned were integrity first, service before self, excellence, and all we do. integrity first and service before self because it is ingrained that we cannot mix official duties with personal private gain. so in this case, $391 million on issue, that wasn't donald trump's money, that was u.s. taxpayer funds, is that right? and certainly, the president should not use our taxpayer money for his own personal benefit especially not to leverage it for his own reelection campaign, isn't that right? the president's abuse of power is even worse in this case than just using official duties for private gain, it is also just flat-out illegal. you cannot solicit foreign assistance for a reelection campaign. that's a violation of national campaign act. a lot of people have gone to prison for violating various sections of that act. a reasonable person could also conclude that the president violated the control act of 1974 which congress passed as a response to president nixon's abuse of power, so i'd like to explore that further and in this case my bipartisan support had appropriated taxpayer funds for the specific purpose of aiding ukraine in its fight against russia. not only had that money been appropriated, but it had been released to the department of defense, is that right? and suddenly without explanation, the president demanded those tax refunds be withheld from an ally who desperately needed the aid. that the president notify congress about his decision withheld aid? so it was designed to prevent the president from seeking congressionally appropriated funds and doing whatever he wants with them. so is it true that in your intelligence report, you found the following findings of fact. president trump ordered the suspension of $391 million and provided military assistance are urgently needed by ukraine and the president did so despite his obligations under that control act, did you find that? so not only did the president abuse has powers for personal gain and not only was it illegal, his actions also harmed u.s. national security. so it's a fundamental tenet of security to push back against russian aggression, pushing back against russian aggression. is it true that harming the ukrainian military also harms u.s. national security? >> that is pretty much what every witness said. >> last week, professor confirmed it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice a natural interest for his own private ends, slideshows of which he said mr. goldman based on evidence that you found in your report, is it fair to conclude that the president both leveraged taxpayer funds and sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends? >> that is what we found. >> i was also struck by mr. holmes testimony because it made it clear that he did not care about foreign policy or national security, he only cared about investigating his political opponent. here's what he said. >> ambassador sondland state of the president only cares about big stuff. i noticed there was big stuff going on in ukraine like a war with russia, ambassador sondland replied like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. here's the thing, if any military member used those for professional game, that member would no longer be part of the military and in fact last year, a native commander was convicted of taking things and exchanging for official acts, the u.s. attorney who prosecuted the case said he put his own selfish interests ahead of the navy and of our nation. we should not hold the commander-in-chief to a lower standard than regular military members, we should not hold the president to a different standard than any other elected official, no one is above the law. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in every election, one side wins on the other loses. democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters, this is only happened twice on nation's history. it happened again in 2016 when the democrats refused to accept a legitimate election of donald trump. the issues before us today do indeed strike at the heart of our democracy. the first calls for impeachment began just days after the 2016 election and ever since, the democrats have been searching for a pretext when the mueller investigation found support of the monstrous lot the president acted in collusion with russia. the democrats realize they were running out of time and suddenly, the ukrainian phone call replaced collusion stormy daniels tax returns, emoluments, and even tweets as a reason to nullify the election just a year before the next one is to be held. impeachment is one of the most serious powers with which congress is entrusted. requires an overwhelming case of high crime supported by clear evidence that a vast majority of the nation deems compelling. our constitution vests the executive authority including the enforcement of our laws with the president and it gives him authority to conduct our foreign affairs. clearly, this includes requesting a foreign government to cooperate in resolving potentially corrupt and illegal interactions between that government officials and hours. there is some total of the democrats case comes down to this, not one of their handpicked witnesses provided any first-hand knowledge of the president ordering a quid pro quo and two witnesses, sondland by testimony and senator johnson by letter provided first-hand testimony that the president specifically ordered no quid pro quo. no testimony was provided that the ukrainian government believed there was any quid pro quo, but there are ample public statements that the officials did not believe there was such a linkage. their witness is crumbled under questioning and we were left with career bureaucrats who admitted the only evidence they offered was presumption, speculation, and what they'd read in "the new york times." it is upon this flimsy evidence that the democrats justified nullifying the 2016 presidential election. and it is so flimsy the democrats have had to turn our bill of rights on its head in order to make it. they have ordered that hearsay evidence that are known as gossip is better than direct testimony. they have argued the burden of proof rests with the accused to prove his innocence bought the same time denying permission to testify. they have argued that the right to confront your accuser is an invasion of the accuser's privacy. they've argued that appealing to the courts to defend your constitutional rights as the president has done is ipso facto obstruction of justice and evidence of guilt. they have asserted the power to determine what witnesses the defense is allowed to call. and, they have argued that a crime is not necessary to impeach, only impure motives in performing otherwise lawful acts entirely by the accusers. these are the legal doctrines of desperate's. but they are the only ones that can accommodate the case before us today. this is a stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will stay in the reputations of those responsible for generations to come. and god help our country if they should ever be given the power to replace our bill of rights with the doctrines they have imposed in this process. the democrats are fond of saying no one is above the law, but they have one unspoken caveat except for themselves. speakers already short-circuited what should be a painstaking row and above all fair process by ordering foot soldiers on this community to draw up articles of impeachment without this committee hearing from a single fact witness. despite the fact that mr. schiff doesn't dare to appear before this committee to defend his work, we are supposed to accept his reported face battle and obediently followed the speakers orders. as the red queen declared, sentence first, verdict afterwards. we can only pray the senate still adheres to the judicial principles of our founders. if they do, perhaps then we can begin repairing the damage that this travesty has done to our democracy, our institutions, our principles of justice, our constitution, and our country. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you. why is impeachment in the constitution? the framers feared the president might corrupt our elections by dragging foreign powers into our politics in order to promote the personal political ambitions a boundless thirst for power the people's representatives here in congress, and the people's democratic's ambitions, our self-respect, our love of freedom and the rule of law, are