Day 7, Part 11: Heated questioning continues on impeachment reports

is bad mr. Goldman I want to pick up on the president using the powers of his office in this case in a meeting at the White House to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rival now that you've had time to step back from the investigation is there any doubt that the President did in fact use a White House visit to pressure President szalinski to announce investigations of his political rival to benefit his reelection campaign I will answer that question in a minute but I I would like just to comment to mr. buck that the majority staff and no one had any contact with Ambassador Sunland after his deposition but the answer to your question is yes miss bass my colleague mr. Deutsch mostly focused on the period prior to the July 25th call I'd like to focus on the period after following the call the president szalinski come to the White House for meeting no he's never come to the White House and several witnesses multiple witnesses said that there's a huge distinction between a White House meeting and a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly where they did meet on September 25th so has a White House meeting been scheduled no so did the president and his associates essentially continue to withhold the White House meeting and if so why did they do that well the evidence found that the White House meeting was conditioned on the announcement of these investigations and so once in May to August when the Ukrainians mr. year mark and president szalinski decided that they were not going to issue that statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burry smih 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 July 25th call ambassador Sunland and Volcker works worked closely with mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make president szalinski wasn't that right yes and and the report say they work closely and then there were also phone calls with the White House around the same time that they working closely do you know what that statement was supposed to say according to mr. Giuliani and the US officials well the key difference is that it had to include that the Ukraine would do the investigations of barrese mo which equaled the Biden investigation and the 2016 Ukraine interference what was their concern about doing the investigations or what were they just supposed to make a statement about it what ambassador Sandlin 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 clear the evidence seems to be on this point and I'd like to play another example was there a quid pro quo as I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting the answer is yes everyone was in the loop mr. Goldman did the investigative committees 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 so what evidence did the committee find that cooperated the quote everyone was in the loop well ambassador Sandlin produced for his public testimony and I think it's very important in light of the testimony from mr. castor a minute ago with mr. buck as to how many times that mr. Sandlin did not remember in his deposition because we agree it was egregious but the the advantage of doing closed depositions is that mr. Soglin could not match up his testimony so as other witnesses came in then he realized that he had to actually admit more and more stuff so he did admit to to an email that included secretary Pompeo I do want to make a point before my time goes we have to think about what is going on today so president Solinsky is meeting with Putin today and because the president Trump's actions zielinski 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 szalinski would be meeting with Putin from a position of strength if you want the support at what we have to realize that the message of this sense to our allies is to enter this our standing in the world 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 the chairman the 299 page Democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community Inspector General Michael 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 that transcribed interview the Inspector General's 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 general's investigative team because of the whistleblower statements in writing and verbally to the inspector general that were neither true correct or accurate pages 53 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 chairmanships staff of which mr. Goldman is a member mr. Kaster do you remember anywhere in this 299 page 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 are correct in writing and then did so again verbally after the inspector general testified on October 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and chairmanship did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with one another the whistleblower contacted the expected 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. Kaster is that communication from the whistleblower from the whistleblower to the inspector general to explain prior inconsistent statements reflected anywhere in the 299 page report on October 2nd chairman shifts spokesman Patrick Boland acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblowers accusations against the President had been disclosed to the House Intelligence staff and shared with chairmanship mr. Kaster is that disclosure and mr. Bolin's admission of that disclosure anywhere in this report it's not I think all members of Congress should be held accountable during this impeachment process and to that and if I have made any false statements about the whistleblower or the Inspector General's testimony today then 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's 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's a believable explanation for why the whistleblower made statements that weren't true or accurate about his contact or her contact with chairmanship in writing and then again verbally maybe there's a good explanation for why the words Congress or congressional committee was confusing were not cleared The Whistleblower maybe there's a good explanation for why the whistleblower also misled the Inspector General in writing on August 12 by stating I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committee's directly when the whistleblower had in fact already contacted chairman chefs committee two weeks before he or she wrote that maybe there's a believable reason why chairmanship was not initially truthful about his staffs communications with the whistleblower maybe there's a good reason that explains all of these 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 contacts between the whistleblower and chairmanship 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 the gentleman yields back mr. Richmond Thank You mr. chairman mr. Goldman I want to start off with facts and that you all uncovered through the course of your investigation I want to pick up with my colleagues mr. Deutsch and Miss 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 do his personal bidding so I'd 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 salons he thanks president Trump for the military assistance than 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 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 wasn't included in our report but from the former foreign deputy foreign minister who said that they that Ukraine the president's olenski's 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 that's what I was referring to I liked in - let's go back there was also discussion earlier during the minority questioning that mr. sandy from OMB said that the reason for the security assistance hold was related to the president's concerns about burden sharing with Europe is that consistent with the evidence that you all uncovered so it's a it's 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 first two months of the Hult 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 that wasn't sure of the timing but he was ultimately told that the reason for the hold after it was lifted was for that reason but that's you know a I think an after-the-fact excuse based on our evidence because no other witnesses have were ever told of that reason during the entire time that it was held mr. chairman I'd 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 let's 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 a favor though and ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival also on July 25th in the hours following that call both the Ukrainians and the Americans took action specifically related to that military aid do you returnee 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'm placing on the screen in front of you an email from ambassadors Island to members of the White House administration in which ambassador silence says I would ask Solinsky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine's new justice folks are in place zalinsky 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 on what ambassador Solomon meant when he suggested that president Solinsky would have to move forward publicly on quote issues of importance to the president to receive military aid ambassador Soglin said those were the two investigations that President Trump mentioned on the July 25th call which secretary Pompeo who received that email listened in to so the president was concerned about the two investigations and though 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 IG 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 miss Roby I'm 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 it's 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 effect 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'm asking questions to staff as witnesses before us in an impeachment evidentiary hearing I mean no disrespect to staff we have the most dedicated hard-working 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 a president the American people should be cheated 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 member on this side have signed on to a letter to the chairman asking for a minority day hearing I'd 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 a 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 there on the wording here is that the minority shall be entitled not if the chairman deems them in 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 I'd like to quote what we heard from the Democratic staff mr. Burke and his opening comments it is the hope that in these discussions we can put aside political rancor disagreement and have a fair discussion that is far from what has happened here today were 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. castor we've heard a lot this is always a good time I think to go back and remind people that there are four things that really haven't changed would you like to at least remind us of everything that's been discussed four things that will never change and that is the transcript is complete and accurate it shows no quid pro quo no conditionality that's number one number two there was no pressure both szalinski and Trump I've said that repeatedly president Solinsky said that at the United Nations on September 25th he said it in subsequent news articles on October 6th in October 10th and December 1st number three the Ukrainians and zalenski did not know pause a nade at the very least at the time of the call and number four no investigations were announced the aid was released and the White House you know afforded a meeting and then President Trump met with zolensky in New York do you find it amazing that the majorities one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they're making the elected leader of the Ukraine out to be a liar because if he says that there's no pressure he's done it on many many occasions since then that undoubtedly they believed him not to be truthful so in that strike you as a little strange especially in this circumstance it's unfortunate it is it's it's sad that we're calling the elected leader who is actually working on corruption and other things like that we're calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the Democrats theory of a partisan impeachment with that I yield back the gentleman yields back mr. Jeffries let's focus on the aid to Ukraine mr. Goldman Congress allocated on a bipartisan basis 391 million dollars in military aid to the Ukraine is that correct yes and it was signed by President Trump into law does the record establish that the military aid to Ukraine is in the national security interests of the United States absolutely the investigation concluded that President Trump compromised u.s. national security by withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support is that true yes a president Trump and his defenders claimed that he withheld military aid out of alleged concern with corruption in Ukraine let's explore this phony justification Donald Trump first spoke to the president of Ukraine on an April 21st call correct that's right president Trump never used the word corruption on that April 21st call true that is true and the readout from the White House after the call did say that President Trump talked about corruption at readout was inaccurate in a May 23rd letter Trump's Department of Defense concluded that Ukraine met the anti-corruption benchmarks required to receive military aid from the United States true yes and if I could just take a second to talk about that because that's very important and this goes back to what mr. Collins was talking about with Vice President Biden there is absolutely conditionality on aid in routinely in all sorts of different ways but it's done through official policy and these anti-corruption benchmarks that you're referencing here was a condition of Ukraine getting the aid but in May the Department of Defense in conjunction with the other inner agencies certified that Ukraine was making the necessary progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the aid and yet the aim was not released correct the aid was subsequently held it was supposed to be released DoD announced the release and then President Trump held the aid without explanation mr. Goldman based on the evidence and testimony that you have reviewed is there any reason to believe that the president cared about corruption in Ukraine no the 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 that he told ambassador Sun than himself that that is the only thing that he cares about now 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 made no sense it was it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do it was illogical it could not be explained it was crazy logical unexplainable crazy mr. Goldman according to the testimony from ambassador Taylor the only explanation for the withheld aid that made sense is that the president was seeking help with a political campaign correct that is the only large explanation as multiple witnesses said ambassador Sandlin is a trump appointee who gave a million dollars to the president's inauguration and he testified that he came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations correct yes and that was subsequently confirmed in a conversation with President Trump himself lieutenant-colonel bin Minh is a decorated Iraq war veteran Purple Heart recipient 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 investigator US citizen and a political opponent correct yeah that was the pretty much unanimous view of all seventeen witnesses that that came in to testify before the Intelligence Committee the evidence shows that President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine as part of a scheme to extract a political favor and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election true yes and and that the scheme part is very important because the minority wants to focus on these four very narrow facts that that ignore the vast majority of the evidence and so the fact that he used scheme is actually critical to the whole the whole case here the president abused his power the President must be held accountable no one is above the law I yield back gentleman yields back mr. gates the last public opinion poll I saw showed Congress had an approval rating at about 9% by contrast moammar qaddafi had an approval rating at 13% 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 and here we are in the most partisan presidential impeachment in American history a matter of fact when we open the inquiry no Republicans voted with the Democrats and you even had Democrats vote with us in the only bipartisan vote to shut down this impeachment and that brings us to your role mr. Goldman are you here as a partisan advocate for the Democrat position or you here as a nonpartisan investigator of the facts I'm here to present the report that we did on our investigation which was totally and completely reliant on the actual evidence that we uncovered the witness testimony and the documents are you a partisan I'm not a partisan mr. Casper how long you worked for the house since 2005 and the same question of school for the house since earlier this year mr. Castro do you make political donations I don't remember any mr. Goldman same question do you make political donations I do sir I think it's very important fact you board you've given tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats right sir I think it's very important to support candidates for office I think our have you given her over a hundred thousand you mind I just want to know the number I don't really care the basis if you give me more than a hundred thousand okay the basis I just want the number so it's you know how much money mr. Burke has given Democrats I don't know it's surprising it's more than a hundred thousand mr. gates I'm here to talk about this so here so you gave tens of thousands to mr. Burke gave hundreds of more than a hundred thousand do you think if you'd given more money you might have been able to ask questions and answer them what mr. Burke did I guess it's something you're still pondering mr. Castro have you ever tweeted anything at the president yeah 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 matter of fact this is one of those tweets right and you said nothing in the dossier is proven false but in fact the dossier said that 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 that Michael Cohen's wife was Russian she's in fact Ukrainian and so as we sit here today we're you I just got a tweet mentioning of P tape presenting yourself not as a partisan hired by the Democrats to pursue the president do you regret this tweet sir I would be happy to put my this investigation up with any of the nonpartisan invest I just wanna know if you regret the tweet mister dole my 10 years as a federal prosecutor gret it I hope you read the evidence and I think you can judge you either regret it or you don't regret it I guess you don't answer the question you know what mr. chairman the other 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 well you know what if you're a senior right now and you can't afford your prescription drugs that's more urgent than this if you're a manufacturer wanting to dominate the Western Hemisphere with the passage of the u.s. MCA that is more urgent if you're a farmer who wants to open markets so that your family can survive and thrive that is a lot more urgent than this partisan process if you're a desperate family member watching someone succumb to addiction solving the opioid problem probably more urgent than this partisan impeachment if you're a member of the next generation dealing with the challenges of extinction and climate change a budget that's out of control driving up the credit card of young people in this country and what they'll have to pay back as a consequence of our poor decisions likely more urgent but House Democrats have failed at all of these things matter of fact I'd say the only thing under the Christmas tree for most Americans would be a lump of coal but I think they're against coal too the only thing under the Christmas tree for Americans would be impeachment and investigations I've heard over and over Democrats say that this is all about the president's personal interest and that he abandoned the national interest and it begs an analysis of how the nation is doing in November 266 thousand jobs created eighty thousand over the average half a million more manufacturing jobs in the trump presidency 700,000 construction jobs we are doing better than ever before the American people are thriving why won't you help us move along the critical issues that are far more important then your partisan impeachment gentleman's time has expired mr. Cicilline let me begin by dispelling the claim that mr. gates just made this has been one of the most productive congresses in modern history we've passed nearly 400 pieces of legislation that respond to the urgent priorities of the American people driving down health care costs raising wages for the American worker responding to gun violence providing equal pay for equal work responding to the climate crisis 275 of those bills are fully bipartisan and 80% of those bills are sitting on the Senate Majority Leader's desk awaiting action so we will continue to deliver on the important priorities of the American people 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're engaged in today and so I want to return mr. Goldman to the military aid did the investigating committees receive evidence about why the United States military aid to Ukraine was necessary what was it advancing there's a lot of Americans who are watching don't know a lot about Ukraine don't know about the geopolitical significance like why does it matter the witnesses were quite clear about this and and they say it mattered for multiple reasons the first is that Russia invaded Ukraine to take over part of their of their country and that this was the first military incursion in Europe since World War two and this is Russia who's an adversary actually trying to encroach on another democracy so 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 and when that prior to the call on July 25th Congress had approved the aid correct Congress had approved the aid and then the president attended and the Defense Department had even publicly announced its intention to deliver the aid correct that's right the Trump administration had already certified that Ukraine had taken substantial steps to combat corruption correct correct and that normally leads to the release of the aid and the investigative committees question witnesses from the Defense Department the State Department OMB the White House and the National Security Council about the president's to decision to withhold aid correct correct and I'd like to play a clip of some of that evidence from what you witnessed in anybody in the National Security community support withholding the assistance no I never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid and the entire interagency supported the continuation of the Security Assistance isn't that right that is correct I and others set in astonishment Ukrainians were fighting Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of us support am I correct that the witnesses that prepared before your committee confirm that there was no credible explanation for holding the military aid and that it was in fact against our national security interest to do so everyone agreed it was against our national security interest to do so the only explanation that any witness provided was mr. sandy who said that he had heard from Robb Blair I believe the assistant to Mick Mulvaney that the reason was because of other countries donations are contributions to Ukraine but that was only in September and of course there were no further commitments from any other countries as we heard from Bill Taylor who's a graduate of West Point and a decorated combat veteran who served in Vietnam Ukraine then and now is in an active war with the Russians Russia stole part of their country in Crimea and has killed more than 10,000 Ukrainians and the weakening Ukraine would only benefit Russia here's what ambassador Taylor said after our meeting with President Solinsky ambassador Volcker and I traveled to the front line in northern Davos to receive a briefing from the commander of 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 this assistance was on hold which made me uncomfortable besser Volcker and I could see the armed and hostile Rus Russian led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact Russian LED forces continued to kill Ukrainians in the war one or two a week more Ukrainians would undoubtedly die with the US assistance against the consensus of his own agencies and national security experts the president used congressionally appropriated funds to advance his own political interests at the expense of our national security this action is a threat to the integrity of our elections and the sanctity of our democracy president Trump must not get away with this no one in this country no one including the President of the United States is above the law and with that I yield back the gentleman yields back mr. Johnson Thank You mr. chairman this has been a truly extraordinary and historically unprecedented hearing it has frankly been an outrageous violation of due process a series of violations of due process in fact let me review the past seven and a half hours in the beginning of our proceedings today I asked chairman Adler if mr. Burke was appearing here as a staff member or as a witness but the Chairman gave strangely conflicting answers to that important question when I objected under house rules 17 that mr. Burke was repeatedly and brazenly steamrolling over House decorum rules and using language that impugn the motives of the President of the United States and suggested he is disloyal to his country chairman Adler insisted that those words could not be taken down and stricken from the record saying quote the rules don't apply here because mr. Burke is merely appearing as a staffer but later chairman Adler stated the opposite and declared that mr. Burke was appearing to present the Democrat members report as their representative which would of course mean that the member rules should apply then mr. Burke was allowed to switch places and turn from witness to questioner that's extraordinarily bizarre of course but it's entirely consistent with this whole impeachment circus as everybody knows until chairman Adam Schiff was allowed in the opening act of this circus to serve as the judge jury prosecutor witness coach and case strategy chief all in one so much for due process under the Democrats haphazardly drawn special parameters for these special hearings House Resolution 661 allowed to join the elected members of Congress on this Dyess and as 45 minutes of questions of his fellow witness mr. castor when he was argumentative assumed critical facts not in evidence engaged in speculation and committed countless other violations of Reagan House Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure I objected but was then ruled out of order about Chairman adler who informed all of us that while House Resolution 664 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 and applicable today again so much for due process in fairness a month ago listen a month ago the Republican members of this committee formally requested all documents related to the impeachment investigation but chairman adler and shift withheld everything until you know when 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 review all material in any meaningful way mere hours before this fateful hearing what's worse is that 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 by a subset of information that they think will advance their false narrative and has been mentioned as has been mentioned here we're being allowed no minority day hearing which is required by regular house rules now I'd love to cross-examine mr. Burke himself but chairman Nadler special and still mysterious rules for this hearing won't allow it I noticed he's disappeared from the hearing room I would love to ask him under oath about his own biases because you know he hammered here over and over today the importance of fairness and objectivity and accuracy and he insisted that everything here has to be unbiased but if he was under oath here he would be forced to admit that FEC records show that he has personally donated approximately ninety nine thousand dollars the Democrat candidates over the years including sizable donations to hit Hillary Clinton for president and also donated to past Trump opponents including Elizabeth Warren Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand mr. Burke appeared here as a fact witness and a finder of fact but in our system a finder of fact is supposed to be fair and impartial he's supposed to be an umpire the problem with all this and the problem that everybody at home can see with their own eyes is that the umpires in this high-stakes game are parading around the field on them in the majority team's jerseys the report of evidence released by Republican committee staff on December second carefully documents that in the hearings that led to this point today chairmanship directed witnesses called by the Democrats not to answer Republican questions he rejected witnesses identified Republicans who would have injected some semblance of fairness and objectivity and he denied Republican subpoenas for testimony and documents violating the Democrats own rules to vote down those subpoenas with no notice to Republicans chairman chef also publicly fabricated evidence about president Trump's July 25th phone call and he misled the American public about his interactions with the anonymous whistleblower to selectively seek information to paint misleading public narratives the anonymous whistleblower reportedly acknowledged have any professional relationship with Vice President Biden and obviously his motives biases and credibility are central to this case but we can't question it this is not due process this is not the rule of law and this is not how to impeach an American president and this is not how we're supposed to run a country it can't be 17 out of 24 of our colleagues over there already voted to proceed with impeachments before we started all this they've already made up their minds they they were they were prejudiced before he walked in but the American people are not fairness still matters truth matters and the people can see clearly that this is a sham I yield back gentleman yields back mr. swallow mr. Govan 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 zero mr. Kaster you said earlier that they got the aid they got the aid no harm no foul they got the aid but you would agree that although mr. sandy said that the presidential concern was European contributions nothing changed from when that concern was expressed to when they actually got the aid right you agree on that Europe didn't kick in a bunch of new money oh but they did a study I mean they don't study okay but they didn't kick in new money you agree on that ambassador Taylor discuss that you talked a lot about the Anti Corruption president that we have in Donald Trump the person who had a fraud settlement relating to Trump University the person who just recently with his own charity had a settlement related to fraud let's talk about that anti-corruption president of ours take a wild guess mr. Kaster how many times has President Trump met with Vladimir Putin or talk to him I don't know the number it's it's 16 okay how many times as president Trump met at the White House with President Solinsky it's zero and who is president Trump meeting with at the White House tomorrow do you know I'm not it's Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov now mr. Goldman withholding aid from Ukraine obviously hurts Ukraine it hurts the United States does it help any country the witnesses said that 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 US national security yes did you hear anything about how it would harm our credibility and I would turn you to a conversation ambassador Volcker had on September 14 of this year with a senior Ukrainian official where ambassador Volcker is impressing upon that official that President Solinsky should not investigate his own political opponents what was thrown back in the face of ambassador Volcker after ambassador Volcker suggested to mr. Yarmuth again who's here that they should not investigate the prior president of Ukraine mr. year mark sent back oh said back to him oh like we we you're encouraging us to investigate the 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 a president Trump who fired the anti-corruption ambassador in Ukraine Marie Ivanovitch President Trump who told ambassador Sandlin and ambassador Volcker to root to work with Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine President Trump who told vice president pence to not go to president solinsky's inauguration President Trump who ordered his own chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for Ukraine president Trump who refused to meet with president Solinsky in the Oval Office President Trump who ignored on July 25 his own national security council's anti-corruption talking points President Trump who asked president Solinsky for a favor President Trump who personally asked president szalinski 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 president Trump who stood on that same lawn and said that China should also investigate Vice President Biden president Trump as to anything that we do not know in this investigation who has blocked us from knowing it President Trump in the White House so as it relates to President Trump is he an incidental player or a central player in this scheme President Trump is the central player in this scheme there's a reason that no one has said what did the president know and when did he know it from the evidence that you have presented mr. Goldman and the intelligence committees 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 and I yield back gentleman yields back mr. Biggs mr. Kaster what's direct evidence when when a witness personally observes fact and testifies to it and what's hearsay evidence well out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is something that you learned in law school right and the Federal Rules of Evidence adopted by most states hearsay is inadmissible unless the testimony falls under defined exceptions that right that's right those are about 23 that's the residual exception and I believe you were president when every witness testified including mr. Salman right mm-hmm and much of and that's a yes yes and much of them the Democrats report and Pietschmann narrative is based on the solid testimony is that a fair characterization yes how many times mr. Soloman missioned in the Intel canoes report I said I did a search just to control-f in the name Sandlin show six hundred and eleven times yeah and just to refresh your mind Solomon himself told the world that 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 that he'd been testifying to is simply his presumptions that right that is correct and so when we consider what a presumption is it's not direct it's not circumstantial it's not even hearsay in fact we typically when we're trying the case we consider it as speculations that right that's right dude courts allow speculation in why not because it's not reliable it's inherently unreliable so can you name any Democrat witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those seventeen that we've been hearing for that we heard from we had some direct evidence on certain things that we made some direct evidence on the May 23rd meeting and Salman gave some direct evidence but a lot of what we've obtained has been circumstantial how about with regard to a personal knowledge of the quid pro quo allegation well we have not gotten to the bottom of that from a direct evidence standpoint how about tying aid to investigations that's correct - how about political motives and asking for investigations the facts surrounding that are ambiguous in the non legalistic world when we talk about speculation we typically think use words like gossip rumor innuendo is that right yep and isn't it true that the only direct evidence that we have is that Ukraine received the aid without giving anything in return President Solinsky has repeatedly stated no pressure no problem with the with a phone call in relationship with mr. Trump and that the president had a legitimate concern about Ukraine Ukraine corruption they did and the burden-sharing of European allies so much has been made about the alleged desire for an announcement of an investigation but again there is no direct evidence that supports the allegation that President Trump wanted merely the announcement of an investigation but like I said there's eight lines in the call transcript to go to what President Trump said about the investigations eight lines and everything else is hearsay innuendo rumor gossip right inconclusive certainly yeah so when we get into this this have been today in the process we start talking about the process were you surprised to see mr. Burke get out of his chair moved to the seat and sit down next to the Chairman and start asking you questions I don't know if I was surprised yeah well I'll tell you I was and looks like mr. Burke has been disappeared and so that's one of the outrageous things about this process and it's been outrageous from start to finish we've seen prejudice and bias against the president from start to finish we have the lion's share almost 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 ever took place and we're left with a constant view that as on November 9th 2016 representative green from Texas wanted to begin impeachment proceedings at that point is that correct yes January 20th 2017 Washington Post headline let the impeachment begin is that correct yes ten days later mr. Saeed who is the attorney for the whistleblower tweeted out let the impeachment begin let the coup begin and victory to the lawyers right yes I've seen that yeah we had people who on this committee came out today and said that they would admit they 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 yeah you wouldn't busy news reports today yeah you wouldn't be surprised about that though would you no no nobody 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 can we bring it back to the same points no pressure no conditionality and all of the aid meetings calls were received by the Ukraine's without a you bet gentleman yields back mr. Lew Thank You chairman Adler let's just cut through all the Republican arguments today make things very simple no one else in America could do what Donald didn't get away with it no American clocks official can call up a foreign government official and asks for an investigation of a political opponent no one sitting on this judicial committee can call up a foreign government official and ask for help in a reelection campaign if we did that and got caught we would likely be indicted now let's focus on the president views of power in this case because it's actually worse than example was I just gave and I know that I first swore an oath to the Constitution when I joined the United States Air Force on active duty now three core values I learned where integrity first service before self excellence and how we do like to focus on the first two integrity first and servers before self because it's ingrained in all military members that we cannot mix official duties with personal private gain so mr. Goldman in this case the 381 million dollars at issue that wasn't Donald Trump's money that was york's taxpayer funds is that right yes and certainly the president should not use our taxpayer money for his own personal benefit and especially not to leverage it for his own reelection campaign isn't that right that's correct the president abuse of power is even worse in this case than just using official duties for private gain it's also just flat-out illegal you cannot solicit foreign assistance for your reelection campaign there's a violation of federal election campaign end multiple people have gone to prison for violating various sections of that Act a reasonable person could also conclude that the president violated the impoundment Control Act of 1974 which Congress passed as a response to President Nixon's abuse of power so like they explore that little further with you mr. Goldman in this case Congress with bipartisan support had appropriated taxpayer funds for the specific purpose of aiding Ukraine and its war against Russia is that right yes and now we had that money been appropriated the money had actually been released to the department defense is that right they were about to release it yes and then suddenly without explanation the press demanda that those tax refunds being withheld from an ally who desperately needed the aid mr. Goldman did the president notify Congress about his decision withhold the aid no he did not so the impoundment Control Act was designed to prevent the president from secretly taking congressional appropriations and doing whatever he wants with them so is it true that in your intelligence report you found that following any findings of fact President Trump ordered the suspension of 391 million dollars in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine and the President did so despite his obligations under the impoundment Control Act did you find that yes all right so now we do the president abused his powers personal gain and now Lee was it illegal his actions also harmed u.s. national security so it's a fun more tenet of us than our security to push back against Russian aggression Ukraine's at the tip with a spear pushing back against Russian aggression is it true mr. Goldman that harming the Ukrainian military also harms US national security that's what pretty much every witness said last week professor Carlin confirmed that it is an impeachable offense to sacrifice a national interest for his own private ends a slide shows of what she said mr. Goldman based on the evidence that you found in your report is a fair to conclude that the president's actions both leverage taxpayer funds for his own private gain and sacrifice of national interests for his own private ends that is what we found I was also perfectly struck by mr. Holmes testimony because the mix is clear that the President did not care about our foreign policy or us now security he only cared about investigating his political opponent here's what mr. homn said master songless stated to the president only cares about big stuff I noted there was big stuff going on in Ukraine like a war with Russia an ambassador Soglin replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the Biden investigation that mr. Giuliani was pushing look here's the thing if any military member use official acts for personal gain that member would no longer be part of the military and in fact last year and AV commander was convicted for taking things of value in exchange for official acts the US attorney who prosecuted a case said the commander quote put his own selfish interests ahead of the Navy and of our nation unquote we should not hold commando 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 [Music] ru enemy yields back mr. McLintock Thank You mr. chairman you know in every election one side wins and the other loses democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters the moment that social compact breaks down democracy collapses into chaos now that's only happened twice in our nation's history it happened in 1860 when the Democrats refused to accept the legitimate election of Abraham Lincoln and it happened again in 2016 when the Democrats refused to accept the 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 mahler investigation found no evidence to support the monstrous lie that the president acted in collusion with Russia the Democrats realized they were running out of time and suddenly the Ukrainian phone call replaced collusion stormy Daniels tax returns emoluments and even tweets as the 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 it 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 sole 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's officials and ours now the sum total of the Democrats case comes down to this not one of their hand-picked witnesses provided any first-hand knowledge of the president ordering a quid pro quo and two witnesses sunderland by testimony and Senator Johnson by letter provided firsthand testimony that the president specifically ordered no quid pro quo no testimony was provided that the Ukrainian government believed that there was any quid pro quo but there are ample public statements that his officials did not believe there was such a linkage in fact the testimony their witness is crumbled under questioning we were left with career bureaucrats who admitted that the only evidence they offered was presumption speculation and what they'd read in the New York Times it's upon this flimsy evidence that the Democrats justified nullifying the 2016 presidential election and it's so flimsy the Democrats have had to turn our Bill of Rights on its head in order to make it they've argued that hearsay evidence better known as gossip is better than direct testimony they've argued that the burden of proof rests with the accused to prove his innocence while at the same time denying the defense witnesses permission to testify they've argued that the right to confront your accuser is an invasion of the accusers privacy they've argued that appealing to the courts to defend your constitutional rights as the president is done is if so facto obstruction of justice and evidence of guilt they've asserted the power to determine what witnesses the defense is allowed to call and they've argued that a crime is not necessary to impeach only impure motives in performing otherwise lawful acts mode is of course to be divined entirely by the accusers these are the legal doctrines of destice but they're 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 stain the reputations of those responsible for generations come and God help our country if they should ever be given the power to replace our Bill of Rights with the doctrines that they have imposed in this process Democrats are fond of saying no one's except there's no ones above the law they have one unspoken caveat except for themselves now the speaker is already short-circuited what should be a solemn painstaking thorough and above all fair process by ordering her foot soldiers on this committee to draw up articles 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're supposed to accept his report at face value and obediently follow the speaker's 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 gentleman yields back mr. Raskin thank you why is impeachment in the Constitution well the framers feared a president might corrupt our elections by dragging foreign powers into our politics in order to promote the personal political ambitions of the president above the rule of law and above the national security the framers set against a potential tyrants boundless thirst for power the people's representatives here in Congress and the people's own Democratic ambitions our self-respect our love of freedom in the rule of law our fierce constitutional patriotism now it looked like President Trump might get a get might get away with his Ukraine shake down after all most Americans didn't know anything about it and the few who learned of it would be too afraid too intimidated to cross the most powerful man on earth President Trump could rest easy but if Donald Trump misjudged the American character the framers of our Constitution did not I count 17 honorable public servants who came forward to testify over the intimidation and disparagement of the president is that right mr. Goldman yes there were 17 and I count a dozen career State Department and national security officials who served Republican and Democratic presidents alike over decades who came to testify in fact four of President Trump's own National Security Council staffers Hill VIN Minh Morrison and McGuire came forward to report Trump's scheme to NSC lawyers as soon as they learned of it didn't they mr. Goldman Morrison and binman went to the lawyers as soon as they learned of it yes they went to the lawyers and that moved me a lot because my father was a staffer on the National Security Council under President Kennedy and he said the most important thing you can bring to work with you every day is your conscience and he devoted his career to the idea that people must speak truth to power when power becomes a clear and present danger to democracy and to the people so I want to talk about two of the many honorable government witnesses who went under oath and stood up for the truth mr. Goldman who is dr. Fiona Hill dr. Fiona Hill was the senior director for the Europe and Russia Directorate at the National Security Council until July of this year and she was president from senior advisor on Russia correct her family had fled both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia I think her family actually came from England it was Marie Ivanovich who had that was ambassador Jovanovic dr. hill voiced her concerns the nsa's lawyers on July 10 and John wood in July 11th long before anyone on this committee knew about it why was she why did she go to report what she had learned what motivated her she was concerns that ambassador song Lindh and Mick Mulvaney were entering into essentially a transaction whereby the Ukrainians would open up these investigations for president Trump's political interests in return for getting the White House meeting that President Trump had offered and I want to talk about deputy assistant secretary George Kent who served as a career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five different presidents Democrats and Republicans alike and he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president's conduct mr. Goldwyn what were the events that led mr. Kent to drop drop these notes to his file there was several there was a conversation at the end of June where several American officials had indicated to president Solinsky that he needed to go forward with these investigations there was one on August 16th I recall that he talked about but you bring up a very important point which is all of these State Department witnesses in particular and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador Sandland took unbelievable meticulous notes I would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor and it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that's based on contemporaneous notes so do we have mr. Kent's notes in this process we have no State Department records including these memos to file the notes ambassador Taylor's first-person cable and Nassim ales there are so many documents that the few that we have gotten have been so helpful to the investigation why do we not have them the State Department refused to provide them notwithstanding our subpoena under the president's Direction you know in authoritarian societies like Putin's Russia or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia people are terrified to speak out about the crimes of their political leaders but the United States a lot of people are not afraid even though President Trump has tried to intimidate or silence them and he is trying to make our country more like Russia and we can be thankful that you found a lot of heroes who stood up for the truth in our Constitution I yield back gentleman yields back miss Lesko Thank You mr. chairman my first two questions are for the American people America are you sick and tired yet of this impeachment sham and America would you like Congress to get back to work and actually get something done as I sure would mr. Kaster the rest of the questions are for you and I would like yes or no answers as possible mr. Kaster my first question is important did any of the Democrats fact witnesses establish that the president had committed bribery extortion or a high crime or misdemeanor good heavens no mr. Kaster the deputy assistant to the president of the national security mr. Morrison listened in on the phone call he testified that he was not concerned that anything discussed on the phone call was illegal or improper is that correct yeah he was where the leaks several Democrat witnesses testified that it is fairly common for foreign aid to be paused for various reasons including concerns that the country is corrupt and taxpayer dollars may be misspent ambassador Volcker testified that this hold on security assistance to Ukraine was not significant is that correct yes a number of witnesses can also said the same thing for former US ambassador to Ukraine Murray Ivanovitch testified that in Ukraine and I quote corruption is not just prevalent but frankly is the system is that correct yes all the witnesses confirmed the environment is very corrupt mr. Kaster Ukraine energy company BER yzma Holdings had a reputation in Ukraine as a corrupt company is that correct big time according to New York Times hunter Biden was part of a broad effort by Burr yzma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations is that correct yeah The New Yorker also had a pretty extensive report on that as well Obama's Deputy Assistant bama's the Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he raised concerns directly to Vice President Biden's office about hunter Biden services on ber isthmus board is that correct yes or no yes mr. Kaster in the July 25th call president Trump referenced Joe Biden bragging about how he stopped the prosecution we all saw that video earlier today where Joe Biden braked about how he told Ukraine if the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money mr. Kaster is this the same prosecutor that looked into burr yzma it is in a similar scheme Obama assistant attorney general said and I quote awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption plain and simple mr. Kaster here is another key question given that one Brisman had a reputation of being a corrupt company to obama's own State Department was concerned about hunter Biden serving on Burr yzma's board at the same time that Vice President Biden was acting as the point person to Ukraine and three Obama's assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme with that that corruption that there was corruption plain and simple do you think then it is understandable reasonable and acceptable for president Trump to ask the Ukrainian president to look into the hunter by Denver is Naimah potential corruption scheme yes mr. Kaster there are four indisputable facts that will never change that prove there is no impeachable offense there was no quid pro quo and the July 25th call Ukraine leadership did not know the aid was held up at the time of the July 25th telephone call Ukraine received the White House meeting phone call and aid even though for Ukraine didn't initiate any investigations do you agree Ukraine received a meeting with vice-president pence in Warsaw and a meeting not at the White House but at the in New York at the United Nations mr. Kaster did mr. Turley testify in the past hearing that this impeachment inquiry has not passed chairman Adler's three-prong test he did thank you now yield back thank you the gentlewoman from Washington is recognized Thank You mr. Goldman let's focus on the Republican claim that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine because he was supposedly concerned about corruption rather than the fact that he abused his office for personal gain and let me be clear we actually do not have to read the president's mind on this as your report notes on page 10 and as we will see on television he told us himself exactly what his intent was well I would think that if they were honest about it that sort of made your investigation into device it's a very simple action so the first and best witness about the president's corrupt intent was Donald Trump there is also plenty of corroborating evidence so let's just review some of the basic facts that we've already established first president Trump does not even mention the word corruption during either of his calls with President Solinsky and he disregards all of the talking points that were prepared for him on corruption by the National Security Council second investigations of the Biden's and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election were not supported by official US policy and third Congress authorized military aid to Ukraine Ukraine passed all the checks that the United States established to ensure that it was taking appropriate actions to fight corruption and there was unanimous consensus among the State Department Department of Defense and national security council that the president should release the military aid that Ukraine critically needed to fight Russian aggression so mr. Goldman between the time that President Trump put a hold on military aid to Ukraine and then released the aid the president never conducted an actual review or corruption assessment on Ukraine did he that is correct there was no witness testified that there was any review or any investigation of any sort related to the Ukraine aid and isn't it also true that the Defense Department actually determined not to conduct a review on Ukraine after the president froze the military aid because Ukraine had already met all of the corruption benchmarks in May of 2019 yes and everyone involved in Ukraine policy believed that they were on the right path and President zalanski in particular and in addition to Ukraine having satisfied all the relevant corruption assessments prior to US military aid being withheld there is significant witness testimony that both the State Department and the Ukrainian embassy actually advised that a White House meeting with president zalenski would help further an anti-corruption agenda correct both the anti-corruption agenda and the aggression fighting the aggression from Russia and in fact president Trump's budget actually cut funding for fighting corruption in Ukraine now mr. Kaster argues that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine because he was skeptical of foreign assistance in general but in both 2017 and 2018 didn't president Trump release military aid for Ukraine without any complaints about corruption that's correct so mr. Coleman the president was perfectly fine giving military aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 but somehow not in 2019 so what changed Joe Biden started running for president President Vice President Biden started running so the see I would add the Mullah report came out which did not even though it did not charge the president it indicated it implicated the president and his campaign in welcoming the assistance from Russia and utilizing it and the sequence of events and all the corroborating evidence makes it crystal clear the president Trump didn't care about corruption at all in fact as he told us himself on national television he simply cared about his own politically motivated investigations into his political rival and you saw the clip where ambassador Sandlin picked up the phone called the call president Trump and then mr. Holmes asked him what the president thought about Ukraine and quickly what was mr. sunland's answer mr. Sandlin said the president does not give a bleep about Ukraine he only cares about the big stuff meaning the Biden investigation that mr. Giuliani was pushing and by the way just to add that is a direct evidence conversation between President Trump and ambassador Sandlin on that day and there are many that we have not talked about on the minority so we know what President Trump was interested in based on his words his actions and witness testimony the President of the United States wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival for his own personal political benefit to interfere in our election and he was willing to use US military which is taxpayer dollars and an essential White House meeting as his leverage that is unacceptable and a grave abuse of power I yield back the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes thank you madam chairwoman you know in the Navy we had a saying Bluff which is bottom line up front let me give everybody the bottom line we're here because Democrats are terrified the president Trump is going to win reelection that's really what this all comes down to let me get into the specifics we're here dealing with impeachment because Democrats don't want to talk about the red-hot Trump economy they don't want to talk about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years we're dealing with impeachment because Democrats don't want to talk about how the president has worked to protect American companies from Chinese aggression how he's renegotiating trade deals to benefit American workers how he's eliminated eliminated burdensome regulations that hurt the economy and that helped job creators congressional Democrats don't want to be reminded that the American people that they're in ghent that the Democrat agenda includes such laughable ideas like banning airplanes giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-funded health care and taking private health insurance away from the American people that's really why we're here this whole process is just a distraction it's an attempt to hide the far left radical agenda so let's talk about the facts ships report claims the administration froze military aid for Ukraine without explanation yeah the facts were that President Trump gave more military aid to Ukraine than President Obama President Obama gave Ukraine well wishes and blankets President Trump gave the Ukrainians javelin missiles that's the difference and those are the facts let's go over some more facts House Democrats want to claim it's a conspiracy that Ukrainian officials attempted to interfere with the 2016 election yet Ukrainian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election are well documented by Politico by Financial Times in the hill there was an attempt to influence our elections and that's troubling and that's why President Trump brought at the attention of President szalinski again those are the facts for the end of the day those facts don't seem to matter it's my Democrat colleagues House Democrats don't care that president szalinski has repeatedly said there was no pressure it's not important than the call transcript was the best evidence we have it is the best evidence we have it's the actual primary document and that transcript shows there was no quid pro quo no bribery I got to remember we're calling it bribery after an old Latin phrase didn't pull well or tests well in a Democrat focus-group my Democrat colleagues seem to really care about focus groups and polling unfortunately again they don't care about the facts because the fact is the Democrats were calling for impeachment before this investigation even began representative to leave said in January I don't even think we were sworn in yet she said in January impeached the mother representative Green said in May and I quote I'm concerned that we don't impeach this president he will get reelected these proceedings this entire process is nothing more than a political hit job one like my Democrat colleagues I actually do care about the facts which is why I'm troubled that our committee did not hear from a single fact witnesses entire time we should be here hearing we should be here hearing from Hunter Biden we should be hearing from shift staff we know that shift staff coordinated with a whistleblower and again we need to hear from the whistleblower last week I offered a motion to subpoena the whistleblower to testify an executive session meaning that he or she can testify behind closed doors my Democrat colleagues voted my motion down in a partisan fashion mr. Kaster can you walk us through the inaccuracies in the whistleblowers complaint well the first thing about the complaint that troubles us is that it's clearly from an outsider who received information secondhand the information presented in the complaint is clearly distorted and it's from a person who is it seems to be making in a case like an advocate about what happened on the call the whistleblower references a number of individuals inside the White House and at the State Department that he or she has spoken to to form the basis of the complaint we have not been able to piece together all those people and talking to all those people is important and there's a lot of them run out of time here but there's you know there's a reference to loot senko in the whistleblower complaint where witnesses have told us it's likely Shokan vin Minh and Morrison's testimony about why they went to talk to the lawyers very different reasons mr. Breck fuel the gentleman's time is on the call I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida for five minutes mr. Goldman as a member of the Intelligence Committee I saw significant first-hand evidence that President Trump conditioned our military aid on Ukraine announcement investigations into the 2016 election and the Biden's and betrayed our national security interests in the process for example ambassador Solomon told us that once the Ukrainians found out about the aid being withheld it was made and I quote abundantly clear to them that if they wanted the aid and I quote they were going to have to make these statements mr. Goldman beginning on and around the 25th of July call through September would you agree that consistent with the testimony we just reviewed Ukraine was made aware that to receive our military aid and the White House visit that they were going to have to make a statement announcing the investigations not only were they made aware but they were made aware either by president Trump's proxy rudy giuliani or from president Trump himself through ambassador Sandlin who spoke to president zalenski and Andrei Yair MOC on September 7th and told them what President Trump had confirmed to him that the aid was conditioned on the investigations and by the end of August president Solinsky did in fact commit to making that statement on CNN is that correct that's right finally president zalenski relented after months of trying to not get involved in what he called the domestic us political process and ultimately recognizing that he had no choice to break the stalemate as ambassador Sandlin told them that he ultimately agreed to go on television before the before president Trump got caught and released the aide I'd like to direct your attention to the screen in front of you which displays again a Washington Post article from September 5th the headline says Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 elections and the article reports that President Trump is and I quote attempting to force zalinsky to intervene in the 2020 US presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate Joe Biden mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine's help with his presidential campaign he is using United States military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it so I might correct mr. Goldman that by September 25th allegations that President Trump was using military aid to pressure Ukraine to announce investigation was being widely reported I'm sorry by what date September 5th yes well widely reported there certainly the aid being withheld was was widely reported and by September 9th our investigative committees formally announced a congressional investigation into the president of these issues to the president about these issues and mr. Goldman what day did President Trump released the military aid two days off the investigations were announced and two days after the IG the Inspector General told the Intelligence Committee that there was a complaint that was being withheld so then am I correct that as the time line on the screen in front of you shows it wasn't until after the whistleblower complaint after the Washington Post report and after Congress launched the investigations that President Trump finally released the aide that's right and I would just add one thing briefly to the congressman's point that it is true that President Trump has given more military assistance than President Obama and so one would wonder if he does support military assistance so much why then is he holding it up for more than two months and matter of fact Lieutenant Colonel Veneman testified that people at the NSC in fact discussed that Congress's investigation quote might have the effect of releasing the hole on Ukraine's military aid because that we would be potentially politically challenging to justify the aid is that correct mr. Goldman that was the testimony yes in other words the aid was released after the president got caught you see everybody counts but everybody is accountable up to and including the President of the United States thank you and I yield back thank you the chair the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Correa I'm sorry California thank you madam chair mr. Goldman my colleagues keep talking about the fact that the president apparently said and I quote no quid pro quo on September 7th in a call with ambassador Sunland mr. Goldman did you receive testimony about this September 7th call yes we received testimony from three witnesses about it and it gets a little complicated but that that that was a consistent refrain through all of the witnesses is that the president did say no quid pro let's try to clarify it a little bit ambassador Sunderland described that call to mr. Morrison that same day correct that's right and mr. Morrison then reported it to ambassador Taylor correct that's correct yes and both mr. Morrison and ambassador Taylor took notes of those discussions they did were those notes produced to the committee they were not produced to us but the witnesses said that they relied on their notes to provide their testimony they that set of notes was blocked consistent with the president's Direction correct and in his recitation to mr. Morrison ambassador Sunland said that President Trump himself brought up the words quid pro quo that's right ambassador Sandlin also said that - yes and mr. Goldman what did the committee make of this fact well it was quite odd that the president would volunteer in response to nothing about a quid pro quo that there was no quid pro quo go ahead well we're just gonna say what's what's even more important is that what he said immediately after that which is effectively conduct that amounts to a pretty quid pro quo he said there's no quid pro quo but you have to go to the microphone and make this announcement let's talk about that what did the committee make of the fact that according to ambassador Taylor and mr. Morrison right after President Trump said no quid pro quo President Trump then told ambassador sunland that ukrainian President Solinsky would have to go to the microphone and announce the investigations of Weiden and the 2016 election interference and that presidents unless key should want to do that himself that's right we had a number of different accounts of this and I think this is are up on the boards here right I see that yes ambassador Taylor said that ambassador mr. Morrison said something similar their understandings of that conversation is that there was a clear directive that there was a quid pro quo factually from the conduct from the actions and we've talked a lot today about the words and that zalenski said no pressure and Trump said no pressure and no quid pro quo but as an investigator as a prosecutor you need to look at the actions to understand what those words mean and that's why this call in particular is so important so let's go further as we've discussed multiple individuals reacted with concern to presidents Trump's call with Ambassador Sunland do you recall mr. Morrison's reaction mr. mr. morrison said that he was shocked I think and that hinking feeling a sinking feeling correct and then he went and then talked to the lawyers at the direction of ambassador Bolton correct and mr. Goldman ambassador Taylor also testified that he concluded that the military aid was conditioned on Solinsky announcing the investigations and he testified that this was illogical crazy and wrong is that right that was what ambassador Taylor testified to yes now my colleagues have also pointed out that on September 9th text message from Sun land reflecting that president has been crystal clear that there is no quid pro quo mr. Goldman am I correct that ambassador Sunland has now testified that prior to sending his text he himself came to believe that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations yes ambassador Sunland subsequent public testimony revealed at least two things that were precisely false that were not true in that text message including that there was no quid pro quo of any kind when he testified and we saw the video earlier that they're absolutely assuredly was as it related to the White House meeting and this September 7th called and the September 9th text occurred after the press reports that is after the press reports that President Trump was conditioning military aid on investigations of his political rival is that correct yes and it also this text occurred after ambassador Sandlin relayed president Trump's message to president zalenski mr. Goldman the Investigative Committee receive any other evidence relevant to the credibility the president's assertion that there was no quid pro quo we received a lot of and all of the evidence points to the fact that there was a quid pro quo thank you I yield mr. Chairman I have a unanimous consent request can you please hold it until I'm sure I do my questions thank you I just it's just it'll be very brief it's just unanimous consent recognized I recognize myself for five minutes mr. Goldman you talked about actions speaking louder than words so I want to focus on why it was an abuse of power for president Trump to use the American government to pressure the Ukraine president to benefit his reelection campaign let's look at what the president said in his July 25th call to the president of Ukraine lieutenant-colonel VIN Minh listened to the president's call and testified that when President Trump asked Ukraine for a favor it wasn't a friendly request it was really a demand I'm going to direct your attention to this slide about with lieutenant colonel VIN moons testimony why did he say the president's favor was a demand he said because the power disparity between the United States as the greatest power in the cut in the world and Ukraine which is so dependent on the United States not just for the military assistance but for all of its support made such a request effectively a demand because President zalenski could not Riaan reality say no am I correct that this vast power disparity exists in part because Ukraine has been at war with Russia since Russia invaded five years ago and over 13,000 of the Ukraine people have died is that correct yes and and not only does the US provide 10 percent of their military budget but the United States is a critical ally in rallying other countries to support Ukraine Europe actually gives four or five the European Union gives I think four times as much money as the United States overall to Ukraine so President Trump knew that the Ukrainian president's back was against the wall and President szalinski needed u.s. validation and support is that right yes now according to the US ambassador to the Ukraine and we have ambassador Taylor's testimony up there it wasn't until after ambassador Sandlin told the Ukrainians that there would be a quote stalemate end quote on the aid that szalinski agreed to announce the investigations that President Trump was demanding correct that's right yes and furthermore the committee heard testimony that the Ukrainians felt they had quote no choice but to but to comply with president Trump's demands correct that's right yes even after the aid was released in fact when asked in front of President Trump in September whether he felt pressured President Solinsky said quote I'm sorry but I don't want to be involved to democratic open elections elections of the USA end quote is that right that sounds right if you're reading the quote yes okay now the president and some of his defenders here have tried to excuse his misconduct by pointing to statements from the Ukraine president that he was not under pressure to give in to president Trump's demand did your investigative committees consider those statements by President Solinsky we did and we found that the statements of what is effectively a an extortion victim are not particularly relevant to the actual truth of the matter because president zalenski cannot in reality for the same reasons that he he interpreted the request to be a demand he can't go out and say that he did feel pressure because that would potentially upset president Trump and they're so dependent on the relationship with President Trump and the United States what one could almost say it's similar to a hostage testifying under duress it is certainly a the rest would be a good word so when the president made these statements and up to and including today his country was still under attack by Russia still hadn't gotten a meeting at the White House and still needed aid from the United States correct that's right and David Holmes testified very I think persuasively about the importance of the White House meeting end of the relationship to Ukraine even after the aid was lifted including pointing to today when President Putin and president zalenski met to discuss the war in the in the East so the evidence is clear the president Trump knew he had the power to force Ukraine's hand and took advantage of that desperation and abused the powers of his office by using our taxpayer dollars basically to get what he wanted right yes and what's really important here and I think it has to be clarified is that the president the evidence showed that the president directly said to ambassador Sandlin that there was a quid pro quo with the Security Assistance and there's been some debate and some discussion about that but that is one thing that the evidence shows based on the Morison testimony the Taylor testimony the sunland testimony and the texts so that's very important to understand that whatever we want to say about hearsay or whatever that is direct evidence and that is precisely the kind of betrayal that our founders sought to prevent I yield back to myself and I'll recognize the gentleman from Virginia mr. Klein I'm sure you you indicated to me that you would allow me to make my uniform consent after you had asked you questions so I'd ask for uniform consent are you seeing a unanimous consent to introduce two letters we will suspend gentleman seek unanimous consent why do you consider for what are you seeking unanimous consent mr. Chairman I have two letters addressed you under some numbers December 4 2019 and 1 December 5th 2019 without objection Thank You mr. chairman the gentleman from Virginia mr. Klein mr. Chairman I have a brief parliamentary inquiry regarding scheduling the gentleman from Virginia is recognized Thank You mr. chairman last week I expressed its concern regarding the deeply flawed and partisan process the Democrat majority has been undertaking during this impeachment inquiry mr. chairman I'm particularly reminded of your quote there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other such an impeachment what lack legitimacy would produce divisive nough sand bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions you made that statement back in 1998 now I'm glad we're moving on to presenting the quote-unquote evidence gathered in this report not to hear from direct fact witnesses but a 300-page report that's built largely on hearsay opinion and speculation and I'm especially outraged that the purported author of it chairmanship is not here to answer our questions today now that we have the report and can discuss the facts within or the lack thereof there are four facts that will never change both President Trump and President DeLand zolensky say there was no pressure second the call transcript shows no condition meowww conditionality between aid and an investigation three ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the president spoke and fourth ukraine didn't open an investigation but still receive the aid and a meeting with President Trump I want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it mr. Kaster did the Democrats impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions yes it did how many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay we we went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts can you give us some of the examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case you know one of the a lot of the information for example that ambassador Taylor was communicating you know he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the the various officials told him but it was about you know as one and two steps removed from the actual fact and that's that's the problem with hearsay is that it's a whisper down the lane situation and if some of the people that are doing the whisper hang have a are predisposed to not like President Trump then then what what they're whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted did you also find instances where the Democrats report used witnesses Galatians and presumptions and the biggest one of course and this is sort of become the big daddy of the hearing is is sanguine presuming that that the aid was tied to the investigations because as he engaged in a back-and-forth mr Turner nobody on the planet nobody on the plan had told him that that was the case mr. Kaster I want to move on to foreign policy and the idea that somehow the president was abusing foreign policy repeatedly what witnesses came before the Intelligence Committee and talked about how the president was operating outside the bounds of the process or using norms the president sets foreign policy correct absolutely and from where does he derive that power a constitution article 2 section 2 in fact people yeah can you give us examples of these members of the foreign policy establishment who took issue with the president's foreign policy direction and choices well for example lieutenant-colonel women testified that when he was listening to the call he had prepared talking points and the call package and he was visibly just completely deflated when he realized that his call notes weren't being referenced by the president and a lot of the interagency officials i I think became very sad that the president didn't Revere their policymaking apparatus this is safe to say there's another reason the president skeptical of relying on some of these individuals to carry out his foreign policy goals like rooting out corruption in Ukraine I think I think the president is is skeptical of of the interagency bureaucracy is that maybe why he instead relied on secretary Perry ambassador Volcker ambassador Salman and Iulia correct and by the way all three of those officials are not that far outside of the chain of the US government would it be appropriate in any investigation of corruption in Ukraine to exempt or remove say a political supporter certainly would be would it be inappropriate to remove a political opponent that's correct yeah what inappropriate to remove the son of a political opponent from any investigation involving Ukrainian crab so I mean this all goes to the heart of bias thank you for those answers mr. Chairman I go back to what you said this morning about the facts being undisputed I would argue that the facts in fact are disputed and what you contend our facts are in fact not they are witness presumptions hearsay and speculation and the facts here are in fact that this is the shortest impeachment in US history based on the thinnest of evidentiary records and on the narrowest grounds mr. chairman this impeachment process is a farce and a stain on the committee and on the house of representatives and I yield back the gentleman yields back miss Garcia Thank You mr. chairman as we just heard the president his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that that they have failed to obtain first-hand accounts of the president's conduct now I'm a former judge and you mr. Goldman if former prosecutor we know what direct evidence is mr. Goldman my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence is that true no there's there's a lot of direct evidence and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay indeed it is not true now I don't want to relive a law school evidence class instead I'd like to go over some examples with you and please tell me if they're direct or indirect evidence ambassador Soglin and mr. yolk Volcker both testified that on May 23rd 2019 President Trump told him to quote talk to Rudy about Ukraine is that direct evidence yes technically well not technically but yes thank you and then we have the memorandum of the 20 July 25th call between President Trump and President Solinsky is that direct evidence yes that is so there is direct evidence that President Trump as president Solinsky to look into these investigations and directed both President Solinsky and US official to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations correct yes and if I could just jump in here on the 20 July 25th call because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are three of them are completely wrong so one of them happens to be that there's no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zalenski says I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States specifically Washington DC and then he says on the other hand I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation that is the quid pro quo that president zalenski was informed of before the call so that's wrong it's also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call even though that doesn't even matter but and then finally there was no White House meeting ever provided so the the third or fourth fact so I do think that that just needs to be clarified particularly as we're focusing on what direct evidence is well let's give some more examples we also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call is their testimony direct evidence of what happened during that call yes although I would say the call record is better evidence than their and the day after that call Devin Holmes testified that in july 26 he overheard the president ask ambassadors sunland whether president Solinsky was quote going to do the investigation is that direct evidence that is direct evidence and after the July 25 call record was released the president got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponents family the Biden's is that direct evidence yes it is his own words now that seems to me like that's a lot of direct evidence mr. Goldman was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these well there's a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it's not hearsay if any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other and they relay what someone else said that is not hearsay that would be in court co-conspirator statement and that would be admissible so let's not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence wonder we live that luck I understand but but it is very important because anything mr. Giuliani says anything ambassador Sandlin says anything any of these people say is not hearsay and would be permitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence of course we don't follow the Federal Rules of Evidence here which is even more lenient but that's an important point right well is there anything wrong mr. Goldman with drawing inferences from circumstances courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom that is how you determine what the evidence shows so when ambassador Sandlin draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations and determines that that's the reason why the Security Assistance is also held up that is a natural logical inference that every jury draws across the country well I agree with you I'm just disappointed that rather than to respond to the serious factual director no disputed evidence before us my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process what President Trump did here was wrong it's unconstitutional if anyone else did this they would be held accountable I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution our democracy depends on ensuring that no one not even the president is about the law I yield back

Channel: CBS News

Views: 190,934

Keywords: video, live streaming, live video, cbsn, impeachment inquiry, president trump, daniel goldman, stephen castor, questioning

Id: pwowHf_v8-g

Length: 108min 54sec (6534 seconds)

Published: Mon Dec 09 2019