Transcripts For MSNBCW Deadline White House 20191209 21:00:0

President zelensky decided that they were not going to issue thatt statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma in 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 t 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 said they worked closely and there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they werear working closely. Do you know what that statement was supposed tou say according to mr. Giuliani and the u. S. Officials . Well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equalled theic Biden Investigatn in the 2016 ukraine interference. But was there concern about doing the investigations or what . Were they justns supposed to ma a statement about it . What . 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 investigations. And so did the Committee Find that without that Public Statement that there would be no white house meeting . Yes. So i was struck by how cle the evidence seems to be on this point. And id like to play another example. Li was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard tofi the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Everyone was in the loop. Did he find that his roleplayed a role in the white house . 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 Producednd for his public testimony. I think its 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. Io sondland could not match hisla testimony. As other witnesses came in, then hee realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff. So he did admit to an email that included Secretary Pompeo, mulvaney i do want tope make a point before my time goes out. We have to think about what is going on today. So president zelensky is meeting with putinin today. And because of President Trumps actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with thea leader of the nation that invaded his country. If our Military Assistance had been providedy 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 that the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world. If you want the support of the United States beg y prepared t help with President Trumps election. President trumps abuse ofpr por has injured our nation. Thank the chairman. The 299page democratic Majority Report mentions the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on pages 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 that transcribed interview, the Inspector Generals testimony confirms the following. That the whistleblower made Statements To W the Inspector General under penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That thend whistleblower first made statements in writing under Penalty Ofnt Perjury that were t 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,tr or accurate, pages 5 to 73 of that sworn testimony revealed 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, he or she 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. And did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another, the whistleblower contacted the Inspector General to explain why he or she made statementshe under penalty of perjury in writing and verbally that were not true, correct, and accurate . Mr. Acastor, is that communication from the whistleblower to the Inspector General to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in theco 299page report . No. On october 2nd, chairman schiffs spokesman acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblowers accusations against thes president had bee 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 falseve statements about th whistleblower or the Inspector Generals testimony today, then i should be held accountable. The way to do that would be to release thee Inspector General testimonyec or even just pages to 73. I would add that there is nothing in those pages that would t 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 iss a believable explanation for why the whistleblower madexp statements that werent true or accurate about his contact or her contact with Chairman Schiff in writing and then again verbally. Maybe there is a good explanation for whyyb the Words Congress ory 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 on august 12th by stating i reserve the option tohe 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 wrotemi that. Maybe there isor a believable reason why Chairman Schiff was not initially truthful about his staffs communication with the whistleblower. Maybe there is a goodmm reason that explains all of these statements in writing and verbally that just werent true and correct. St maybee 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 heldsc accountable. Next november every member of the house willne be asked this question. Did you vote to impeach the president without allowing any investigation into why the whistleblower that started it all didst so by Making Statemen in writing and verbally under penalty of perjury that were not true . Democrats may not care if that question ever gets answered. But thege voters will. I yield back. The Gentleman Yields back. Mr. Ld richmond. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Gohmert, i waldman, i want t with facts that you uncovered and i want to pick up where my colleagues mr. Deutch and ms. Bass left off. They walked us through how the president used the white house visit to apply pressure on ukraine to 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 bidding. Rsonal so id like to start with turning back to the july 25th call. Its a fact that in the president s own i 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 Thanks President Trump for the Military Assistance. Then President Trump asks for a favor. And of course a 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 Thera Military Aid Being withheld. Is that true . Uh, no. There was significant evidence that even as early as july 25th at the time of this call that ukrainian officials had suspected that the aid was being withheld and there was a New York Times article actually last week that wasnt included in our report. But from the former foreign 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 i also show you on the screen is that it was on july 25th also, the same day of the call, that the State Department emailed the Department Of Defense noting that the Ukrainian Embassy was asking about the withheld military aid. Yes. Thats 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 that the reason for theSecurity Assistance hold was related to the president s concerns about burdensharing with europe. Is that consistent with the evidence that you allt uncover . So, its a good question because mr. Sandy did say that. But notably 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 b first two months of the hold. And of course it was given at that point as the gig was up, so togi 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 wasin held. Mr. Chairman, id like to enter into the record evidence uncovered by the committee from the house budget and Appropriations Committees that documents Omb Placing A hold on the ukrainian Security Assistance on july 25th. Without objection. So lets review. On july 18th, omb announced to 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 aen favor, though, and ask ukrae to investigate his political rival. Also onic july 25th, in the hou following that call, both the ukrainians and The 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. Mr. Goldman, i am placing on the screen in front of you an email from ambassador sondland to members of the White House Administration in which Ambassadorra Sondland says i wod ask zelensky to look him in the eye andim tell him that once ukraines new justice folks are in place, zelensky should be able p 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. D if the Investigative Committee has uncovered any evidence on what he meant when mr. Zelensky would have to move forward on issues important to the question to receive military aid. He said those were the two investigations that President Trumpth mentioned on the july 2h call which Secretary Pompeo who had 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. Little earlier, mr. Armstrong had asked a unanimous consent request to insert into the record the i. G. Report released today about fisa. And i had said we would take it under advisement. We have reviewed it, and without objection it will be entered into the record. Ms. Robe. I am actually 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, like i said, its 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 memberst of Congress Servi 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 theto most dedicated, hardworking staff. And without these individuals we most certainly couldnt do our jobsdo effectively. But we have not and we will not hearil from any fact witnesses. Whether you identify as a republican, a democrat, or an independent, whether you a agre or disagree with the president , whether you like or dislike a president , the American People feel cheated by the way this is all takingth place. This process is more than incomplete. And the American People deserve better. Today historyrv is being made, d 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 chairmanas for a minority d hearing. And all members on this side have signed onto a letter to the chairman asking for a minority day hearing. Id like to Quote House Rule 11 Clause 2. 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 ath 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 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 in investigations here in the congress, is it your belief based on that experience that ignoring the minorities 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 w the demo